Quiz-one topic

[cuchulain]

19 hours ago, mark 45 said:

and to make this a circular argument,what is your position to make slavery right?

I don't have an argument to make slavery right.

[VonNoble]

21 hours ago, VonNoble said:

 

ANY culture that permits slavery is morally flawed.    Support your conclusion.

 

 

von

Perhaps our class was flummoxed by the premise.   I was.

 

I am reasonably sure no one in the room supported slavery.

 

The questioned was asking (at least to me) ....do I judge the entire culture as morally flawed solely on the issue of them permitting slavery?    That I the only thing we know.    We do not know who they enslave or why?   We do not know the history or the possibility of eventual freedom options for said slaves.  

 

For all we know they were a gift enslaved and given by their own people.  We do not know (for sure) if the treatment is humane.  If life is even remotely better than what they left.     We do not know what good this culture slaveholders offers.... we know nothing  beyond this one fact.   In this culture there exists a group not free.  Why?

 

We were being asked to judge a culture.   (Not a country) in only one known fact.   I am not sure one fact is enough to render judgement (for me)......that being said it might well be enough for another to come to a conclusion.   I can see that worked too.

 

Noting an entire group is morally flawed without knowing the reason why they chose this (to me offensive morally behavior )was difficult.   I prefer to understand before assigning condemnation.  This seemed to be true for for many in the class.   Even when the action clearly violates our view of normal.

 

i was sort of encouraged that many were trying to understand what would make anyone think such a thing is right....

 

von

 

 

[micha_el]

I can only point you to the scripture that I base my beliefs on. Matthew 7 verses 1 and 2. accepting or rejecting this idea is simply a matter of personal choice.

[mererdog]

5 hours ago, cuchulain said:

There is choice involved in the first place to play the game at its rules.  Thus the pitcher and batter both opted into the game, whereas a slave does NOT opt in.

But they do opt in.

Enslaving someone requires convincing them that they should do what you say. While you can wall me up or straightjacket me without my help, getting me to do work requires that I decide to do the work.

Even if my only other cboice is a torturous death, it is still a choice. Some men have chosen death over enslavement. Some men have chosen to die in order to stop being a slave. Others have chosen to run or to hide. Still others chose to pretend to be slaves while biding their time for the right moment to kill their supposed masters.

The idea that slaves don't opt in is dangerous because it suggests that they can't opt out, which is precisely the notion that keeps them enslaved. When the prostitute sees that she chose to let herself be controlled by the pimp, see begins to see that she can choose to walk away. At that point, she becomes able to plan a way to do it as safely as possible, and maybe get a little justice along the way.

Make sense? 

Edited February 9, 2018 by mererdog

[Dan56]

On 2/8/2018 at 11:25 AM, VonNoble said:

 

ANY culture that permits slavery is morally flawed.    Support your conclusion.

 

 

von

 

In ancient cultures, people without any means of supporting themselves, sold themselves as slaves (indentured servitude). The alternative would have left a person destitute, starving, or even dead.. In such cases, it could be said that any culture forbidding slavery, was morally flawed. 

 

Today, we have welfare, government housing, food stamps, medicaid, etc.. But consider a society where none of those things exited? Being a slave to someone who provided food and shelter would likely be preferable to dying on the streets. Slavery provides the necessities of life when a culture fails to provide the fundamental essentials to live.

[mererdog]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

Today, we have welfare, government housing, food stamps, medicaid, etc.. But consider a society where none of those things exited? Being a slave to someone who provided food and shelter would likely be preferable to dying on the streets. Slavery provides the necessities of life when a culture fails to provide the fundamental essentials to live.

If your neighbor can't find a job and can't qualify for welfare, or other government programs, murdering you and stealing your stuff would likely be preferable to dying in the streets. To my way of thinking, that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is moral to do. You?

Edited February 10, 2018 by mererdog

[mark 45]

12 hours ago, mererdog said:

If your neighbor can't find a job and can't qualify for welfare, or other government programs, murdering you and stealing your stuff would likely be preferable to dying in the streets. To my way of thinking, that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is moral to do. You?

been there.i am very fortunate that i never stole from anyone,or murdered anyone.i did a lot of other things to survive tho.

 

i understand that in times past indentured servitude got people a roof over their head,sometimes food,and even a trip west to the "new lands".however,slaves did not have a choice of where they went.and the us wasn't the only country that had them.

[VonNoble]

On 2/9/2018 at 10:39 PM, Dan56 said:

 

In ancient cultures, people without any means of supporting themselves, sold themselves as slaves (indentured servitude). The alternative would have left a person destitute, starving, or even dead.. In such cases, it could be said that any culture forbidding slavery, was morally flawed. 

 

Today, we have welfare, government housing, food stamps, medicaid, etc.. But consider a society where none of those things exited? Being a slave to someone who provided food and shelter would likely be preferable to dying on the streets. Slavery provides the necessities of life when a culture fails to provide the fundamental essentials to live.

Interesting analysis.... thx

von

[VonNoble]

On a related note...

I heard on the radio today a group of detainees is suing the United States for being used to do forced labor with no compensation.

 

If the premise defines slavery as the determining factor upon which we are defined as morally flawed.... that is a twist for us in the here and now.    Some would view forced labor without compensation as a form of slavery perhaps....

 

von

 

 

[mererdog]

The thirteenth ammendment states (emphasis added)- "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"

 

The wording of the Ammendment is intentionally designed to hide this simple truth, but slavery was never actually abolished in the US. It was never made illegal. There was simply a narrowing of the legal conditions regarding who can be enslaved, and under what circumstances it can happen. Over that long term, chattel slavery was replaced with mass incarceration. The same economic and social goals get served, but it has a patina of "justice" that lets everyone feel good about themselves.

Edited February 11, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

12 hours ago, mark 45 said:

i understand that in times past indentured servitude got people a roof over their head,sometimes food,and even a trip west to the "new lands".however,slaves did not have a choice of where they went.and the us wasn't the only country that had them.

Indentuered servants often had no say in the conditions of their employment. Many would sign contracts specifying a set length of servitude, a set payment at the end of their servitude, and basically giving the employers carte blanche to fill in the details as they went along. Still others would sign contracts they could not understand (often due to intoxication, often due to illiteracy) after being lied to about what they were getting themselves into.

When power dynamics are that lopsided, abuse will run rampant.

Edited February 11, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

12 hours ago, mark 45 said:

i did a lot of other things to survive tho.

I have done a lot of things as well. I often use the phrase "I have done a lot that I am not proud of." The truth is, that's just a euphemism. I have done a lot that shames me deeply.

 

Do you believe that the drive to survive absolves you of any and all potential guilt for the things you did? Or do you believe that there are certain things you just can't justify doing?

 

I try to walk a fairly delicate line. On the one hand, I do not believe that ends can (or should) justify means. On the other hand, I do not believe that bad actions can (or should) prove bad actors.

 

Seing a person's panic and desperation can render their actions relatable and understandable enough to empathize with their humanity and see their actions as a reflection of our common flaws and weaknesses, exposing that basic value and potential that everyone has. 

 

Yet the actions still stand on their own merits. A bad idea remains a bad idea, even when it is the only idea I can come up with. And we can't uncreate the suffering we create.

 

Thanks in advance for putting up with the rambling.

[cuchulain]

On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 2:20 PM, mererdog said:

But they do opt in.

Enslaving someone requires convincing them that they should do what you say. While you can wall me up or straightjacket me without my help, getting me to do work requires that I decide to do the work.

Even if my only other cboice is a torturous death, it is still a choice. Some men have chosen death over enslavement. Some men have chosen to die in order to stop being a slave. Others have chosen to run or to hide. Still others chose to pretend to be slaves while biding their time for the right moment to kill their supposed masters.

The idea that slaves don't opt in is dangerous because it suggests that they can't opt out, which is precisely the notion that keeps them enslaved. When the prostitute sees that she chose to let herself be controlled by the pimp, see begins to see that she can choose to walk away. At that point, she becomes able to plan a way to do it as safely as possible, and maybe get a little justice along the way.

Make sense? 

i dont consider a torturous death or slavery a valid choice...its the same logic to say a woman had a choice between torturous death and sex so it isnt rape.

[mark 45]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

I have done a lot of things as well. I often use the phrase "I have done a lot that I am not proud of." The truth is, that's just a euphemism. I have done a lot that shames me deeply.

 

Do you believe that the drive to survive absolves you of any and all potential guilt for the things you did? Or do you believe that there are certain things you just can't justify doing?

 

I try to walk a fairly delicate line. On the one hand, I do not believe that ends can (or should) justify means. On the other hand, I do not believe that bad actions can (or should) prove bad actors.

 

Seing a person's panic and desperation can render their actions relatable and understandable enough to empathize with their humanity and see their actions as a reflection of our common flaws and weaknesses, exposing that basic value and potential that everyone has. 

 

Yet the actions still stand on their own merits. A bad idea remains a bad idea, even when it is the only idea I can come up with. And we can't uncreate the suffering we create.

 

Thanks in advance for putting up with the rambling.

you bring up some interesting points.but let me clear a couple of things up.

first,i made some choices after exhausting what i understood to be all other means available to me at the time.for example,i applied for (and was turned down for)180 different jobs in one month.

 

second,i did what i felt was best to survive at the time.right or wrong had very little to do with my thinking (suicide was a big factor tho).was anyone"hurt"by my actions?not that i am aware of.did anyone lose anything by my actions?just me as far as i know.

 

would i go back and do it all over,NO!not even if that was the only choice i believed i had.

 

please forgive my rant.and by the way,there is no such thing as absolution (as far as i am concerned).there is only learning from past and current actions.

Edited February 11, 2018 by mark 45

[mererdog]

On 2/11/2018 at 6:31 AM, cuchulain said:

i dont consider a torturous death or slavery a valid choice...its the same logic to say a woman had a choice between torturous death and sex so it isnt rape.

Well, no. A woman can have a choice, and it can still be rape. The choice between struggling and submitting always exists and is often the most important decision we can make. While it may have no discernable effect on outcomes, it will shape our psyches on a fundamental level.

Note that "rape" is a word used to label an action but "slave" is a word used to label a person. Your choices do not define the other person's actions, but they do define you.

 

I took a self-defense class in high school that was designed for girls (but not advertised that way). The thing they stressed the most was the need to not be passive.

The advice was basic-

If you can't fight, scream.

If you can't scream, memorize details.

If you can do all of that, do all of that.

 

Acknowledging that victims have choices is not meant to lessen, excuse, or justify their victimization. It is meant to empower victims to take whatever control of their own lives they can. This is sometimes expressed by refusing to label the self as a victim, instead using words like survivor.

 

You dont have to be a slave. You dont have to let your husband beat you. You dont have to accept less than you deserve.

You can fight. You can struggle. You won't always win, but you can try.

Edited February 15, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

On 2/11/2018 at 7:48 AM, mark 45 said:

please forgive my rant.and by the way,there is no such thing as absolution (as far as i am concerned).there is only learning from past and current actions.

There is nothing for me to forgive.

My initial reaction was to agree with you about absolution. But then I noticed something odd. You asked for fogiveness while saying there is no absolution.  

That made me ask myself, "What is absolution, if not forgiveness?"

That led me to the dictionaries, and they told me that absolution is just a formalized process of forgiveness for wrongs.

So I had to rethink my position... and I'm still not sure where I'm going to end up landing on this.

 

I am a firm believer in the power and importance of forgiveness.

I dislike formality and tend to see it as useless and wasteful. But honesty requires acknowledging that it can be helpful, especially when dealing with strangers.

I want to say that absolution is just a poor substitute for actual forgiveness. I want to say that it is just a way to con ourselves into feeling better. But that isnt really ringing true.

A song I like has a refrain that includes the lyric "I'm more than just a little curious how you're planning to go about making your amends to the dead." I find it haunting.

Perhaps absolution is the answer to that question. Perhaps by establishing formal ways to atone, we give ourselves ways to earn forgiveness from society, when the individuals we have harmed are unavailable (or maybe just unwilling?). I can see a potential for real value in that.

But I still want to call it a con. It still feels fake.

Thank you for sending me down this rabbit hole. I suspect there is room for self-improvement here.

Edited February 15, 2018 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

There is nothing for me to forgive.

My initial reaction was to agree with you about absolution. But then I noticed something odd. You asked for fogiveness while saying there is no absolution.  

That made me ask myself, "What is absolution, if not forgiveness?"

That led me to the dictionaries, and they told me that absolution is just a formalized process of forgiveness for wrongs.

So I had to rethink my position... and I'm still not sure where I'm going to end up landing on this.

 

I am a firm believer in the power and importance of forgiveness.

I dislike formality and tend to see it as useless and wasteful. But honesty requires acknowledging that it can be helpful, especially when dealing with strangers.

I want to say that absolution is just a poor substitute for actual forgiveness. I want to say that it is just a way to con ourselves into feeling better. But that isnt really ringing true.

A song I like has a refrain that includes the lyric "I'm more than just a little curious how you're planning to go about making your amends to the dead." I find it haunting.

Perhaps absolution is the answer to that question. Perhaps by establishing formal ways to atone, we give ourselves ways to earn forgiveness from society, when the individuals we have harmed are unavailable (or maybe just unwilling?). I can see a potential for real value in that.

But I still want to call it a con. It still feels fake.

Thank you for sending me down this rabbit hole. I suspect there is room for self-improvement here.

 

 

In my understanding, "forgiveness" is a way of releasing anger.  Releasing anger is good for the person who has been harmed.  Releasing anger prevents additional harm.  "absolution" is about releasing the person who did the harming, from his guilt.  People pray for "absolution".  "Forgiving" is about releasing and letting go of anger.  

[mererdog]

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

In my understanding, "forgiveness" is a way of releasing anger.  

I believe there is more to it than that.

 

At the core, forgiveness is about short-circuiting the desire for justice. It is about allowing things to be unfair without feeling a need to balance them out. Because suffering cannot be measured or undone, we either forgive or we endlessly reprosecute the crimes of the past.

When you forgive someone, you grant them permission to prosper, despite their crimes. When you forgive yourself, you see yourself as deserving of happiness, despite your failings. This allows for the release of anger but, perhaps more importantly, the release of guilt and shame.

I would caution that if you attempt to release your anger without making the fundamental change in perspective that is forgiveness, the anger is destined to return.

[cuchulain]

free will.  the power of acting without constraint or at one's own discretion.

constraint.  a limitation.

discretion.  the freedom to decide what should be done.

argument ad baculum. argument through force or threat to bring about acceptance of conclusion.

i dont see a reasonable path to accept a decision based on coercion of a persons free will, because coercion is the opposite of free will, disallowing their freedom to decide what should be done via the fallacy argument ad baculum, or threatening force if a condition(slavery) is not accepted.  

[Brother Kaman]

3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

free will.  the power of acting without constraint or at one's own discretion.

constraint.  a limitation.

discretion.  the freedom to decide what should be done.

argument ad baculum. argument through force or threat to bring about acceptance of conclusion.

i dont see a reasonable path to accept a decision based on coercion of a persons free will, because coercion is the opposite of free will, disallowing their freedom to decide what should be done via the fallacy argument ad baculum, or threatening force if a condition(slavery) is not accepted.  

Do you believe the same if you exercised your free will outside the limits that the society you live in confines you to?