Not sure why this got removed from 196lemmy…blahaj.zone but it would be real nice if moderation on Lemmy gave you some sort of notification of what you did wrong. Like an automatic DM or something

  • balderdashOP
    link
    fedilink
    7
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If you really think chattel slavery was morally acceptable for the slave owners just because there was a group consensus that the slaves were inferior… then I’m willing to let you go on thinking that

    edit: Thankfully, like truths in metaphysics, moral truths are not determined by group consensus. So your downvotes mean nothing lol

    • Hydroel
      link
      fedilink
      191 year ago

      I feel like you’re intentionally missing your own point.

    • @Feathercrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      141 year ago

      You’re being downvoted because that was clearly bad faith. Slavery doesn’t have group consensus among all involved, not even all non-slaves.

      • balderdashOP
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        The point is that slavery was seen as morally acceptable at some time and the moral relativist is forced to say that that means slavery was okay during that time. Most people here want to be moral relativists but they don’t want to accept its consequences.

          • Poplar?
            link
            fedilink
            7
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No they understand just fine. Here’s a quote from an ethics book that gets at the same issue:

            The extreme sexism at the heart of honor killings is but one of many examples that raise doubts about cultural relativism. After all, societies are sometimes based on principles of slavery, of warlike aggression, of religious bigotry or ethnic oppression. Cultural relativism would turn these core ideals into iron-clad moral duties, making cooperation with slavery, sexism, and racism the moral duty of all citizens of those societies. The iconoclast—the person deeply opposed to conventional wisdom—would, by definition, always be morally mistaken. This has struck many people as seriously implausible.

            Russ Shafer-Landau - The fundamentals of ethics p.293 (“Some Implications of Ethical Subjectivism and Cultural Relativism”)

            • @Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              31 year ago

              Cultural relativism would turn these core ideals into iron-clad moral duties

              Without knowing the context for this paragraph, this statement sounds like utter bullshit.

              • Poplar?
                link
                fedilink
                2
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                If that result is absurd, that probably just means you think cultural relativism is bullshit.

                I can share a link to get the book, the context is quite short.

                  • Poplar?
                    link
                    fedilink
                    1
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I shared that quote to show that OP seems to know what moral relativism is, and their objection is something actual ethicists point out. I dont see what its got to do with how many people in the comments here are relativists.

          • Flying SquidM
            link
            fedilink
            3
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            There were Roman slaves devoted to their masters. They sometimes married them and often took their master’s surname name when they were freed. Then kept slaves themselves. So yes, some slaves saw slavery as acceptable.

      • Poplar?
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Consensus obviously cant mean every single person agreeing, its about what the widespread view in the culture is.

        Either way its a hypothetical, doesnt matter if such a culture never existed in reality: suppose slavery was condone by some culture. Wouldnt that have made it moral?

        Going by the meme: if a society is mysognist you would be wiling to agree its correct for them and womens rights activist in that society should stop (theyre going against what the culture has decided is moral, making the activist immoral)?

        • @Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          suppose slavery was condone by some culture. Wouldnt that have made it moral?

          By definition, yes.

          Southern whites in the pre Civil War period considered slavery to be a moral good.

          Other cultures disagreed, to the point that this particular culture was all but destroyed.

          • Poplar?
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            When I asked if slavery was right for them, I wasnt trying to describe their attitudes. I am saying that a consequence of thinking cultural relativism is true is that you must admit that they were correct in the attitudes they held (because their culture agreed it was right).

            • @Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              a consequence of thinking cultural relativism is true is that you must admit that they were correct in the attitudes they held

              No, and that’s stupid.

              Let me clarify, because I want to make sure you understand. I’m not saying that I have a different take. I’m not saying that perhaps you misunderstand. I’m saying that’s a fundamentally stupid thing to believe.

              The whole point of relativism is that your simplistic concept of ANYTHING being “correct” is wrong. It’s relative. It’s not correct. Nothing is correct. Some people just thought it was correct.

              Relativism says there is no objective truth but you’re just for some reason trying to say that relativism believes in objective truth but only for supporting bad things. It’s a ridiculous, childish take on a philosophy and I’m having trouble understanding how you could come to that conclusion. It has the intellectual rigor of “I am rubber you are glue”.

              • Poplar?
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                Cool down.

                You are thinking of nihilism (specifically error theory it seems - that there are no moral facts and people are wrong for thinking there are) because relativism (whether relative to subject or culture) doesnt deny that there are moral truths, just that they are only correct for the individual or culture that holds them.

                Cultural relativism: The view that an act is morally right just because it is allowed by the guiding ideals of the society in which it is performed, and immoral just because it is forbidden by those ideals.

                Ethical subjectivism: The view that an act is morally right just because (a) I approve of it, or (b) my commitments allow it. An action is wrong just because (a) I disapprove of it, or (b) my commitments forbid it.

                Same book as the other comment of mine you replied to.

                So, no, I didnt get it wrong. And the consequences I pointed out do follow from cultural relativism.

                • @Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  I’m going to use a technique that I frequently use when discussing philosophy, to cut through the smokescreen of bullshit. Ignore your preconceived definitions. They don’t matter. Instead of “cultural relativism”, whatever you think that is, we are going to discuss “what the general population thinks of when they hear the term ‘cultural relativism’”. For short, I am going to call this Skywalker Theory. No academic has ever written about Skywalker Theory. There are no papers to reference. There’s no books, no dissertations, no letters. Skywalker Theory exists solely in the minds of people who have never gone beyond Intro to Philosophy.

                  Skywalker Theory says:

                  • The idea of an objective “good” is impossible since different groups believe different things at different times. We believe in Good and Bad, but it’s really just the result of cultural conditioning.

                  Any time your see “Cultural Relativism”, replace that with Skywalker Theory for the purposes of this discussion.

                  Skywalker Theory is not fleshed out. It’s really just a premise. There’s a lot that is up for discussion. Skywalker Theory may resemble established academic philosophies like nihilism, but it is not nihilism. It doesn’t have the baggage of all the various discussions and terms and definitions and writings that the philosophy of nihilism has. You can say “nihilism says that [x]” and reference previous writings and scenarios and logical conclusions. You cannot say that about Skywalker Theory. There’s nothing to reference.

                  • Poplar?
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    I’m not really sure what to reply with.

                    “Skywalker theory” (so far identical to error theory) isnt what the post or the discussion is about. The meme is pretty clear it is about cultural relativism and clear about what it means by cultural relativism.

                    If you want to bring your own objection to moral realism, sure, but it makes little sense hijacking the definition to mean something entirely different and being unhappy this wasnt what the term others were using meant.

                • @Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  That’s a completely wrong and stupid definition of relativism. Either because the book is wrong, or (and I’ll grant this is a possibility, because it happens a lot and it’s why the whole field of philosophy should be killed with fire) the ivory tower academic definition has gone so far beyond reality that it’s just completely absurd, and can be safely ignored as the ravings of a lunatic.

                  Either way, it’s a straw man. Just in the 2nd case, there’s a small group of batshit insane losers who actually believe the straw man is a real man, and they talk with it and have tea parties and shit. And get offended when you point out that it’s made of straw and they should get mental help.

                  • Poplar?
                    link
                    fedilink
                    1
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    This is the definition Ive found people use when they bring up cultural relativism. Whether informally with stuff like “you cant judge them, its just their culture” or when more fleshed out. As far as I can tell, no, ethicists for and against cultural relativism are discussing something quite in touch with reality.

                    The author is an important figure in metaethics, its much more likely theres something you missed than him being wrong about a basic definition in a field he is an expert in.