Not sure why this got removed from 196lemmy…blahaj.zone but it would be real nice if moderation on Lemmy gave you some sort of notification of what you did wrong. Like an automatic DM or something

  • mommykink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    134
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This isn’t the contradiction you make it to be. Patrick, in the first three slides, is just repeating the group’s collective consensus he was raised in.

    • Jay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would have used a lot more words, but that’s exactly what I wanted to say.

    • benni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honest question: if a person living in the west in the 21st century thinks they should have the right to take people of a different race as their own personal slaves, do you think there is no basis to call this person immoral? The best we can do is say that this person is incompatible with the time and place they are in?

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We in the west have a basis to call this person immoral.

        The places where slavery is legal do not have that basis.

        • HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ask the slaves that lol. That argument is moot because it relies on legitimizing the oppression committed by slavers by not seeing enslaved people as part of the population/group. Their history was not recorded the same way the slaver’s history was, yet they were still humans that thought about, talked about, and theorized about morality too. You don’t get to claim to know the group consensus of a past society just because slavers used oppression to erase the viewpoints of those who disagreed.

      • mommykink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        a person living in the west in the 21st century

        This qualifier alone shows that “objective” moral truth is defined only by where/when you live. You’re also showing your own modern western bias here.

    • balderdash@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you really think chattel slavery was morally acceptable for the slave owners just because there was a group consensus that the slaves were inferior… then I’m willing to let you go on thinking that

      edit: Thankfully, like truths in metaphysics, moral truths are not determined by group consensus. So your downvotes mean nothing lol

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re being downvoted because that was clearly bad faith. Slavery doesn’t have group consensus among all involved, not even all non-slaves.

        • Poplar?@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Consensus obviously cant mean every single person agreeing, its about what the widespread view in the culture is.

          Either way its a hypothetical, doesnt matter if such a culture never existed in reality: suppose slavery was condone by some culture. Wouldnt that have made it moral?

          Going by the meme: if a society is mysognist you would be wiling to agree its correct for them and womens rights activist in that society should stop (theyre going against what the culture has decided is moral, making the activist immoral)?

        • balderdash@lemmy.zipOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          The point is that slavery was seen as morally acceptable at some time and the moral relativist is forced to say that that means slavery was okay during that time. Most people here want to be moral relativists but they don’t want to accept its consequences.

          • robo@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, moral relativism does not mean you agree with past views on morality.

            • Poplar?@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              No they understand just fine. Here’s a quote from an ethics book that gets at the same issue:

              The extreme sexism at the heart of honor killings is but one of many examples that raise doubts about cultural relativism. After all, societies are sometimes based on principles of slavery, of warlike aggression, of religious bigotry or ethnic oppression. Cultural relativism would turn these core ideals into iron-clad moral duties, making cooperation with slavery, sexism, and racism the moral duty of all citizens of those societies. The iconoclast—the person deeply opposed to conventional wisdom—would, by definition, always be morally mistaken. This has struck many people as seriously implausible.

              Russ Shafer-Landau - The fundamentals of ethics p.293 (“Some Implications of Ethical Subjectivism and Cultural Relativism”)

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Cultural relativism would turn these core ideals into iron-clad moral duties

                Without knowing the context for this paragraph, this statement sounds like utter bullshit.

                • Poplar?@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  If that result is absurd, that probably just means you think cultural relativism is bullshit.

                  I can share a link to get the book, the context is quite short.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              There were Roman slaves devoted to their masters. They sometimes married them and often took their master’s surname name when they were freed. Then kept slaves themselves. So yes, some slaves saw slavery as acceptable.