5 ms·

I think a good litmus test for an argument is whether you approve of things that such a view can be logically extrapolated to imply. And here you must certainly

I think a good litmus test for an argument is whether you approve of things that such a view can be logically extrapolated to imply. And here you must certainly realize that your argument can be used, and indeed is used, to justify the most heinous of ideologies. There are millions of people, and nations, that still believe as a moral absolute that a person ought be killed for behaviors such as apostasy, homosexuality, blasphemy, atheism, sorcery, adultery, and so on. And of course these individuals cannot be logically moved from their position since they simply double down on their moral self assuredness. Ultimately, moral absolutes are best left to religion, and religion is best left to mythology. --- Even for things like slavery, most people look through a revisionist lens of times, both past and present. This [1] article from WaPo states some 30 million today are enslaved -- more than at any other time in history. It's certainly sensationalized, but only in magnitude - not reality. The more important takeaway from the article is the locations of where slavery is most prominent today. And it's in countries that failed to economically and technologically evolve. Something often ignored in favor of softer factors for the ending of slavery is is this [2]. That extensively sourced article goes into the price of a slave in the US in the mid 19th century. In price terms relative to how much each individual earned per year, a slave would cost more than $200,000 in modern day dollars -- a single slave cost as much as a house did. And that's before you get into housing, feeding, and ensuring the good health of your slave. You'll find abolitionists moralistically arguing for literally thousands of years, and even 'Lincolns' dating back to as early as 7AD (China in that case). The thing you won't find is slavery persisting in areas where it became uneconomical. And an even more serendipitous occurrence is that this was happening at the very time that the industrial revolution was driving urbanization creating a massive pool of low wage labor. And on top of this all rising productivity also meant that paying somebody a wage was no longer as burdensome a cost to bear. These factors are arguably what genuinely meant slavery in the United States was finally brought to an effective end. And similarly the reasons it continues to 'thrive' in other areas today is not for lack of moralistic arguments, or even laws against it, but simply because of the economic factors are, for various reasons, not yet in play. [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/10/17/this-map-shows-where-the-worlds-30-million-slaves-live-there-are-60000-in-the-u-s/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/10/17... [2] - https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php

yesenadam 8y ago
Hi, thanks, very interesting. I think a good litmus test for an argument is whether you approve of things that such a view can be logically extrapolated to imply. such a view - What 'view' are you taking me to hold? You can with some precision tell what is a 'logical extrapolation' of it or not? I'm not sure what you mean here. (Except I suspect you mean something like Kant's categorical imperative.) Sorry. I'm unable to see what view of mine you've extracted and then extrapolated. And here you must certainly realize that your argument can be used, and indeed is used, to justify the most heinous of ideologies. Which argument? Saying you must certainly realize that your argument seems just a condescending bluff. No....well, I'm not sure, I don't know what you are calling 'my argument'. Maybe if you filled in the dots here a bit; I don't know what you mean. (You know nothing about me. I'm a huge fan of Sam Harris' book The Moral Landscape. I say that because going by what you're saying about my 'view'/argument, you've put me in the opposite camp to that.) Ultimately, It's fascinating what that word's doing. (I'm not sure exactly) Sandwiched as it is between 'moral self assuredness' and 'moral absolute'.. most people look through a revisionist lens of times, both past and present I'm not sure what you mean by that. The thing you won't find is slavery persisting in areas where it became uneconomical. Is that at all surprising? Well, I don't remember any abolitionists in ancient Greek, Rome etc. It was just the natural order of things, an accepted part of life, necessary to civilization.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  What I am referring to is your suggestion that that views based more on moral perspective, rather than rational logic, ought be able to, at least in some cases, be used as imperatives in and of themselves. For instance do we have a rule that people ought not steal because it's amoral to take that which is the property of another without their agreement, or because if theft was legal then we'd see substantial harm to society? By contrast we do have some laws based almost exclusively on morals, which are generally based on religion, such as prohibitions against prostitution. In my opinion, the ideal legal system is one in which laws are cast around a lens of ensuring maximal freedom for all of society with restrictions only being when the logical consequence of such prohibited action would lead to 'reasonably clear' harm to society. There indeed were absolutely abolitionists even as far back as Ancient Greece. I've no doubt the view even predates written language. Check out this writing from Aristotle [1]: "Others affirm that the rule of a master over slaves is contrary to nature, and that the distinction between slave and freeman exists by law only, and not by nature; and being an interference with nature is therefore unjust." It's even interesting that he also rather directly alluded to the exact logic I laid out above, "..if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves.." Reading the classics is always surprising that such wisdom and clarity could be had by a people thousands of years past. At times it seems much more so than even modern man. Perhaps division and diversion are not conducive to the development of sound reasoning abilities. [1] - http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.one.html http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.one.html

yesenadam 8y ago

Hi, thanks, very interesting. I think a good litmus test for an argument is whether you approve of things that such a view can be logically extrapolated to imply. such a view - What 'view' are you taking me to hold? You can with some precision tell what is a 'logical extrapolation' of it or not? I'm not sure what you mean here. (Except I suspect you mean something like Kant's categorical imperative.) Sorry. I'm unable to see what view of mine you've extracted and then extrapolated. And here you must certainly realize that your argument can be used, and indeed is used, to justify the most heinous of ideologies. Which argument? Saying you must certainly realize that your argument seems just a condescending bluff. No....well, I'm not sure, I don't know what you are calling 'my argument'. Maybe if you filled in the dots here a bit; I don't know what you mean. (You know nothing about me. I'm a huge fan of Sam Harris' book The Moral Landscape. I say that because going by what you're saying about my 'view'/argument, you've put me in the opposite camp to that.) Ultimately, It's fascinating what that word's doing. (I'm not sure exactly) Sandwiched as it is between 'moral self assuredness' and 'moral absolute'.. most people look through a revisionist lens of times, both past and present I'm not sure what you mean by that. The thing you won't find is slavery persisting in areas where it became uneconomical. Is that at all surprising? Well, I don't remember any abolitionists in ancient Greek, Rome etc. It was just the natural order of things, an accepted part of life, necessary to civilization.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
What I am referring to is your suggestion that that views based more on moral perspective, rather than rational logic, ought be able to, at least in some cases, be used as imperatives in and of themselves. For instance do we have a rule that people ought not steal because it's amoral to take that which is the property of another without their agreement, or because if theft was legal then we'd see substantial harm to society? By contrast we do have some laws based almost exclusively on morals, which are generally based on religion, such as prohibitions against prostitution. In my opinion, the ideal legal system is one in which laws are cast around a lens of ensuring maximal freedom for all of society with restrictions only being when the logical consequence of such prohibited action would lead to 'reasonably clear' harm to society. There indeed were absolutely abolitionists even as far back as Ancient Greece. I've no doubt the view even predates written language. Check out this writing from Aristotle [1]: "Others affirm that the rule of a master over slaves is contrary to nature, and that the distinction between slave and freeman exists by law only, and not by nature; and being an interference with nature is therefore unjust." It's even interesting that he also rather directly alluded to the exact logic I laid out above, "..if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves.." Reading the classics is always surprising that such wisdom and clarity could be had by a people thousands of years past. At times it seems much more so than even modern man. Perhaps division and diversion are not conducive to the development of sound reasoning abilities. [1] - http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.one.html http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.one.html