(Ken)
Slavery is not a good example to make your case IMO. The reality is, slavery ended because it pretty much was becoming obsolete. The invention of machines during the industrial revolution did more to end slavery than moral fortitude; machines were cheaper, didn’t need to be fed, clothed, or housed, (IOW cheaper to maintain) never got sick, worked harder and more efficient than any human could. If moral enlightenment would have ended slavery, it wouldn’t have taken black people 120 years to get their citizenship rights. Like I said; slavery is not a good example to make your case ya might wanna look for something else.
Actually slavery is the perfect example as it denied humans their basic rights as being equal to live freely and not be denied because of their race or the color of their skin. As far as I understand this was the very reason argued to end slavery. William Wilberforce led the movement to abolish the the slave trade. Here is a portion of his speech in Parliament for abolishing of slavery
How then can the House refuse its belief to the multiplied testimonies before the privy council, of the savage treatment of the negroes in the middle passage? Nay, indeed, what need is there of any evidence? The number of deaths speaks for itself, and makes all such inquiry superfluous. As soon as ever I had arrived thus far in my investigation of the slave trade, I confess to you sir, so enormous so dreadful, so irremediable did its wickedness appear that my own mind was completely made up for the abolition. A trade founded in iniquity, and carried on as this was, must be abolished, let the policy be what it might,—let the consequences be what they would, I from this time determined that I would never rest till I had effected its abolition.
In other words slavery was cruel and inhumane and needed to be stopped as a matter of national concern and not about individual subjective opinions on the matter. How did we know this to be a truth. WE know from our experience of living it out and seeing directly its inhumanity. As Wiberforce said this is beyond inquiries and debate because the fact that many humans are suffering because of our choices and actions is enough.
But we could replace slavery with many other issues like racial, ethnic, gender, religious discrimination. Or even in science where we practiced barbaric procedures like lobotomies or shock treatment, the poor treatment of the mentally, the denial of rights to indigenous people in general even today. The reckless waste of greedy politicians more concerned about keeping power than humanity and the oppression of many by corporations. The list can be long.
That is silly. Are you saying that those who argued slavery was wrong 100 years before the industrial revolution had to wait for the tech to catch up with the morally right thing to do. I think we always have known treating humans this way was wrong but it was the selfish interests (usually about money and power) that prevailed because well 'they had money and power'. But they knew it was wrong and as Wilberforce said their eyes were veiled because of that selfish interest to the truth.
Besides slavery began to be abolished well before the tech came along to change things. But the idea that we cannot do anything about known harm done to others until we have the tech is really wrong in itself. Its like saying we cannot change things for people who are being abused today until we get the tech. Its a poor reason for not doing anything.
(Ken)
Once slavery was no longer profitable, those who had no problem with slavery had less reasons to fight to maintain it.
Like I said slavery began to be abolished at the height of the industry. That is why it was so vehemently opposed by many as they claimed the economy and society would collapse. Even after the law was passed many still tried to keep the trade going.
Perhaps that was the year the anti-slavery crowd outnumbered, or over powered the pro-slavery crowd and was able to enact laws to outlaw it
But that still happened before tech came along. It was an uprising against slavery where the minority eventually won which led to a change in the law. It happened in a relatively short time. A bit like the civil rights and womens liberation movements, they happened with a generation because people reacted against the cruel and humane treatment of other humans.
I can’t speak for why things happened in your country, but in the USA, slavery ended in 1863 when the pro-slavery side lost the war.
The act to stop slavery in Britain was passed by parliament in 1807 just 33 years after Wilberfoce and others began to campaign against the slave trade. But the same sentiment was felt in the US where they implemented policy to end the slave trade after 1808. So everyone knew it was bad it just took time to beat off the resistance and eventually make it the law of the land. But that resistance was not about allowing different views on the matter. It had already been decided that it was wrong and a truth. Matters involving other interests before what is morally right have powerful holds on people especially when they occupy high places.
(Ken)
I can’t speak for others, but speaking for myself; I believe my moral beliefs are superior to all others that are different than mine; and I believe everybody should be this way.
You are merely reflecting what most people believe and what the science has shown that we all know about moral truths and can't pretend otherwise. So when you are arguing with someone about whose morals are the truth of the matter how do you work out if yours of the other persons morality is superior. If you both think your morality is superior someones going to be disappointed.
If I someone else comes to me with a superior moral view on a particular issue than my own, I will change my views on this issue and align with the person with the superior moral view; thus their moral view will be mine also. But I will not change my moral view unless someone convinces me that their view is better than mine.
So getting back to your question; the reason I think my morals are right and someone who might disagree with me is wrong, is because they have not convinced me that they are right, and I am wrong.
So how would they convince or not convince you that their moral view is better or worse than yours. The idea that some morals are better than others points to some objective measure to work out which are better than others.
Yes! That is a legal right, and there are consequences to exercising those rights also.
If someone at work expresses their Right to moral view that conflicts with the company and they are sacked for not legal reason isn't that a breach of Human Rights. Or if someone on social media condemns a company executive of inappropriate behavior such as perhaps expressing their beliefs and this leads to discipline or loss of reputation isn't that denying Human Rights laws.
It seems rather arbitrary and selective that some peoples moral views are taken more seriously than others depending on the tactics and position you have rather than if its actually moral. So who is right, how do we sort this mess out.
(Ken)
If expressing your religious views leads to a hostile work environment, the employer has a right to stop you from doing that as well.
How is expressing your beliefs hostile when its a Human Right to express your belief and who says the company holds the truth to morality to be able to decide what is appropriate or not. The problem is that subjective morality doesn't work in practice. It allows plural views on morality when morality is an objective determination and that is why we will always have conflicts about who is right.
[/QUOTE]
(Ken)
No; I’m saying they are subjective because there is no way to show them objective.
That is an assumption though. Not being able to determine a truth doesn't mean there is no truth to the matter and I think we already know the truth most of the time but we are muzzled from enacting it because we have to be politically correct and allow everyone's truth at the same time otherwise people protest they are being denied. That is a consequence of post modernist idea about truth.
The problem is with morality as you have acknowledge that people including yourself think that their morals are the truth. So because there is no way to determine the truth about subjective morality and because people think their morals are the truth this is a breeding ground for people forcing their views on others because no one has any recall because there is no truth. Its self defeating.
That’s my subjective opinion
I know its your opinion but you agreed that some behaviors are better than others morally. How did you determine this. The idea of better means you have some way of measuring better and worse.
Then why did they make it objective law if its merely a subjective opinion.
I think the current system in place where you have multiple groups with various moral views, and they talk it out; making compromises in order to come together and agree on 1 moral view that is made
into law. I think this is the best option thus far.. What about you?
I agree that talking it out, reasoning about things is the best way. But to do that we have to have some common agreement on what is morally right and wrong behavior. If we don't then we are forever caught in a circle of one opinion against the other.
How science does it is they appeal to some objectively agreed measure outside human subjective opinion. Why can't we do that morally as well. At least it may help us to head towards something better if not find the best way to behave.
As I mentioned we already know the truth morally as we are born with the basic knowledge of this. We have lived out morals for 1,000's of years and we can gain certain truths from that experience of trying things one way or the other. We lived out slavery and found it wrong and we tried it without enslaving people and found it right, a Human Right.
We do that with all morals. We have seen each moral view enacted and we know when something is right or not because we have embodied them.
