Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well yes. My morality is based on my subjective goal to maximize well being. I don't think owning people as property advances that goal due to the person not having control over their choices, it does not promote respect for each other, it promotes division in society etc. Also, historically slaves have been treated badly and immorally as well.I don't understand. Why would it be immoral to own someone?
Is it immoral simply because you say it is?
I don't understand. Why would it be immoral to own someone?
Is it immoral simply because you say it is?
I don't understand. Why would it be immoral to own someone?
Is it immoral simply because you say it is?
At least that's a reasonable objective, but stripped of your subjective goal wouldn't that mean that the ultimate arbiter of morality isn't you or me, or what's just, or what's fair, but rather the ultimate arbiter of morality is evolution...survival of the fittest. After all, any moral system that manages to survive must be superior to a system that doesn't, because if it's descendants don't survive even the most equitable of societies can hardly be said to have maximized the well being of its members.My morality is based on my subjective goal to maximize well being.
If someone were to kidnap you and force you to be their property, would you consider that a good or bad thing?
-CryptoLutheran
At least that's a reasonable objective, but stripped of your subjective goal wouldn't that mean that the ultimate arbiter of morality isn't you or me, or what's just, or what's fair, but rather the ultimate arbiter of morality is evolution...survival of the fittest. After all, any moral system that manages to survive must be superior to a system that doesn't, because if it's descendants don't survive even the most equitable of societies can hardly be said to have maximized the well being of its members.
In some sense it's a variation of the repugnant conclusion, that any moral system that manages to survive is superior to any moral system that doesn't, because surviving is always superior to not surviving.
In the long run, it would seem that evolution decides what's moral and what's not, and your and my opinions don't really matter, except to ourselves of course.
Evolution doesn't maximize wellbeing though, it maximizes survival of the species, even if they are all living horribly.
I may not like it, but I wouldn't consider it to be immoral. Why should I? Is that supposed to be my measure of morality, whether or not I like something? If that were the case, things such as voting for Trump would be immoral, and morality would be a very subjective standard indeed.
At least that's a reasonable objective, but stripped of your subjective goal wouldn't that mean that the ultimate arbiter of morality isn't you or me, or what's just, or what's fair, but rather the ultimate arbiter of morality is evolution...survival of the fittest. After all, any moral system that manages to survive must be superior to a system that doesn't, because if it's descendants don't survive even the most equitable of societies can hardly be said to have maximized the well being of its members.
In some sense it's a variation of the repugnant conclusion, that any moral system that manages to survive is superior to any moral system that doesn't, because surviving is always superior to not surviving.
In the long run, it would seem that evolution decides what's moral and what's not, and your and my opinions don't really matter, except to ourselves of course.
Given two opposing moral systems, whichever system survives has by default better maximized the wellbeing of its adherents, because those in the opposing system are dead, and life is always a better maximization of wellbeing than death. Thus the surviving system has always better maximized the wellbeing of its adherents, and it doesn't matter how brutal that survival is, because survival is still better than the alternative.Evolution doesn't maximize wellbeing though, it maximizes survival of the species, even if they are all living horribly.
And yet for all his supposed morality, history is awash with man's inhumanity to man.Fortunately biological evolution has provided us with meaningful social tools such as reason and empathy.
Again, the world is full of things that I dislike, but that doesn't make them immoral. If your standard for immorality is simply that people dislike it, then practically everything would be immoral. Personally, I don't consider slavery to be immoral, misguided perhaps, but not immoral.You wouldn't like being enslaved. Why? Why wouldn't you like to be forced into slavery?
Given two opposing moral systems, whichever system survives has by default better maximized the wellbeing of its adherents, because those in the opposing system are dead, and life is always a better maximization of wellbeing than death. Thus the surviving system has always better maximized the wellbeing of its adherents, and it doesn't matter how brutal that survival is, because survival is still better than the alternative.
Thus the repugnant conclusion, that brutality, if it leads to survival, is still the better moral system.
I don't know if it was intentional or not, but that's actually a rather astute observation, because on the one hand it could be argued that evolution works by placing things in opposition to each other, but on the other hand evolution works by keeping things in harmony with each other. It's all a matter of perspective. Are things in a constant life or death struggle for survival, or are they in a constant state of harmonious coexistence?You're assuming that 'moral systems' are all in a competition where everyone who subscribes to all but one will be killed. That makes no sense.
For humanity, life is more than just "physical life".I don't know if it was intentional or not, but that's actually a rather astute observation, because on the one hand it could be argued that evolution works by placing things in opposition to each other, but on the other hand evolution works by keeping things in harmony with each other. It's all a matter of perspective. Are things in a constant life or death struggle for survival, or are they in a constant state of harmonious coexistence?
Interestingly, absent the conscious intent, God and evolution seem to be aligned toward the same outcome, a harmonious coexistence.
Is it only when we as humans begin to assign value and morals to things that we lose sight of the harmony and notice only the struggle?
Again, it's all a matter of perspective. Some may look at the world and see only the suffering and brutality. An entire world where life is valiantly struggling to survive, but inevitably suffers and dies. And yet through all of this injustice and suffering, life perseveres. In such a world some may choose to see the suffering, but the stoic in me chooses to see the beauty instead.For humanity, life is more than just "physical life".
For instance, life at Auschwitz was more like a walking death ...
OK, what do you think make things moral or immoral.Again, the world is full of things that I dislike, but that doesn't make them immoral. If your standard for immorality is simply that people dislike it, then practically everything would be immoral. Personally, I don't consider slavery to be immoral, misguided perhaps, but not immoral.
Most people don't see it that way.Again, it's all a matter of perspective. Some may look at the world and see only the suffering and brutality. An entire world where life is valiantly struggling to survive, but inevitably suffers and dies. And yet through all of this injustice and suffering, life perseveres. In such a world some may choose to see the suffering, but the stoic in me chooses to see the beauty instead.
P.S. There's no way to see Auschwitz as beautiful .. unless one exults in suffering and pain.Again, it's all a matter of perspective. Some may look at the world and see only the suffering and brutality. An entire world where life is valiantly struggling to survive, but inevitably suffers and dies. And yet through all of this injustice and suffering, life perseveres. In such a world some may choose to see the suffering, but the stoic in me chooses to see the beauty instead.
It's not that anyone exults in pain and suffering, it's that we exult in the indomitable human spirit. The beauty of Auschwitz doesn't lie in man's inhumanity to man, it lies in the fact that in spite of all the savagery and injustice, we meager humans persevered.There's no way to see Auschwitz as beautiful .. unless one exults in suffering and pain.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?