My Darwin Slave Challenge

[LouisBooth]

Obviously you've seen how different people have different opinions.

Surely this can't be a new experience for you, can it?

Great dodge! So now you're saying morality is person specific or you just don't want to answer the question?

 

[pgp_protector]

Great dodge! So now you're saying morality is person specific or you just don't want to answer the question?

Ask Different people of Different Faiths (or no faith even)
If worshiping Zeus is Moral.
Then report back if some morality is or isn't person specific.

 

[HitchSlap]

but relates to human behavior so this is an invalid defense to answering the question.

If morality is a human concept, independent of natural laws, in what way does nature influence our understanding of morality?

 

[Mobezom]

BTW, your argument is useless against the power of MORAL RELATIVISM, Louis.

 

[LouisBooth]

If morality is a human concept, independent of natural laws, in what way does nature influence our understanding of morality?

How can it be independent of natural laws when humans are included in that natural law? So I ask again, is slavery moral or immoral or is it the originator of the act that gives it the immoral/moral clam and not the action?

BTW, your argument is useless against the power of MORAL RELATIVISM, Louis.

Agreed, but then it is person dependent and the discussion takes on a very real personal implication. Most won't go here because of the inherent moral examination they would have to submit to.

 

[quatona]

so the act of slavery isn't immoral then? Or just human to human?

In common use of language, you can ascribe morality or immorality only to a being that´s capable of moral consideration, in the first place. Or else a brick that falls on someone´s head would be called "murderer".

 

[LouisBooth]

In common use of language, you can ascribe morality or immorality only to a being that´s capable of moral consideration, in the first place. Or else a brick that falls on someone´s head would be called "murderer".

That depends on the question still. Is the action or the originator the holder of the "morality".

 

[HitchSlap]

How can it be independent of natural laws when humans are included in that natural law? So I ask again, is slavery moral or immoral or is it the originator of the act that gives it the immoral/moral clam and not the action?

Slavery is immoral, and "nature" has nothing to say about it.

 

[LouisBooth]

Slavery is immoral

Thank you for your honesty. I disagree with your second statement because it happens in "nature" and as humans we still have a place there. That's a discussion for another time I'm sure.

 

[quatona]

That depends on the question still. Is the action or the originator the holder of the "morality".

No, that´s an entirely different question, and my statement stands, no matter what the answer to your question is.
(I would try to answer your question, though, but at this point I feel unable to, because I can´t seem to make sense of the term "holder of the morality".Maybe you want to explain?)

 

[joshua 1 9]

Personally, I think he abhorred Homo slavery, but accepted Animali slavery.

I do not like animal slavery, I think animals should be free. We put our extra food out for the wild animals and we interact with them a little bit. They are pretty healthy when you feed them right.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Slavery is immoral, and "nature" has nothing to say about it.

The question is, what if parents can not feed a child and that child is going to starve to death. Would it be better for them to die or to be sold into slavery?

 

[AV1611VET]

The question is, what if parents can not feed a child and that child is going to starve to death. Would it be better for them to die or to be sold into slavery?

We could always send them Boy George.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I do not like animal slavery, I think animals should be free. We put our extra food out for the wild animals and we interact with them a little bit. They are pretty healthy when you feed them right.

That's not what AV is talking about. He's talking about animals using other animals as slaves.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The question is, what if parents can not feed a child and that child is going to starve to death. Would it be better for them to die or to be sold into slavery?

Neither.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not what AV is talking about. He's talking about animals using other animals as slaves.

Yup.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yup.

Also, it's pretty clear that you're talking about animals using other animals as slaves. You even give an example.

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, it's pretty clear that you're talking about animals using other animals as slaves. You even give an example.

I just said YUP.

I agree with you.

I'm talking about animals using other animals as slaves.

Did Big D approve of it or not?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I just said YUP.

I agree with you.

I'm talking about animals using other animals as slaves.

Did Big D approve of it or not?

He just said it was interesting. THAT'S IT.

 

[[serious]]

Nice dodge.

Nice way to avoid answering the question.

No, it's a clear answer. You asked if mother nature approves of something, the answer is that mother nature, not being a conscious entity, can not approve (or disapprove) of things.