3 ms·

I appreciate the historical context (that I don't have), and it is interesting. But I disagree that you can make the clear line to the present day, or even 200

I appreciate the historical context (that I don't have), and it is interesting. But I disagree that you can make the clear line to the present day, or even 200 years ago. There were no regular mass protests against slavery "because it's obviously bad" in the U.S. that had to be violently suppressed, there were no regular mass protest in Nazi Germany against how Jews were treated even before the Holocaust "because it's obviously bad", there were no regular mass protests for women suffrage all around the world. I doubt any Proud Boy will trace his heritage to Plato or their disagreement with them. The connotation you describe may all be historically accurate (I have no knowledge of that), but I argue that it was lost over the last few hundred years, and plays no role in the current discussion of human rights, women's right, etc. whatsoever. Ask a (neo) nazi / slaveholder if they think that people of color, jews, etc. are inherently, biologically, inferior, and they will tell you yes. I will even make the claim that none of them has ever discussed "the right to vote restricted to forty-shilling freeholders (landowners with at least 40 shillings' annual rent) in 1430‽ Well, “elections had been crowded by persons of low estate“, of course. (Charles Seymour, Electoral Reform in England and Wales: The Development and Operation of the Parliamentary Franchise, 1832-1885" before punching someone in the face, cracking the whip, or leading someone into the gas chambers. PS: If you want to make specific claims and not have them understood as general - don't make general claims.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
I was making specific claims and a general claim. Here's the general one: The “moral complexity” of slavery, suffrage etc. is almost entirely artificial.¹ There is genuine, non-artificial moral uncertainty surrounding abortion (even though we can determine the right thing to do in a subset of cases). Do you dispute this? If not, there's no argument. ¹: I also made the general claim that, as society shifted so that previous justifications could no longer hold water, the artificial justification in vogue also shifted. Fundamentally, “we deserve to be in charge” doesn't seem to change, and it's incredibly rare for anyone in power to question that – this refers to the “why” reasons used to justify that assertion (which aren't proper reasons, because they're effectively post-hoc rationalisations to support, not evidence, the claim).

wizzwizz4 5y ago

I was making specific claims and a general claim. Here's the general one: The “moral complexity” of slavery, suffrage etc. is almost entirely artificial.¹ There is genuine, non-artificial moral uncertainty surrounding abortion (even though we can determine the right thing to do in a subset of cases). Do you dispute this? If not, there's no argument. ¹: I also made the general claim that, as society shifted so that previous justifications could no longer hold water, the artificial justification in vogue also shifted. Fundamentally, “we deserve to be in charge” doesn't seem to change, and it's incredibly rare for anyone in power to question that – this refers to the “why” reasons used to justify that assertion (which aren't proper reasons, because they're effectively post-hoc rationalisations to support, not evidence, the claim).