Is it ever moral to own another person as property?

[Clizby WampusCat]

I don't understand. Why would it be immoral to own someone?

Is it immoral simply because you say it is?

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.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't understand. Why would it be immoral to own someone?

Is it immoral simply because you say it is?

Auspicious first post.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't understand. Why would it be immoral to own someone?

Is it immoral simply because you say it is?

If someone were to kidnap you and force you to be their property, would you consider that a good or bad thing?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[partinobodycular]

My morality is based on my subjective goal to maximize well being.

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.

 

[partinobodycular]

If someone were to kidnap you and force you to be their property, would you consider that a good or bad thing?

-CryptoLutheran

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.

 

[Strathos]

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.

 

[RDKirk]

Evolution doesn't maximize wellbeing though, it maximizes survival of the species, even if they are all living horribly.

And the species that survives tends to be nothing more noble than the species that reproduces most rapidly.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

You seem to have zoomed way past where I was going with my inquiry. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

You wouldn't like being enslaved. Why? Why wouldn't you like to be forced into slavery?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

Fortunately biological evolution has provided us with meaningful social tools such as reason and empathy. Enabling the human primate to be be more than just a lizard brain seeking its next meal or next mate.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[partinobodycular]

Evolution doesn't maximize wellbeing though, it maximizes survival of the species, even if they are all living horribly.

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.

 

[partinobodycular]

Fortunately biological evolution has provided us with meaningful social tools such as reason and empathy.

And yet for all his supposed morality, history is awash with man's inhumanity to man.

 

[partinobodycular]

You wouldn't like being enslaved. Why? Why wouldn't you like to be forced into slavery?

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.

 

[Strathos]

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.

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.

 

[partinobodycular]

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.

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?

 

[A_Thinker]

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?

For humanity, life is more than just "physical life".

For instance, life at Auschwitz was more like a walking death ...

 

[partinobodycular]

For humanity, life is more than just "physical life".

For instance, life at Auschwitz was more like a walking death ...

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.

 

[durangodawood]

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.

OK, what do you think make things moral or immoral.

Or are those concepts simply bogus?

 

[A_Thinker]

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.

Most people don't see it that way.

Humanity, in general, isn't content to just let nature have its way.

Most of humanity favors making life more comfortable and certain, and, to some extent, structured. Most people understand that we can work together to enhance life for all of us.

I would imagine that you are not really so content with nature either. You, obviosly, have a computer and internet service. You, likely, have a phone, a television, take medications from time to time, and enjoy non-natural heat in the wintertime, and perhaps cooling in the summertime. I imagine that you drive a car, keep your grass mowed, and have artificial lighting in your home.

Humanity has eschewed the practice of imposing slavery on others, at least in the vast majority. Humanity has embraced the notion of human right. In the US, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is enshrined in the Constitution.

You might say that we, as a species, have evolved beyond the practice of slavery, for the most part. I suppose that it is an interesting question, but not one that humanity is entertaining at this point ...

 

[A_Thinker]

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.

 

[partinobodycular]

There's no way to see Auschwitz as beautiful .. unless one exults in suffering and pain.

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.

Would humanity really be more noble if we had never endured such things? I for one am proud, not because they had to, but because they did. If humanity is worthy of anything, surely it's because of what we've endured, not in spite of it.