Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Aedes;95692 wrote:Lucky them...
Well, yes; because the attitude that they were fellow human beings and Catholics did tend to result in their freedom and more humane treatment... Consider the song Oh Suzanna...It is filled with opposites and mixed messages... Consider the term; Sold down the river... There never was and never will be any money in agriculture, but the price will never fall below the price of production...For this reason, the price of cotton was set by the price of the slaves killed in its production...In the deep South, in the gulf states, with snakes, malaria, and high humidity, the life expectancy of a slave was under ten years from the moment he arrived, but don't you cry for me... In sugar mills, a slave might last only three years, even in the Catholic domain...
Quote:
Stonewall Jackson was out and out crazy, but very few of the Confederate generals were hardcore idealogues. All they really cared about was defending their homeland. The Confederate government and the southern plantation owners, on the other hand, were trying to preserve an aristocratic and somewhat caste-based southern society that required slavery.
I've never gotten the impression that Jackson was unintelligent. His wackiness was mainly from religious fervor and mysticism, but there's no question that he was a genius in Napoleonic-type battlefield tactics (i.e. maneuvering, aggression, audacity). First Bull Run and Chancellorsville were unbelievable testimonials to his skill, though these were both in the face of weak Union leadership (it's appalling that the North coughed up Chancellorsville).
Without question the Confederate master of modern warfare was Longstreet, but the South never really put it into practice until the defense of Petersburg, when it was already too late.
Everything is a moral judgement...Putting on your pants is a moral judgement...Picking your nose or wasting your time are moral judgements... There is no point in equivocating... Everyone has their justification... All injustice is justified... Do you think people were not hanged at Nuremberg only because they did not accept the no of the judgement??? If you do not hold yourself to a moral standard you can bet others will, but the sad fact is that our general moral standard allows much that is absolutely immoral because it is unjust...Quote:I dont think any concepts of morality are accepted due to being unjust, likely, justice is not taken in account then they are accepted. People cannot act winhout first justifying their actions before themselves.
Fido;94852 wrote:In a healthy society (healthy inside the "ideals" behind our current laws), there is not just one person or organization you can work for, and thus, these persons and organizations should have the right to choose who works for then and what are the conditions as much as you choose who you work for and under wich conditions. If all those who offer you work are similarly unnaceptable, then society is simply not healthy and requires change.
A job is a form of relationship, and so is money, and so is property and profit... If this is as I say, then one side cannot make the rules only to suit themselves, or they will soon have all, and the relationship ends... When that happen you have revolution... When so few people enjoyed feudal rights, feudal rights had no defense against the rising working and capitalist class...That is what Greenspan was trying to do, spread property ownership so that ownership would have some defense, but just as with the process of production, ownership through mortgage results in wide spread poverty... Everyone knows nobody gets rich working... It should not also be the direct path to poverty and ill health, and if it is then the relationship should be terminated... Does the employer have the right??? It is society which makes the laws and enforces the right, so if today the employer can whipsaw employees and then trash them when they grow jaded; then tomorrow he may be trashed...Societies survive on justice when everyone makes an issue of justice...If the society does not defend justice, then the people find they must, as a matter of necessity, and of life and death...
If I ever employ someone, I dont want to be bound to then. In Brazil you cant just fire people, you need to give then at least on month of warning before doing so and present a strong reason (that oftenly you cannot prove). The result is that many people just move from job to job, working horribly and then suing their employers then they get fired. Aka: They pretty much make a living our of leeching society, just like corrupt politicians.
Fido;94852 wrote:I didnt mean I dont believe there are people who explore and steal others, I meant that I dont believe its just one group or class of an society that does this: The poor and weak are just as vile as the rich and powerful. It just happens that the poor and weak are too poor and weak to explore others, so they are the ones who end up being explored. I believe saying class X is evil while class Y is good is too much generalization, morality is distribuited pretty much at randow as far as I know.
It is not a question of belief... There is an old movie called the Graduate, and the father of the Bride made a statement that for a businessman to survive he had to be part Gannif...That is a thief to anyone not a Hebrew..Dr. Franklin who was a pretty fair economist and proponant of the protestant ethic stripped of its religion said as much as well of commerce... That part alone does not mean much because if you believe Engalls, the modern state grew out of the plunder of chiefs... They took security and wealth from others, and necessitated security and wealth for their group... But; the difference is that primitive societies would not have accepted the exploitation of their own as we do... We have a nation in name only and under that name all are free to exploit and rob and enslave their neighbor either directly, or by the device of credit... Property was once to have supported this government, and people through taxes... When the income tax was accepted by the people, it only affected 11 to 13% of the population... The poor wanted to soak the rich, but income taxes have been used to soak them... And the need for money to pay taxes means the working people must work that much harder while property can be held off the market as never before, for speculation... To have property and property rights the people must borrow, and as with taxes, work three times for the same money... Why is property so dear??? When taxed, it had to make profit or be sold...It is because of little taxes on property that we got our bubble...It is because wages have been forced down ruthlessly that we had the bubble...This people have been robbed of all their wealth, so the game of property and wealth accumulation does not have the same lustre...The rich are killing the game...
Fido;94852 wrote:I dont see the relevance of this, so I will assume its just a comment =)
All societies rot from the top down, but before they rot completely every person, man, woman and child is corrupted...When Carthage laid her own children on the alter so the gods would help them defeat the Romans, do you think their children did not understand???. Greece and Rome caved in from the lack of population... The poor as today, were denied children as the price of luxury...The slaves would not reproduce themselves, and male slaves were soon castrated if not castrated by their parents to make them fit for market... As Marx said long before our day: Children need protection from their parents... In his day unemployed and unemployable parents would sell their children into the factories for a share of the wages, and often they would feed their children into the maw of some great loom that would take and arm or a life with the same remorse...We do not sell them; We do not have them...Which was a choice for the Romans and Greeks too...But we still need our slaves, which we import, and we will find someday that they were always our enemy, and now they are the boss...
P.s: I took so long to respond because quite a lot of threads suffered necromancy lately.
manored;96330 wrote:Fido;94852 wrote:Everything is a moral judgement...Putting on your pants is a moral judgement...Picking your nose or wasting your time are moral judgements... There is no point in equivocating... Everyone has their justification... All injustice is justified... Do you think people were not hanged at Nuremberg only because they did not accept the no of the judgement??? If you do not hold yourself to a moral standard you can bet others will, but the sad fact is that our general moral standard allows much that is absolutely immoral because it is unjust...Quote:I dont think any concepts of morality are accepted due to being unjust, likely, justice is not taken in account then they are accepted. People cannot act winhout first justifying their actions before themselves.
In a healthy society (healthy inside the "ideals" behind our current laws), there is not just one person or organization you can work for, and thus, these persons and organizations should have the right to choose who works for then and what are the conditions as much as you choose who you work for and under wich conditions. If all those who offer you work are similarly unnaceptable, then society is simply not healthy and requires change.
If I ever employ someone, I dont want to be bound to then. In Brazil you cant just fire people, you need to give then at least on month of warning before doing so and present a strong reason (that oftenly you cannot prove). The result is that many people just move from job to job, working horribly and then suing their employers then they get fired. Aka: They pretty much make a living our of leeching society, just like corrupt politicians.
Like it or not, you are bound to people who share your form of relationship, as employment is...If the relationship is not working, and if people cannot cooperate through their forms to reach their goals then no amount of form will cure the relationship... What other way is there of curing relationships except by fixing the form, or reforming the relationship???People are essentially immune to change...We cannot change our needs, for example, so we change the only thing in our lives that we can change, our forms of relationship... Like it of not, we depend upon each other, and often benefit, but most of us would prefer to bugger out of our obligations...
Quote:
I didnt mean I dont believe there are people who explore and steal others, I meant that I dont believe its just one group or class of an society that does this: The poor and weak are just as vile as the rich and powerful. It just happens that the poor and weak are too poor and weak to explore others, so they are the ones who end up being explored. I believe saying class X is evil while class Y is good is too much generalization, morality is distribuited pretty much at randow as far as I know.
I dont see the relevance of this, so I will assume its just a comment =)
P.s: I took so long to respond because quite a lot of threads suffered necromancy lately.
Sure, absolutely right...The poor are vile and weak, and I have been known to suck a bowling ball through a garden hose if it would get me closer to a rich person... Even when you are offensive as I usually am they are nice, and polite...A poor person would tell you: Get out of my box right now, or I am going to roll over and grab my knife...We are all rotten...We all need to dig deep down inside our souls, and find some honor... I don't think that will happen all of a sudden... I think gradually people will have to look around and say: What can I live without today...People are cut out of a job so that their society can export more and consume less...Sure they are rotten...They don't think they are to blame...They try hard and get little...The boss pays them short so they try to do less, and they hate everyone, epecially all those they feel are cutting them out of their good deal on rights...The government does not lift a finger to help them, but rather expedites their misfortunes....And the rich are no better, but they are more civil, even while their whole existence furthers the cause of incivility..
Like it or not, you are bound to people who share your form of relationship, as employment is...If the relationship is not working, and if people cannot cooperate through their forms to reach their goals then no amount of form will cure the relationship... What other way is there of curing relationships except by fixing the form, or reforming the relationship???People are essentially immune to change...We cannot change our needs, for example, so we change the only thing in our lives that we can change, our forms of relationship... Like it of not, we depend upon each other, and often benefit, but most of us would prefer to bugger out of our obligations...
Sure, absolutely right...The poor are vile and weak, and I have been known to suck a bowling ball through a garden hose if it would get me closer to a rich person... Even when you are offensive as I usually am they are nice, and polite...A poor person would tell you: Get out of my box right now, or I am going to roll over and grab my knife...We are all rotten...We all need to dig deep down inside our souls, and find some honor... I don't think that will happen all of a sudden... I think gradually people will have to look around and say: What can I live without today...People are cut out of a job so that their society can export more and consume less...Sure they are rotten...They don't think they are to blame...They try hard and get little...The boss pays them short so they try to do less, and they hate everyone, epecially all those they feel are cutting them out of their good deal on rights...The government does not lift a finger to help them, but rather expedites their misfortunes....And the rich are no better, but they are more civil, even while their whole existence furthers the cause of incivility..
manored;96539 wrote:I disagree, we can also change who we work for and who works for us.
If, out of frustration, or of desparation we abandon one relationship for another, but keep the same form, we have changed nothing... People having to abandon relationships because the form has failed them have failed at life...Successful societies have successful forms...Failing societies have failing forms... Christianity as a form only hastened the fall of Rome, and softened its landing... That is the best one can hope from any form is that it supplants others without violence... And we should remember that while some are fickle, and give up their relationships with ease, usually they stick to their forms... As Faulkener said: You can cure a man of picking his nose, but you cannot cure him of marrying... It is because when marriage goes bad, people do not blame the form, but the relationship, which they trash... Well, some times it is the relationship, but if people want the relationship, they find their way around the form...If they are married, they hang on to the relationship and trash the rules and even the expectations they once held, and hold on to the essential relationship, informally...
Quote:
Thats about it, and that is why changing the structure will change nothing. I think changing people's mind is the only way for a better society.
If, out of frustration, or of desparation we abandon one relationship for another, but keep the same form, we have changed nothing... People having to abandon relationships because the form has failed them have failed at life...Successful societies have successful forms...Failing societies have failing forms... Christianity as a form only hastened the fall of Rome, and softened its landing... That is the best one can hope from any form is that it supplants others without violence... And we should remember that while some are fickle, and give up their relationships with ease, usually they stick to their forms... As Faulkener said: You can cure a man of picking his nose, but you cannot cure him of marrying... It is because when marriage goes bad, people do not blame the form, but the relationship, which they trash... Well, some times it is the relationship, but if people want the relationship, they find their way around the form...If they are married, they hang on to the relationship and trash the rules and even the expectations they once held, and hold on to the essential relationship, informally...
I disagree, people always change.
According to the system of Ethics I offered in my manual, ETHICS: A College Course, the field of knowledge known as Ethics arises when an individual is seen (via the perspective known) as Intrinsic Value. When s/he is valued Intrinsically we have the ethical point-of-view. This has many implications.
To violate someone by coercion, or to restrict their freedom except in a context of tender love (such as a good parent teaching a young child to pick up the litter s/he just dropped) is to commit an Ethical Fallacy - i.e. to make an error, a mistake. It is to give more focus to treating a person as a thing, or as a number, than to treating the person as a precious treasure of value not-to-be-defiled in any way, but instead to be given respect as a fellow sufferer - if for no other reason.
We are all fellow sufferers (eventually, if not at the moment) or all of us have ancestors who were.
To commit such a fallacy is to violate the logic of The Hierarchy of Value, itself one of the most basic concepts in the meta-ethics that is logically prior to the entire system.
For further details and a more-extensive explanation see the relevant sections in the manual: http://tinyurl.com/2mj5b3
A simpler to read, more popularized version is found in the manuscript entitled LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, a link to which is here:
http://tinyurl.com/24swmd
After studying these documents it should be pretty clear why slavery is wrong. What do I mean by "wrong"? I'll define it here contextually:
It is wrong to do bad and to be bad.
"Bad" means not good. "x is a good C" is rigorously defined in the early chapters of the manual. [All of the chapters are brief.] To understand the illustration of this, for example, "Jim is a good person," see my post here:
http:///www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/ethics/4608-goodness-good-person-true-justice.html
In my own way I was offering an answer to the question in the original post, "Is slavery wrong?"
I explained that to coerce; to prevent people from moving freely about; to sell someone at an auction as if they were a thing one possesses is to commit an ethical mistake - once we clearly understand our Ethics. I gave reasons why slavery is indeed wrong. I justified my answer with the use of Logic (in this case, set theory.)
I trust that my answer is satisfactory to the composer of this thread. If not, I'd like to hear from him. And from others - with regard to the quality of my response.
I argued from (what some - Salima for one - William for another) have characterized as) a reasonable frame of reference that explains not only why slavery is wrong but also child labor, spousal abuse, war (except if we are invaded and occupied), other forms of murder, and deceitful manipulation for selfish ends. My model shows that all these are wrong.
I'd like to hear about any other system of ethics, for mine may be a subset of yours (or conversely.) Or we could merge our two approaches.
Yours for Ethics,
deepthot
Do, disagree... And do so in a thoughtful manor... If your read much history, and much anthropology trying to find out where humanity went wrong, you instead find that humanity from the furthest reaches of prehistory has always been human, and only the forms of our technology are different... If it is true, as I say, that humanity does not change, but changes its forms to accomodate its needs, then it must be that we cannot change...Humanity did not change its nature to end slavery, but instead it changed the nature of slavery...We still have slavery in all its old forms... We have wage slavery all around the world, and we have every person the slave of their own passions, dreams and desires, less able than ever before to consider the needs of future generations because our forms have robbed us of our foresight...
Biologically, we dont not change, but ideologically, we do. Most of what we have done thus far, most of our anterior mistakes, are recorded and remain in the collective mind.
To change the nature of slavery is to change the nature of our production and social system, thus, it can be to end slavery. Because something is changed slowly it doesnt means it has not actually changed.
You seem to be looking at reality with glasses of shadow and dark. People slave to their own passions, dreams and desires? People ARE their own passions, dreams and desires. We desire for a better world, and a better world is worked towards to. Desire is not a chain, it is a reason.
If anything is wrong, slavery is wrong.
This conclusion follows from the definition of "slavery" and from the definition of "wrong." The intensions (the meaning) of the two sets overlap. To enslave someone is to commit an ethical fallacy - a derivation of which you will find in the book, ETHICS: A COLLEGE COURSE - and to commit ethical errors is wrong. Q.E.D.
Just as the commission of logical fallacies results in poor judgments, the harboring of which will lead a life astray, so also the commission of ethical fallacies result in a misguided life, and often cause one to go "downhill" morally - and prudentially.
Guilty consciences are hard to live with; and if a person is at all sensitive, s/he is liable to have one. If one is insensitive, and his conscience is asleep, he may likely engage in criminal behavior and suffer the sanctions of society. Either way, one may lose his peace, and be deprived of a life of serenity and joy, thus fail to flourish to the extent he could have.
\
That we should still suffer slavery and wage slavery and white slavery in this world after so many years represents no forward progress... It is as though humanity had only domesticated the dog, and there stopped its progress... Still, while there is life there is hope...
Look... One man can now do the work of many... All that means is that one man works and many worry...The one who does work find his exploitation increased by degrees, and the technology that exploits him goes into the defense of the system...We may some day find we never escape the hidden camera, and that the government knows our opinions before they give them to us; and that, if all else fails they can use the children of the poor to put down their restive fathers...
manored;102907 wrote:You must be kidding me...We are closer than ever to eliminating it, that is progress.
Quote:The government is not a single entity, but composed of many people who die, brawl, change their minds, etc. It cannot be a perfect system of mass control.
You must be kidding me...
Tell me about this moment in history where we were closer to getting rid of slavery or worse forms of exploration than we are now.
