My Darwin Slave Challenge

[LouisBooth]

What's your motive for conflating mob mentality with moral codification.
This is a straw man at least and disingenuous at most.

I'm asking a simple question. If you're a moral relativist, then how can any action be justified if it involves several originators? Thus the question. Looking for the subheading if you will under relativism. So it's not a strawman.

 

[LouisBooth]

According to the Christian god / Jesus, this is correct.

Incorrect conclusion, but I can see your misstep. If you're saying from the human perspective, yes, but the human perspective isn't the correct one.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm asking a simple question. If you're a moral relativist, then how can any action be justified if it involves several originators? Thus the question. Looking for the subheading if you will under relativism. So it's not a strawman.

What's the problem with having "several originators?"

 

[HitchSlap]

Incorrect conclusion, but I can see your misstep. If you're saying from the human perspective, yes, but the human perspective isn't the correct one.

Slavery and genocide were sanctioned by the OT god.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Incorrect conclusion, but I can see your misstep. If you're saying from the human perspective, yes, but the human perspective isn't the correct one.

And the correct perspective is...?

 

[AV1611VET]

Slavery and genocide were sanctioned by the OT god.

What's His name?

 

[quatona]

So the action can be immoral OR moral it's the originator that determines it by intent?

No. An action performed by a brick, a tree, or otherwise entity without moral agency is neither called "moral" nor "immoral".

It's not an expansion at all unless you submit also that any action can be "right" depending on the originator. Slavery can be moral if done by a moral originator.

That´s not what I said. An immoral action isn´t moral if performed by a brick - the categories "moral/immoral" simply don´t apply there.
Which part of "'moral/immoral' are categories used to judge actions of moral agents (neither applies when the action is not performed by a moral agent)" do you have problems understanding?
I´ll walk you slowly through it. It´s not that hard to understand. It´s not much different from the fact that we won´t judge raindrops poor or good composers.

 

[HitchSlap]

What's His name?

Puddin' tame.

 

[LouisBooth]

What's the problem with having "several originators?"

I didn't say there was. The issue is that the poster says the action is relative, so then I asked about mob mentality. There are several subheadings under relativism. This speaks to that.

Slavery and genocide were sanctioned by the OT god.

I don't see your point.

 

[LouisBooth]

No. An action performed by a brick, a tree, or otherwise entity without moral agency is neither called "moral" nor "immoral".

So the action is neither moral or immoral, it's the actor. Got it. So slavery is okay if its done by a moral originator. Got it.

An immoral action isn´t moral if performed by a brick - the categories "moral/immoral" simply don´t apply there

Yes, you've said this already, the action isn't in judgment just the originator. Thus slavery is moral if done by a moral originator. So why are non-moral agents' actions viewed as moral or immoral?

 

[HitchSlap]

I didn't say there was. The issue is that the poster says the action is relative, so then I asked about mob mentality. There are several subheadings under relativism. This speaks to that.

Why the interest in mob mentality. This seems rather banal in light of the larger picture of morality.

 

[LouisBooth]

Why the interest in mob mentality. This seems rather banal in light of the larger picture of morality.

Why the interest in my response to another poster?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Noted. So you do also believe in mob rules?

Nope. Why do you?

 

[HitchSlap]

Why the interest in my response to another poster?

Lol. Ok then, carry on.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

[staff edited]

Where did he say that?

 

[Mobezom]

So the action is neither moral or immoral, it's the actor. Got it. So slavery is okay if its done by a moral originator. Got it.

No, the action is moral or immortal, but only if it is done by a conscious originator.

Yes, you've said this already, the action isn't in judgment just the originator. Thus slavery is moral if done by a moral originator. So why are non-moral agents' actions viewed as moral or immoral?

No, slavery is immoral if it is done by a conscious originator, and non-moral (outside of morality, not applicable) if done by an unconscious originator. Immoral people are still conscious, non-moral agents would be rain and stone, and their actions aren't seen as moral or immoral.

 

[quatona]

So the action is neither moral or immoral, it's the actor. Got it. So slavery is okay if its done by a moral originator. Got it.

No, you haven´t got it. My operative term was "moral agent" (which doesn´t mean an agent who is moral, but an agent who is capable of moral considerations).

Yes, you've said this already, the action isn't in judgment just the originator.

No, that´s not what I said.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

[staff edited]

Certainly does not look like anything rational. The consensus in the Western world, and possibly the whole world, that slavery is bad is not mob rule. Democracy. Now that's mob rule.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It would be better to live in a society where a third option would feed a child a meal, without trading them as a commodity.

We do not have that situation in Syria right now. People try to provide humanitarian aid but they will not allow the aid through to the people. Even they are bombing hospitals and killing people trying to provide aid.

 

[joshua 1 9]

As I said before, James Watson is a huge jerk, yet DNA is still a double helix.

He would not have known that if he had not stolen Rosalind's work.