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

    • Jay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would have used a lot more words, but that’s exactly what I wanted to say.

    • benni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honest question: if a person living in the west in the 21st century thinks they should have the right to take people of a different race as their own personal slaves, do you think there is no basis to call this person immoral? The best we can do is say that this person is incompatible with the time and place they are in?

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We in the west have a basis to call this person immoral.

        The places where slavery is legal do not have that basis.

        • HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ask the slaves that lol. That argument is moot because it relies on legitimizing the oppression committed by slavers by not seeing enslaved people as part of the population/group. Their history was not recorded the same way the slaver’s history was, yet they were still humans that thought about, talked about, and theorized about morality too. You don’t get to claim to know the group consensus of a past society just because slavers used oppression to erase the viewpoints of those who disagreed.

      • mommykink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        a person living in the west in the 21st century

        This qualifier alone shows that “objective” moral truth is defined only by where/when you live. You’re also showing your own modern western bias here.

    • balderdash@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      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

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 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.

        • Poplar?@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          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
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 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?@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 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
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 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?@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 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
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 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.

                  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 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.

        • balderdash@lemmy.zipOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 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?@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              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
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 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?@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  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.

                  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No, I mean I’m pretty sure that characterization of relativism is bullshit. A straw man if you will.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              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.