Freddy is talking about the religious, or priestly, valuation of "good and evil" – to move "beyond" the other-worldly back to this-worldly, naturalistic good and bad (i.e. virtuous and vicious cycles/habits). — 180 Proof
All I've got is this old bit of scripture:
Ye shall know them by their fruits.
— Matthew 7:16 — 180 Proof
This is more related to our lack of authentic documentation from earlier than about 6000 years ago.
— universeness — Hanover
Slavery existed in the US only 150 years ago, it still exists in parts of the world today, and woman are considered chattel in parts of the world today. I'm not referencing unknown, ancient civilizations. — Hanover
The fact that slavery and misogyny still exist in our world today, should simply enhance your determination to help eradicate both, whenever and wherever it is identified. Do you agree?Unfortunately egalitarianism is s fairly modern invention — Hanover
The American South did not create slavery because they were stupid. — Hanover
In any event, you miss the point terribly. The point was that the role of the majority is irrelevant in determining morality. — Hanover
don't employ scapegoating in any shape or form,
— universeness
Again, you miss the point terribly. You argued that Hitler was an example of a minority will over-ruling majority will, resulting in an evil that wouldn't have existed had he more concerned himself with Germany's will and not his own. — Hanover
(1) you're factually incorrect to assert that Hitler was subjugating the majority because the subjugated (Jews among many others) were a minority, not a majority, and (2) a democracy can be tyrannical. — Hanover
I agree. I think it's reasonable to know a good person by their deeds and not just what they say. Actions speaker louder than words. Hypocrites use words to signal virtue they don't actually themselves embrace pretending to be something they're not. Good people say and do in harmony. They practice what they preach.
Its a simple thing but an important one. — Benj96
That is, the will of the majority of the people can be advanced by the enslavement and even murder of a minority. That is not a hypothetical construct. It is the very history of the US. — Hanover
Of course they were stupid! They caused a bloody civil war due to their stupid economic model and their pursuit of profit and power for a racist, sycophantic few who leached off of the backs and sweat of enslaved people who they considered inferiors. That's why the South was utterly defeated. It was really stupid and moronic to bring such devastation onto themselves instead of getting rid of slavery themselves and sharing the resources of the South with all 'Americans.' Of course, the first issue for Americans is their genocide of the native tribes. — universeness
No Its not, that's just naive. Morality is a human invention (or at least an invention of sentience). I think that the majority of humans NOW accept that rape is morally wrong. That morality is created BASED ON that OPINION of the majority. It then has the force needed to become an objective truth BUT only an objective truth within human civilisation. The role of the majority is essential in determining HUMAN morality. — universeness
. Whenever evil grows too big for its boots, it gets smashed. — universeness
If you add the Jews, to the gypsies, the slavs, the catholics, etc, etc all the non-aryans then you have a vast majority! yes? — universeness
By definition, a democracy cannot be tyrannical unless the lunatics have taken over the asylum and only those people are involved in voting in the 'democracy' you describe. — universeness
I do not. You regard the severely depressed as morally similar to sadists and abusers? — hypericin
It was certainly immoral and wrong, but trying to preserve an economic system that resulted in great wealth doesn't point to a lack of intelligence. — Hanover
I think more mundane causes can be given for their loss. — Hanover
I wish that were the case. It would mean that we need only sit back and wait for those unjust nations in existence today to finally become enlightened. — Hanover
And such is subjectivism. It means rape was moral when the population said it was. If morality is an opinion, then it is fluid. Should rape fall into favor, it will be moral, as you are relying upon the majority to tell you good from bad. — Hanover
Again, whether you intend for this or not, you are arguing a theistic view, where nations rise and fall on the basis of their aligning themselves with good or evil. — Hanover
I don't know if the oppressed outnumbered the oppressors or not, but it's screamingly irrelevant. Had there been one more Nazi than the sum total of the oppressed, then the Nazis would still have been wrong. Had there been a single man mistreated, scapegoated for the crimes of others, with only a single person objecting on his behalf, that person would have been right and the rest wrong. — Hanover
Maybe read some de Tocqueville: — Hanover
Take some time to work through your position. It's just not making sense. You are arguing that it is logically impossible for the empirical reality of a tyrannical democracy to exist. That is, you are suggesting it is impossible that the majority of people would vote to oppress a smaller number of people, as if to suggest all laws, as long as there is a 51% consensus must be just by definition. This
argument is defeated by actual history. — Hanover
Yes it does. Intelligent people see 'the big picture,' they think about more than themselves and their family, they also consider the wider community, their nation and the planet they live on. — universeness
How can intelligent people consider other people inferior due to the colour of their skin or their tradition or their culture or the fact that they are less technically advanced than you. — universeness
Yeah, their economic slave system made them technically stagnant and mainly backwards.
Another major difference was that the South had no navy to speak of, so the union blockades of Southern ports were eventually very decisive. — universeness
No, because no SIGNIFICANT HUMAN CIVILISATION has ever in history said rape was moral. — universeness
Where did I mention gods or supernatural BS? — universeness
Your point here again merely states the obvious and the much more important point is that the human race continues to progress and is in its totality, more moral and does in its totality behave better towards each other in general, in comparison with our ancestors. — universeness
I don't always look for backup or counter opinions from long dead philosophers, I prefer to listen to those alive now and without, of course, ignoring the mistakes of the past often highlighted by such as the person you refer to. — universeness
All I can say is 'right back at you!' So, give a real example from history that supports your claim.
Was there a referendum of the British people taken before the thugs in their royaly or military decided to go to war with the French, for example? Where all the people in Clan Campbell above the age of 16, male and female, democratically consulted before their clan chief and his top thugs/gangsters decided to fight those from Clan Macdonald?
Was there a referendum before America joined WW 2. Was that what took them so long? :halo: (No offense intended). — universeness
You're describing an ideal morality, not "intelligence." You can be an evil genius. — Hanover
Ok, I am fine if you prefer to go with your 'immoral,' label rather than my stupid, moronic and evil labels.Because they are immoral. — Hanover
Why are you now offering additional reasons for the South's loss of the war when you previously argued it was due their having adopted an evil system? — Hanover
See: https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1418&context=nlj, particularly page 7 and footnote 20. Rape of black women was legal during times of slavery. — Hanover
You didn't. You presented a justice prevails because it is just argument which is essentially the same thing. It argues that as long as we fight for righteousness we will prevail. — Hanover
If my point is obvious, then why do you argue otherwise? I have submitted that the majority will is irrelevant when deciphering morality. — Hanover
How does this contradict the idea that a democracy can be tyrannical? — Hanover
Indeed it can! — Agent Smith
I don't want to upset your apple cart mon ami. — Agent Smith
Why not? You might convince me I am wrong, but you need to be in it to win it! — universeness
What? You need to be less cryptic. — universeness
I have reorganized something in my brain; you're feelin' the effects. — Agent Smith
I don't know if it's a moral similarity because there certainly appears to be something more sinister in harming others than in harming yourself. Not all moral violations are of the same magnitude.
I do think it's worthwhile however to make the point that if we hold humanity in high esteem, we can't overlook the lack of self-respect we offer ourselves as morally irrelevant. — Hanover
democracy can be tyrannical — Hanover
Telepathy? — universeness
Just in case Mr Smith! Is all ok? — universeness
Do you consider yourself evil? — universeness
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.