I think it is wrong because unlike many slave-holders I happen to know that people who were subjected to slavery are not in any qualitative way different from me. As I do not want to live like a slave, so I think others should not be made to be either.
I appreciate your answer. I wonder if you would be willing to expand upon it.
Would your belief that slavery is "immoral"
because those enslaved are not "qualitatively different" from you allow, or endorse, the enslavement of people who were, in fact, "qualitatively different" from you? What extend of "qualitative difference", in degree or in kind, would allow involuntary servitude?
Where, and form whom, did you learn to think that it is "immoral" to enslave someone who is not "qualitatively different" from you? Had you been raised differently, would you think differently?
How is that not a definition of social consensus?
But do you not notice that you have formed a false dichotomy by saying that judging right from wrong either depends upon God's view or societal consensus.
Had I claimed that those were the only two options, you might have a point.
You, on the other hand, actually do seem to be forming a false equivalence; that is, that "right" and "moral" are the same thing.
In reality, the will of 'god' (whichever 'god') and the tastes of society are, distressingly often, identified one with the other. My point is that it is silly to say that "morality" comes form 'god', when 'god' seems to go along with social changes. Remember that the trigger was the accusation that being atheist was the same thing as flaunting immorality.
This clearly makes no sense unless of course you believe that society changes arbitrarily or magically.
It is interesting to watch you work so hard to phrase what I have said in a way you can dismiss.
Might you indicate where I said, or implied, that societal consensus was reached, or engendered, by magic?
You also appear to be equivocating "consensus" with "unanimity".
You missed out an important way in which society's do change and that is through people agitating to change society in the first place. Obviously people believed slavery was wrong before society changed. Some of them no doubt did believe slavery was against God's will, but others used reason to argue agtainst the right of people to keep other people as property.
And, for the period of transition, it was just as correct to talk about (for instance) opposing socially-accepted mores (as, for instance, slavery) as "immoral", in the same way that it was once considered "immoral" to oppose the crown, or the
hofoing.
There are yet societies where slavery is not considered "immoral" (there may even be
forms of slavery considered moral in "enlightened" societies); there are yet US citizens (and posters on this forum) who declare any iso-normative sexuality "immoral".
Does what is "right" change over time, or is it society's
perception of what is "right" that changes?
If something is
ever "right", is it
always "right"?
Recall that my original response was to the silly accusation that atheists "celebrate immorality" by lacking belief in a 'god' or any 'gods'.
Similarly, some people believe that eating animals is wrong even though societal consensus is against them.
Again, you appear to be equivocating "wrong" and "immoral". I do not eat meat. I do not think those who do "immoral".
However, maybe you are defining "morality" purely as "societal convention" in which case it is merely true by definition. But clearly those who argue that society should change its opinion and begin social change do not consider themselves immoral until most people agree with them. They simply believe that most people are wrong.
"Wrong", or "immoral"? Does any disagreement with
your standard of "right" and "wrong" strike you as "immoral"? What about when different 'gods' are claimed to command different things? Who shall be the arbiter?
Would you also argue that it was true that the Sun went around the Earth until society changed its mind?
Interesting example of a "moral" issue. What changed, in your opinion, that it "became" "moral" to "put not our faith in princes"? Has it
always been "immoral" to obey the crown?
That's why I asked you if you think people who don't have slaves, and abhor slavery, are tolerant of/celebrate gay marriage are more enlightened than those who do like slavery and oppose gay marriage?
I try not to think in terms of "enlightened", especially since (as do so many people) you appear to be equating "enlightened" with "being in agreement with you".
