3 ms·

> That prior to 1865 chattel slavery was ethical? some people in that era did believe it was ethical, and some didn't. After a while, more and more people were

by chii 3y ago

> That prior to 1865 chattel slavery was ethical? some people in that era did believe it was ethical, and some didn't. After a while, more and more people were convinced that it was unethical (and conveniently, machinary made slavery less economical for some industries). Once enough people believed/changed their minds about it being ethical, there was a large argument that resulted in laws rather than on individual ethical beliefs.

bruce511 3y ago
Legal is what we collectively decide. Ethical is what we personally decide. Clearly something is either legal or not, and we have mechanisms setup to clarify where there is dispute. Some professions have ethical standards. Some even have enforcement of them, making them pseudo-legalities. But personal ethics, are, well, personal. You may find it ethical to eat meat, I might not. You may consider it unethical to eat cheese, or coffee, or honey. You might consider it ethical to pay minimum wage, or require employees to answer emails after hours. Or rent out an apartment, or wear white in October. Ethics are personal and vary enormously. Declaring things to be ethical or not is therefore somewhat unhelpful. Clearly some will agree, some will not. Whole college courses exist to try and define ethics and to encourage students to at least think about what their own ethical boundaries might be.
- krainboltgreene 3y ago
  > Legal is what we collectively decide. It's not even that. The collective didn't ask for sodomy laws. The collective didn't repeal Roe v Wade.
  - chii 3y ago
    enough did that it passed, because the USA's system of first-past-the-post voting has such a loophole.
    - krainboltgreene 3y ago
      Sure, if you define "collective of american voters" as "5 unelected people", then sure "enough did".
krainboltgreene 3y ago
This is both incredibly historic and clumsily sidesteps the fact that were you in that time, according to your statement, you would have found it ethical.
- chii 3y ago
  > you would have found it ethical. not having lived that era, it cannot be said which side i would've been on - because it would've depended on which side i was born, and the circumstances i find myself in. The truth is that which ever "ethical" belief that benefits me the most will have been the belief i followed. Most people believe that their beliefs are ethical, but are in reality, just post hoc rationalizations of decisions that benefit themselves (knowingly or not). I am just being clear, rather than try to hide this fact.
  - krainboltgreene 3y ago
    > the only metric to judge [what is ethical] is through the lens of legality You've told us exactly what "side you would have been on".

by chii 3y ago

bruce511 3y ago

Legal is what we collectively decide. Ethical is what we personally decide. Clearly something is either legal or not, and we have mechanisms setup to clarify where there is dispute. Some professions have ethical standards. Some even have enforcement of them, making them pseudo-legalities. But personal ethics, are, well, personal. You may find it ethical to eat meat, I might not. You may consider it unethical to eat cheese, or coffee, or honey. You might consider it ethical to pay minimum wage, or require employees to answer emails after hours. Or rent out an apartment, or wear white in October. Ethics are personal and vary enormously. Declaring things to be ethical or not is therefore somewhat unhelpful. Clearly some will agree, some will not. Whole college courses exist to try and define ethics and to encourage students to at least think about what their own ethical boundaries might be.

krainboltgreene 3y ago
> Legal is what we collectively decide. It's not even that. The collective didn't ask for sodomy laws. The collective didn't repeal Roe v Wade.
- chii 3y ago
  enough did that it passed, because the USA's system of first-past-the-post voting has such a loophole.
  - krainboltgreene 3y ago
    Sure, if you define "collective of american voters" as "5 unelected people", then sure "enough did".

krainboltgreene 3y ago

This is both incredibly historic and clumsily sidesteps the fact that were you in that time, according to your statement, you would have found it ethical.

chii 3y ago
> you would have found it ethical. not having lived that era, it cannot be said which side i would've been on - because it would've depended on which side i was born, and the circumstances i find myself in. The truth is that which ever "ethical" belief that benefits me the most will have been the belief i followed. Most people believe that their beliefs are ethical, but are in reality, just post hoc rationalizations of decisions that benefit themselves (knowingly or not). I am just being clear, rather than try to hide this fact.
- krainboltgreene 3y ago
  > the only metric to judge [what is ethical] is through the lens of legality You've told us exactly what "side you would have been on".