Moral Decline

[peadar1987]

that is why liberals should love guns, advanced farming techniques and imperialism.

Without any of the above three the world would still be run by an elite who controlled the land and organized what existing militaries that existed.

The only reason why today there are Chinese women carving out successful futures everywhere from Boston to Busan is because European imperialists conquered the world and bent everyone to their will.

If they would have stayed in Europe, they probably would not have advanced as rapidly and we'd probably have the world looking like early 19th century Europe and the rest of it still in some form of feudal stagnation, and the Japanese ruling substantial chunks of Korea and China under iron fists imposing racist policies while black Africans would be being widely enslaved by the Arab world while Europeans shrugged their shoulders, having no real use for black slaves.

I still don't understand why liberals are supposed to love imperialism. You are, of course, aware that China had a very advanced culture long before they were subjugated by the West, and that most of the warfare in Africa is a direct result of the mess that was left there by the occupying forces? Before this, much of Africa was relatively peaceful and relatively prosperous. I actually can't believe your disgusting ignorance in suggesting that the slave trade was good for Africa.

Imperialism is a natural part of history and it was generally a very healthy and very good phenomenon; it is a civilizing force and a force that has changed the world for the positive.

See my previous response to this suggestion. You don't have to invade a country, enslave the people, steal their natural resources and then pull out, leaving the country in a mess in order for that unfortunate country to benefit from some of your philosophies or technology.

The reason why slavery disappeared in the 19th century in most nations is because of technological advancements that made it obsolete.

It would have been impossible to have effectively lived without the institution of slavery and be 'civilized' due to the lack of ability to harvest natural resources for such a long time.

The advent of the cotton gin and the advanced farming tactics made it so that we could have large farming operations without slaves.

Slavery probably saved millions of people throughout history -- after periods of war, people could be put to use as slaves and could be monitored to not be as great of a threat before and thus their lives could be spared for the stability of the nation who enslaved them.

I disagree. Most slave owners were very powerful and wealthy people who could easily have afforded to pay wages, but found it more profitable not to. Instead, they spent the money they saved on lavish things, or on armies to go and do more enslaving.

During times of famine and hardship people could sell themselves in order to survive as opposed to simply being left to perish.

Or they could have worked for a wage, were slavery not such an institution

Slavery, sefdom, etc. were all necessary transitional phases economically. If these systems had not existed we'd probably still be nomadic tribes; if serfdom did not exist, the protection of communities could never have been guaranteed as there would not be professional soldiers to protect

Again, I disagree. People could have worked for a subsistence wage, cost little more than slaves, but would have had the freedom to move on. There would still have been money left over to pay for a standing army, but without the nasty side-effect of owning people as property.

 

[LittleNipper]

I've been hearing a lot of references to this supposed moral decline we are encountering. I'd like to know how people have come to this conclusion. In my opinion, we live in the most enlightened era in history.

50 years ago, black people were legally inferior citizens in the US
100 years ago, women were not considered good enough to vote
150 years ago, it was considered acceptable to invade a country, take their land, and enslave the natives for profit

We have come such a long way, and I think falling church attendance and a little more materialism is ultimately offset by the decrease in oppression and genocide!

Enlightened to do what? Enlightened to act how? Decrease in genocide ---- what about murder? A person is dead no matter for what reason he is killed ----- is that not true? Decrease in oppression ----- oppression of what? MAYBE there is a decrease in the oppression to act stupid, but if a person has an opinion or a religious concern, is he really able to express that publically anywhere or do only open attitudes promoting sexual fantasies count.

We may have gone a long way, but it seems down a ladder as a nation and not up it. Sure, blacks in the United States seem to be considered as equals to a large degree, but have they been encouraged to be moral or do they now have the highest rate of incarceration, unwed pegnancies that we seem more intent to catch up with than cure?

I'm going to say that along with the Quakers, it was FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANITY that had the biggest influence in ending slavery. It certainly was not Darwinism. It certainly was not Atheism (atheists didn't even found any orpahages, hospitals, or any college in the United States). Those established in the Soviet block were/are dismal failures...

 

[peadar1987]

Enlightened to do what? Enlightened to act how? Decrease in genocide ---- what about murder? A person is dead no matter for what reason he is killed ----- is that not true? Decrease in oppression ----- oppression of what? MAYBE there is a decrease in the oppression to act stupid, but if a person has an opinion or a religious concern, is he really able to express that publically anywhere or do only open attitudes promoting sexual fantasies count.

Murder rates are actually relatively low now compared to many other points in history. Look it up if you don't believe me!

And at many points in history, expressing a contrary religious opinion would have you stoned or burned to death. I'd like to think we've moved on from that!

We may have gone a long way, but it seems down a ladder as a nation and not up it. Sure, blacks in the United States seem to be considered as equals to a large degree, but have they been encouraged to be moral or do they now have the highest rate of incarceration, unwed pegnancies that we seem more intent to catch up with than cure?

The problems you have listed are caused by the political system in the USA, the conservative, right-wing system you are so keen to defend.

I'm going to say that along with the Quakers, it was FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANITY that had the biggest influence in ending slavery. It certainly was not Darwinism. It certainly was not Atheism (atheists didn't even found any orpahages, hospitals, or any college in the United States). Those established in the Soviet block were/are dismal failures...

And the token attack on atheism. When 95% of the population of a country are christian, it's understandable that 95% of the things done in that country will be done by christians. Fundamentalist Christians taking credit for ending slavery is akin to saying that any sort of recognisable morality started with the bible: it is simply wrong.

 

[jayem]

I'm going to say that along with the Quakers, it was FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANITY that had the biggest influence in ending slavery.

Quakers, yes. Along with New England Congregationalists and Unitarians. But abolition certainly didn't come from the politically conservative, fundamentalist type of Christianity we know today. How was the Southern Baptist denomination founded? They split from northern Baptists precisely because they supported slavery. And they almost uniformly opposed racial desegregation ever step of the way during the 60s. (To their credit, they did finally admit their error, and apologize.) It has always been those Christian groups that are most liberal who support progressive social causes. They are the ones who fought to end slavery, favored women's suffrage, supported the labor movement, worked for racial integration, opposed Viet Nam and other questionable wars, oppose sexism, and still fight for personal freedom and privacy rights.

 

[Zaac]

I've been hearing a lot of references to this supposed moral decline we are encountering. I'd like to know how people have come to this conclusion. In my opinion, we live in the most enlightened era in history.

50 years ago, black people were legally inferior citizens in the US
100 years ago, women were not considered good enough to vote
150 years ago, it was considered acceptable to invade a country, take their land, and enslave the natives for profit

We have come such a long way, and I think falling church attendance and a little more materialism is ultimately offset by the decrease in oppression and genocide!

What does this have to do with a moral decline?

 

[Isambard]

I think claiming either an objective moral decline, or a moral progression is stupid. No universal moral system means all you have is value shifts.

 

[Verv]

I still don't understand why liberals are supposed to love imperialism. You are, of course, aware that China had a very advanced culture long before they were subjugated by the West, and that most of the warfare in Africa is a direct result of the mess that was left there by the occupying forces? Before this, much of Africa was relatively peaceful and relatively prosperous. I actually can't believe your disgusting ignorance in suggesting that the slave trade was good for Africa.

Of course China had an 'advanced culture' in the sense that they had an amazing philosophical and literary tradition; but by no means were they as advanced in terms of human rights. They did have a few golden ages of you may have in some way been able to point to and praise as having a lot of moral thought flowing through them. However, by and large, like most other communities it would be something that you would have frowned upon.

Economic hardships and systems produced moralities that make the morality which you enjoy today such a unique and odd phenomenon. The moral concepts you have have only been seen amongst the most decadent and indolent groups of people -- in nearly every other circumstance the average human has lived their life through the lens of conservatism. Because discipline, hard work, moral fortitude and temperance were the only ways by which a person could live and hope to see the morrow.

... And Africa was exponentially benefited by European imperialism.

Countless Africans made their livelihoods selling one another to Europeans; others became exposed to modern technology and later were able to essentially begin establishing the roots and foundations of modern Africa.

You do know about the genocides the African tribes put each other through, right? The Bantu tribes (namely the Zulu) began pushing downwards and massacring the Hottentot natives.

Humanity is the same in every shade and at every corner; it is made up of people who have similar goals and similar reactions to their environments.

If Europe did not do what they did someone else would have eventually done it -- and it would have been beneficial to Europe if they had been conquered by an exponentially more advanced civilization.

If a race of aliens comes, kills our leaders and establishes new governments and exports a lot of our raw resources to their home planet and makes us second class citizens... It might suck at first.

But man, if they start extending our lives by 40-50 years through medical technology, give us machines that make our labor exponentially easier and are able to cure AIDS and cancer; improve our eyesight; give us healthier diets that cause the average person to grow as much as a foot taller, etc.. That is pretty good.

Come on, aliens! Let's go! Kill my President; steal my iron; subjugate my government under the head of a wiser, foreign colonial ruler; give me a healthier diet, superior medical technology and machines I can use for a more comfortable life.

See my previous response to this suggestion. You don't have to invade a country, enslave the people, steal their natural resources and then pull out, leaving the country in a mess in order for that unfortunate country to benefit from some of your philosophies or technology.

So Christopher Colombus should have discovered the new world and then spent the next 40 years trying to get Europeans to go over and teach a group of people that practice human sacrifice how to better themselves through European style culture?

Please.

We cannot even get the Iraqis to agree to have free and fair elections; we cannot even convince the north Koreans that there are better economic systems.

And more than that... You cannot exactly devote all of your time to trying to give Native Americans what you perceive as a fair deal; imagine what it would have been like if we would have never settled in the USA and attempted to simply bolster them up as a new civilization of trade partners. It would have been the most effort-filled and longest, drawn out waste of time.

And it's not in the nature of humanity.

As the Aztecs massacred their neighbors and stole their resources they later received the same.

Why?

Because they were humans who were too stupid to try to cut deals.

I disagree. Most slave owners were very powerful and wealthy people who could easily have afforded to pay wages, but found it more profitable not to. Instead, they spent the money they saved on lavish things, or on armies to go and do more enslaving.

Pay wages that would have not allowed them to reinvest in the expansion of their farms and thus keep up competition. Profits are not some arbitrary thing that go directly into the pockets of the owners -- they go into the expansion of the enterpprise as well.

You can only spend so much money on tobacco, alcohol, fire arms, clothing, art and furniture; the rest is going back into running and expanding the operations of the farm.

Again, I disagree. People could have worked for a subsistence wage, cost little more than slaves, but would have had the freedom to move on. There would still have been money left over to pay for a standing army, but without the nasty side-effect of owning people as property.

You could simply look at is as if they were receiving a subsistence wage -- food and shelter.

 

[LittleNipper]

Murder rates are actually relatively low now compared to many other points in history. Look it up if you don't believe me!

And at many points in history, expressing a contrary religious opinion would have you stoned or burned to death. I'd like to think we've moved on from that!


The problems you have listed are caused by the political system in the USA, the conservative, right-wing system you are so keen to defend.



And the token attack on atheism. When 95% of the population of a country are christian, it's understandable that 95% of the things done in that country will be done by christians. Fundamentalist Christians taking credit for ending slavery is akin to saying that any sort of recognisable morality started with the bible: it is simply wrong.

Well, the United States is a country to be preferred to live in then most others. I'd like to imagine it has at least something to do with the religious heritage of the nation and not its increasing lack of religious considerations.

 

[Verv]

Murder rates are actually relatively low now compared to many other points in history. Look it up if you don't believe me!

And at many points in history, expressing a contrary religious opinion would have you stoned or burned to death. I'd like to think we've moved on from that!

Also, at many points in the 20th century having a religion would get you killed by atheists or imprisoned.

Having opinions and voicing them powerfully on any topic is historically not that good except for a few periods.

The problems you have listed are caused by the political system in the USA, the conservative, right-wing system you are so keen to defend.

How so?

And the token attack on atheism. When 95% of the population of a country are christian, it's understandable that 95% of the things done in that country will be done by christians. Fundamentalist Christians taking credit for ending slavery is akin to saying that any sort of recognisable morality started with the bible: it is simply wrong.

There were many Christians deeply involved in the movement and many Christians involved in opposing it...

That's cool. Isn't it?

I am glad I do not have the need to feel particularly hateful towards any religion or anything; I do not get all tense on the topic of the Mejji Reformation because I do not want to give credit to Shintoists on this side or that.

 

[MoonLancer]

Well, the United States is a country to be preferred to live in then most others. I'd like to imagine it has at least something to do with the religious heritage of the nation and not its increasing lack of religious considerations.

actually its the first amendment that that makes this country preferred to live in. And it specifically makes this statement

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

note it does not say

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Christianity, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

which i think some get confused about.

and your wrong about conservative Christians freeing the slaves. this myth exists because in Lincolns time the republican party was the LIBERAL PARTY.

 

[peadar1987]

Of course China had an 'advanced culture' in the sense that they had an amazing philosophical and literary tradition; but by no means were they as advanced in terms of human rights. They did have a few golden ages of you may have in some way been able to point to and praise as having a lot of moral thought flowing through them. However, by and large, like most other communities it would be something that you would have frowned upon.

At this time they were no worse than most of the rest of the world. Take the Opium wars for example, the British starting a war with a foreign, relatively enlightened regime because they wanted to make money selling drugs. A fair moral code was just as likely to have developed in China as in another part of the world.

Economic hardships and systems produced moralities that make the morality which you enjoy today such a unique and odd phenomenon. The moral concepts you have have only been seen amongst the most decadent and indolent groups of people -- in nearly every other circumstance the average human has lived their life through the lens of conservatism. Because discipline, hard work, moral fortitude and temperance were the only ways by which a person could live and hope to see the morrow.

I don't think you quite understand what the terms "conservative" and "liberal" mean.

Conservative != Hard work and discipline
Liberal != Lazy and corrupt

You class me as a liberal. I had to work very hard to pass my college exams. I train very hard to stay in shape for sports. I don't drink heavily or take drugs because they would affect my capacity for success in all areas of life.

... And Africa was exponentially benefited by European imperialism.

Countless Africans made their livelihoods selling one another to Europeans; others became exposed to modern technology and later were able to essentially begin establishing the roots and foundations of modern Africa.

Again, your insistence that if it makes money for someone, it is somehow automatically justified.

You do know about the genocides the African tribes put each other through, right? The Bantu tribes (namely the Zulu) began pushing downwards and massacring the Hottentot natives.

Yes, and the only humane solution to this was definitely to march in and shoot the lot of them. [/sarcasm]

Humanity is the same in every shade and at every corner; it is made up of people who have similar goals and similar reactions to their environments.

If Europe did not do what they did someone else would have eventually done it -- and it would have been beneficial to Europe if they had been conquered by an exponentially more advanced civilization.

If a race of aliens comes, kills our leaders and establishes new governments and exports a lot of our raw resources to their home planet and makes us second class citizens... It might suck at first.

But man, if they start extending our lives by 40-50 years through medical technology, give us machines that make our labor exponentially easier and are able to cure AIDS and cancer; improve our eyesight; give us healthier diets that cause the average person to grow as much as a foot taller, etc.. That is pretty good.

Come on, aliens! Let's go! Kill my President; steal my iron; subjugate my government under the head of a wiser, foreign colonial ruler; give me a healthier diet, superior medical technology and machines I can use for a more comfortable life.

That was never the intention of the colonial powers and you know it. If I kick you in the testicles and steal €20 from you, and you fall down and find €50 on the ground, sure, you're better off, once you stop vomiting. That doesn't mean my action was moral. We're not talking about net benefit here.

So Christopher Colombus should have discovered the new world and then spent the next 40 years trying to get Europeans to go over and teach a group of people that practice human sacrifice how to better themselves through European style culture?

Please.

Christopher Columbus didn't discover the new world, I thought that was pretty well established. And yes, he should have done.

We cannot even get the Iraqis to agree to have free and fair elections; we cannot even convince the north Koreans that there are better economic systems.

And invading and subjugating those people with no intent other than to steal their oil, rule over them and oppress them would not make their lives any better.

And more than that... You cannot exactly devote all of your time to trying to give Native Americans what you perceive as a fair deal; imagine what it would have been like if we would have never settled in the USA and attempted to simply bolster them up as a new civilization of trade partners. It would have been the most effort-filled and longest, drawn out waste of time.

You mean if you had never stolen their land and massacred them in their hundreds of thousands. You might not have made as much money!

As the Aztecs massacred their neighbors and stole their resources they later received the same.

Why?

Because they were humans who were too stupid to try to cut deals.

The Spanish had no interest in cutting a deal. They wanted to take the land and resources by force.

Pay wages that would have not allowed them to reinvest in the expansion of their farms and thus keep up competition. Profits are not some arbitrary thing that go directly into the pockets of the owners -- they go into the expansion of the enterpprise as well.

So is it okay for me to enslave you? I'll invest the money I save in buying more slaves!

You can only spend so much money on tobacco, alcohol, fire arms, clothing, art and furniture; the rest is going back into running and expanding the operations of the farm.

And again the mantra "If it makes profit, it's acceptable".

You could simply look at is as if they were receiving a subsistence wage -- food and shelter.

And they are considered property. Don't forget that. They have no option to try and better themselves. That is the key difference.

I think you see yourself as being a slave owner in all these situations you put forwards. You would see things differently if you looked at it from the viewpoint of a slave.

 

[peadar1987]

How so?

Because it is a system that enshrines an artificial poverty trap whereby the most vulnerable members of society are denied access to a decent standard of education, leading to large-scale social problems.

There were many Christians deeply involved in the movement and many Christians involved in opposing it...

That's cool. Isn't it?

I am glad I do not have the need to feel particularly hateful towards any religion or anything; I do not get all tense on the topic of the Mejji Reformation because I do not want to give credit to Shintoists on this side or that.

Exactly, there were christians on both sides of the issue, so saying "christians ended slavery in the US" is technically true, but giving christianity credit is to ignore many of the facts

 

[Verv]

At this time they were no worse than most of the rest of the world. Take the Opium wars for example, the British starting a war with a foreign, relatively enlightened regime because they wanted to make money selling drugs. A fair moral code was just as likely to have developed in China as in another part of the world.

No; they did not sell the drugs for money; they sold the opium in order to undermine the Chinese who were refusing lucrative trade deals. Through their incessant and illegal trade they began breaking down much of the Chinese society. It was a sort of war.

It was a smart way to force open markets.

I don't think you quite understand what the terms "conservative" and "liberal" mean.

Conservative != Hard work and discipline
Liberal != Lazy and corrupt

Conservative is a philosophy with the underpinings of immutable truths and personal responsibility; it focuses on strict concepts of what is moral and what is not and does not believe that the government ought to be entirely responsible for the rise and fall of each indivdiual.

Liberalism is often morally relativist especiailly concerning foreign affairs and believes in the nanny state.

this is for sort of Western ideas of it -- however, the concepts of liberal/conservative are different from nation to nation.

Since you are liberal I thought you would be considerate to my foreign perspectives.

You class me as a liberal. I had to work very hard to pass my college exams. I train very hard to stay in shape for sports. I don't drink heavily or take drugs because they would affect my capacity for success in all areas of life.

I am a conservative and I was in the military for six years and I work equally as hard as you.

You should probably consider using drugs recreationally if you do not believe they are immoral because I am sure there are good drugs for you thatwould get you high but not effect your body; that is what I generally hear.

I encourage people who do not have God to break God's laws as much as possible. The reason is simple: you will find the deeper meaning of morality soon enough.

Again, your insistence that if it makes money for someone, it is somehow automatically justified.

It also makes progress for everyone else in the community.

I might oppose some of this personally as a Christian but how could I overlook something so logical?

Yes, and the only humane solution to this was definitely to march in and shoot the lot of them. [/sarcasm]

But that's not exactly what happened.

That was never the intention of the colonial powers and you know it. If I kick you in the testicles and steal €20 from you, and you fall down and find €50 on the ground, sure, you're better off, once you stop vomiting. That doesn't mean my action was moral. We're not talking about net benefit here.

But they didn't steal anything; the Natives did not own all of th eland and there was plenty of room for the non-Natives to come. At first, we were even welcomed more or less.

Our diseases killed a lot of them inadvertently and from there it spinsout into a lot of conflicts with different circumstances.

And invading and subjugating those people with no intent other than to steal their oil, rule over them and oppress them would not make their lives any better.

It eventually did, and the original hope was that they would assimilate into the society. Some of which did.

You mean if you had never stolen their land and massacred them in their hundreds of thousands. You might not have made as much money!


The Spanish had no interest in cutting a deal. They wanted to take the land and resources by force.

It worked out best for everyone. It is basically what the Aztecs were doing -- without the human sacrifices and with a lot of technological advances.

So is it okay for me to enslave you? I'll invest the money I save in buying more slaves!

If it was the 18th century or prior to I could see how it might be justifiable to purchase me if I was freelys elling myself, and not that bad if it was a circumstance where someone else was selling me as the son of another slave, etc.

And again the mantra "If it makes profit, it's acceptable".

What would make something unacceptable?

I am curious as to an atheist's perspective.

And they are considered property. Don't forget that. They have no option to try and better themselves. That is the key difference.

You are thinking about this as if it is not the 18th century.

Even if they were to be free, they would better themselves by merely being an illiterate peasant who is a serf or working just to not become an indentured servant.

I think you see yourself as being a slave owner in all these situations you put forwards. You would see things differently if you looked at it from the viewpoint of a slave.

I think you see this as if life was somehow meaningful outside of slavery.

and your wrong about conservative Christians freeing the slaves. this myth exists because in Lincolns time the republican party was the LIBERAL PARTY.

That is not entirely true.

The two parties mimicked modern day nationalist capitalism (the idealistic part of the Republican party today) and Libertarianism.

Nothing about Lincoln would approve of your socialism.

 

[peadar1987]

At this time they were no worse than most of the rest of the world. Take the Opium wars for example, the British starting a war with a foreign, relatively enlightened regime because they wanted to make money selling drugs. A fair moral code was just as likely to have developed in China as in another part of the world.

No; they did not sell the drugs for money; they sold the opium in order to undermine the Chinese who were refusing lucrative trade deals. Through their incessant and illegal trade they began breaking down much of the Chinese society. It was a sort of war.

It was a smart way to force open markets.

It was an illegal and immoral unjustified attack on a foreign state.

Conservative is a philosophy with the underpinings of immutable truths and personal responsibility; it focuses on strict concepts of what is moral and what is not and does not believe that the government ought to be entirely responsible for the rise and fall of each indivdiual.

Liberalism is often morally relativist especiailly concerning foreign affairs and believes in the nanny state.

this is for sort of Western ideas of it -- however, the concepts of liberal/conservative are different from nation to nation.

Since you are liberal I thought you would be considerate to my foreign perspectives.

And how does this fit in with your previous statement that conservatives=hard working, liberals=lazy?.

And once more, I am not a liberal, I am a socialist. The two are not synonymous.

You class me as a liberal. I had to work very hard to pass my college exams. I train very hard to stay in shape for sports. I don't drink heavily or take drugs because they would affect my capacity for success in all areas of life.

I am a conservative and I was in the military for six years and I work equally as hard as you.

Wonderful, so why did you say that hard work and discipline were purely conservative values?

You should probably consider using drugs recreationally if you do not believe they are immoral because I am sure there are good drugs for you thatwould get you high but not effect your body; that is what I generally hear.

Are there such drugs? I am a firm believer that messing around with one's brain chemistry can only lead to undesirable results.

I encourage people who do not have God to break God's laws as much as possible. The reason is simple: you will find the deeper meaning of morality soon enough.

What, prey tell, is this deeper meaning of morality? My morality is based on minimising unhappiness around me. If I do something that causes someone else to suffer, I consider that immoral. You morality seems to be based around blind obedience to your favourite parts of a 2000 year old book.

Again, your insistence that if it makes money for someone, it is somehow automatically justified.

It also makes progress for everyone else in the community.

I might oppose some of this personally as a Christian but how could I overlook something so logical?

Everyone in the community who isn't a slave, that is. It would also be logical to just massacre every African alive, and take the abundant natural resources of that continent. It would benefit everyone in the developed world, but this is supposed to be a debate about ethics

Yes, and the only humane solution to this was definitely to march in and shoot the lot of them. [/sarcasm]

But that's not exactly what happened.

Anyone who was considered a threat to profit, anyway.

That was never the intention of the colonial powers and you know it. If I kick you in the testicles and steal €20 from you, and you fall down and find €50 on the ground, sure, you're better off, once you stop vomiting. That doesn't mean my action was moral. We're not talking about net benefit here.

But they didn't steal anything; the Natives did not own all of th eland and there was plenty of room for the non-Natives to come. At first, we were even welcomed more or less.

Our diseases killed a lot of them inadvertently and from there it spinsout into a lot of conflicts with different circumstances.

In fact, most of the land in the New World was occupied by some sort of indigenous people. And they were forced off it and into the worse land to the west.

And invading and subjugating those people with no intent other than to steal their oil, rule over them and oppress them would not make their lives any better.

It eventually did, and the original hope was that they would assimilate into the society. Some of which did.

You mean if you had never stolen their land and massacred them in their hundreds of thousands. You might not have made as much money!


The Spanish had no interest in cutting a deal. They wanted to take the land and resources by force.
​

It worked out best for everyone. It is basically what the Aztecs were doing -- without the human sacrifices and with a lot of technological advances.

Except the ones massacred by the Spanish. The Spanish had no interest in helping the people being invaded by the Aztecs, they didn't even know they existed. All they were interested in was making money, so they could further their imperialist oppression of native peoples.

So is it okay for me to enslave you? I'll invest the money I save in buying more slaves!

If it was the 18th century or prior to I could see how it might be justifiable to purchase me if I was freelys elling myself, and not that bad if it was a circumstance where someone else was selling me as the son of another slave, etc.

You have a strange world view.

And again the mantra "If it makes profit, it's acceptable".

What would make something unacceptable?


I am curious as to an atheist's perspective.

Something is unacceptable if it is heedless of the suffering it may cause, or if it actively tries to cause suffering

And they are considered property. Don't forget that. They have no option to try and better themselves. That is the key difference.

You are thinking about this as if it is not the 18th century.

Even if they were to be free, they would better themselves by merely being an illiterate peasant who is a serf or working just to not become an indentured servant.

And that was my point all along. We are not in the 18th century any more. We have developed as a society.

I think you see yourself as being a slave owner in all these situations you put forwards. You would see things differently if you looked at it from the viewpoint of a slave.

I think you see this as if life was somehow meaningful outside of slavery.

What's that supposed to mean?

 

[Phylogeny]

Imperialism is a natural part of history and it was generally a very healthy and very good phenomenon; it is a civilizing force and a force that has changed the world for the positive.

You may want to read up on how the Belgiums "bettered" the Congo. I recommend King Leopold's Ghost to get you started. I'd also point to South Korea as another place to look and see how they improved under Japanese colonialism. While not all Western colonialism was bad, you can't paint it as as a uniformly positive experience either.

The only reason why today there are Chinese women carving out successful futures everywhere from Boston to Busan is because European imperialists conquered the world and bent everyone to their will.

Actually, China was never colonialized and women's rights received little attention until Mao came into power and decided to institute a equalitarian policy. Communism was a Western idea but many Chinese students studied in France and brought ideas back home. I'm sure there were also homegrown communists but they were not purposely spread by european powers. And no European imperialists "bent" Mao to their will when he decided to make women equal (under the eyes of the law at least).

I don't assume that colonialism was good because they spread ideas. That's like saying rape is a good thing because children can result. There are plenty of ways to exchange ideas without instituting a violent takeover of a country. Exchange of ideas is one positive attribute of colonialism, but it was not the Western powers who forced women's rights onto China.


As for women's rights, I don't agree with your assessment that women were seen as more educated and therefore given the right to vote. It was because were more educated that they *demanded* the right to power.

Had education been the reason to bar women from voting, the founding fathers would have placed an education test rather than a land-owning requirement in their voter requirement.

I'd also point out that they allowed ALL men to vote BEFORE *any* women to vote. The assumption that education was the reason for barring women from voting makes no sense---whey did the US not allow women of a certain economic class to vote before spreading the voting rights to all men? After all, it is a known fact that upper class women were far more educated than lower class men.

Remember that just because were expected to keep home did not mean that they were uneducated. It was expected that a "young lady" should be able to compose the written word, have legible handwriting and engage in intelligent conversation. Lower class men had no expectations. Economics was NOT a reason for allowing women to vote. Otherwise, land-owning women would have been allowed to vote long before non-land owning men.

As for slaves, I don't see how your theory works. It wasn't like the Civil War made slave-owning no longer financially feasible. The war lasted four wars, mechanization took much longer. The South were forced to free their slaves because they lost the war.

And I'd point out that if economics was the only reason for the lack of slaves/serfs, most of the world would still be kept as slaves. Only developed nations have mechanized their workforce. Chinese peasants still till the land the old fashioned way yet they are no longer tied to the land. There has been a systemic freeing of Chinese peasants since the 70's. Yet farming techniques has not changed since...well, since my great-grandfather I guess since that's about as far back as my dad's memories goes (he grew up on a Chinese farm).

EDIT: Oh yeah, I also don't see how gay rights pertains to economics. There is no economic gain from accepting gays into society since most lived in secret for most of US history.

 

[keith99]

Well, the United States is a country to be preferred to live in then most others. I'd like to imagine it has at least something to do with the religious heritage of the nation and not its increasing lack of religious considerations.

If that were the case wouldn't the Bible Belt be the place everyone wants to live?

 

[Verv]

China was colonized if you'd like to believe Hong Kong and Macao are a part of China.

IT was divided into spheres of influence.

They also did not sell opium to make money; they did it to undermine the regime.

and the success of america was due tot he success any nation had. Hard work. Stern. Stoic. Amazing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Conservative is a philosophy with the underpinings of immutable truths and personal responsibility; it focuses on strict concepts of what is moral and what is not and does not believe that the government ought to be entirely responsible for the rise and fall of each indivdiual.

Liberalism is often morally relativist especiailly concerning foreign affairs and believes in the nanny state.

this is for sort of Western ideas of it -- however, the concepts of liberal/conservative are different from nation to nation.

Since you are liberal I thought you would be considerate to my foreign perspectives.

I am a conservative and I was in the military for six years and I work equally as hard as you.

On highly relativistic grounds, you previously advocated the use of torture on terror suspects. By your account, doesn't that make you 'Liberal' rather than Conservative?

 

[Verv]

On highly relativistic grounds, you previously advocated the use of torture on terror suspects. By your account, doesn't that make you 'Liberal' rather than Conservative?

How was it relativistic?

I think my main support of the argument is that torture in some conditions produces much needed information for the utilitarian good.

 

[Gishin]

So what's bad in some circumstances can become good in others. Kind of relativistic.