Where We Get Our Morals From

Ichneumonwasp said:
There is no indication that Spartacus thought slavery wrong. There were clear indications that he (and his followers) didn't want to be one.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty universal that slaves never like slavery and think it's wrong. Of course, they may like it once they're no longer slaves.
 
Last edited:
A Christian Sceptic said:
I think it's pretty universal that slaves never like slavery and think it's wrong. Of course, they may like it once they're no longer slaves.
Click to expand...


I think it's pretty universal that slaves don't like slavery. It is not necessarily universal that a slave, growing up in a slave owning society, thinks that slavery is wrong. There is no indication in classical literature that slaves thought anything of the kind. Granted, no one wanted to be a slave, but them's the breaks. Most folks knew it was the consequence of being on the losing side in battle. There is a difference between not wanting to be a slave and thinking that the entire institution is wrong.

If slaves thought it was so evil, where were all the emancipation societies constituted of freedmen? Suddenly it wasn't wrong after they were freed?
 
My own take is that moral sense is a capability of human brains that evolved as an adaptation to living as a social animal. I'd compare it to our capacity for language. You can learn a specific language or develop a specific moral sense based on the culture and time you grow up in, but the overall basics are hardwired (except for individuals with some dysfunction).
 
I had an American History teacher who emphasized the fact that right and wrong is not only culturally relative but relative to the times. His example was slavery. It was right 200 years ago but wrong now. I asked him if slavery was considered right why on page x of our textbook was there a side article about a Christian society of abolitionists in that very time period saying slavery was wrong. He paused and said "well, of course there is always a small minority saying it's wrong", but the majority said it was right. He then changed the topic before I could question him about the Priest who accompanied the first Spainards who also was in our textbook protesting the abuses of the Native Americans.

It seems to me what fluctuates is not what's "right" and "wrong" but the "majority" and the "minority" on either side.
 
A Christian Sceptic said:
I had an American History teacher who emphasized the fact that right and wrong is not only culturally relative but relative to the times. His example was slavery. It was right 200 years ago but wrong now. I asked him if slavery was considered right why on page x of our textbook was there a side article about a Christian society of abolitionists in that very time period saying slavery was wrong. He paused and said "well, of course there is always a small minority saying it's wrong", but the majority said it was right. He then changed the topic before I could question him about the Priest who accompanied the first Spainards who also was in our textbook protesting the abuses of the Native Americans.

It seems to me what fluctuates is not what's "right" and "wrong" but the "majority" and the "minority" on either side.
Click to expand...


I said much the same above. This still has nothing to do with Spartacus or any other slave necessarily thinking that slavery was wrong. We have no real indication of that.

To say that morality alters with the times is to negate the possibility of moral progress. Morality, again, concerns not what we do but what we should do.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
I think it's pretty universal that slaves don't like slavery. It is not necessarily universal that a slave, growing up in a slave owning society, thinks that slavery is wrong. There is no indication in classical literature that slaves thought anything of the kind. Granted, no one wanted to be a slave, but them's the breaks. Most folks knew it was the consequence of being on the losing side in battle. There is a difference between not wanting to be a slave and thinking that the entire institution is wrong.
Click to expand...

I actually think the concept of no slavery was unimaginable at the time (and probably throughout most history). But apparently, even in slave society's people still began to question it and act on it - even if it was only for their own personal freedoms and not in consideration for anyone elses. Slavery might apply to everyone else, but for them it shouldn't.

It's like thievery - no one, even thieves, like to be stolen from. They can justify their own thievery, but once it's done to them - it's wrong. In honor / shame cultures - this can spiral into a viscious cycle.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
I said much the same above. This still has nothing to do with Spartacus or any other slave necessarily thinking that slavery was wrong. We have no real indication of that.
Click to expand...

It was in response to how can someone in such a culture even discern it. Apparently, Spartacus and other slaves began with their own slavery and it's "rightness" or "wrongness". My argument isn't that they then jumped to the conclusion all slavery must go.
 
To see the similarities in morality - don't look at how people think they should treat others, but look at how they want others to treat them.
 
A Christian Sceptic said:
I actually think the concept of no slavery was unimaginable at the time (and probably throughout most history). But apparently, even in slave society's people still began to question it and act on it - even if it was only for their own personal freedoms and not in consideration for anyone elses. Slavery might apply to everyone else, but for them it shouldn't.

It's like thievery - no one, even thieves, like to be stolen from. They can justify their own thievery, but once it's done to them - it's wrong. In honor / shame cultures - this can spiral into a viscious cycle.
Click to expand...


I think we agree then. If it was unimaginable, then Spartacus didn't think that slavery, as an institution, was wrong (he wouldn't have been able to imagine it, by your terms). He just didn't want to be a slave.

Those who freed their slaves also did not seem to question the society-wide institution. They freed individuals out of love or loyalty -- they didn't want those individuals to be slaves any longer. The evidence we have suggests that they did not question the institution or its morality. They questioned whether particular people should remain in that position.

It is certainly possible that there were people who questioned the institution. We don't have good evidence for this, however. Christian groups, as you mentioned, would naturally do so eventually (once they realized the end of the world was not imminent) because Christianity places value on the individual to make individual decisions.
 
A Christian Sceptic said:
It was in response to how can someone in such a culture even discern it. Apparently, Spartacus and other slaves began with their own slavery and it's "rightness" or "wrongness". My argument isn't that they then jumped to the conclusion all slavery must go.
Click to expand...


But that's what the real issue is -- was the institution considered immoral? Was slavery considered immoral in ancient times or just considered a situation one didn't wish to be caught in? If the institution was not considered immoral, then that gives some weight to the cultural relativist position.

It's easy to counter by saying simply that those people were wrong and their justifications for slavery specious. But that also requires a strong grounding for morality in some rational exercise.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
I think we agree then. If it was unimaginable, then Spartacus didn't think that slavery, as an institution, was wrong (he wouldn't have been able to imagine it, by your terms). He just didn't want to be a slave.
Click to expand...

Right. Didn't mean to imply more than it was. I picked Spartacus because he was well known for leading that slave rebellion - and it shows someone questioned at least their own slavery. Alas, not many speeches and writings survive from back then and we have to rely on Ancient Historians who didn't write history's like our historians do today.

Those who freed their slaves also did not seem to question the society-wide institution. They freed individuals out of love or loyalty -- they didn't want those individuals to be slaves any longer. The evidence we have suggests that they did not question the institution or its morality. They questioned whether particular people should remain in that position.

It is certainly possible that there were people who questioned the institution. We don't have good evidence for this, however. Christian groups, as you mentioned, would naturally do so eventually (once they realized the end of the world was not imminent) because Christianity places value on the individual to make individual decisions.
Click to expand...

You might find this article by Sociologist Rodney Stark interesting.
The Truth About the Catholic Church and Slavery
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
But that's what the real issue is -- was the institution considered immoral? Was slavery considered immoral in ancient times or just considered a situation one didn't wish to be caught in? If the institution was not considered immoral, then that gives some weight to the cultural relativist position.
Click to expand...

That brings up the question - how many people need to consider the institution of slavery immoral in order for it to be considered immoral?
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
I think it's pretty universal that slaves don't like slavery. It is not necessarily universal that a slave, growing up in a slave owning society, thinks that slavery is wrong. There is no indication in classical literature that slaves thought anything of the kind. Granted, no one wanted to be a slave, but them's the breaks. Most folks knew it was the consequence of being on the losing side in battle. There is a difference between not wanting to be a slave and thinking that the entire institution is wrong.

If slaves thought it was so evil, where were all the emancipation societies constituted of freedmen? Suddenly it wasn't wrong after they were freed?
Click to expand...

Let's cut to the chase. Is enslaving another human being morally right or wrong?
 
plumjam said:
Let's cut to the chase. Is enslaving another human being morally right or wrong?
Click to expand...

Already answered that. If we use rationality to answer the question, then it is wrong. The justifications used in the past were simply wrong and not evidence of moral relativism but incorrect thinking and rationalization based on economic necessity. Aristotle actually got close to this answer but shied away from it. IIRC his only justification for slavery on purely moral grounds was that those who could not participate in rational thought were natural slaves -- in other words, the mentally defective. Those who were enslaved by acts of war were slaves only by convention. He just didn't question the convention from what I recall (but it's been years since I read the Nichomachean Ethics or Politics, so don't quote me on that).
 
A Christian Sceptic said:
That brings up the question - how many people need to consider the institution of slavery immoral in order for it to be considered immoral?
Click to expand...

That's easy. One, for it to be considered. Again, since morality is what we should do, then it doesn't matter how many people think we should or should not act in a particular way for something to be moral (all those people could simply be wrong). The strongest grounds we have to anchor moral thinking is in our rationality -- that is something that all moral actors share. It is not universal in any grand sense, but shared throughout humanity. It is still a form of relative morality, but with morality relative to who and what we are.

There is the further problem that we do not seem to use one type of rational thought to decide on what is moral. We seem to use at least two and probably three different modes of thought that break down into the big moral "schools of thought" -- Utilitarianism, Deontolgy, and Virtue ethics.

The biggest problem, though, is that we are always prone to rationalization, so we can't be sure that our rational thinking is sound in all situations. That is where we seem to have room for moral progress.
 
Perhaps the Humanist Manifesto would help, here: http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.php

Basically, your Muslim friend is presenting a false dichotomy. Morality is neither an ultimate truth, nor completely relative. The Manifesto states: "Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience."

This is probably true for everyone, even if they are not a Humanist, though they might not realize it. Even "ultimate truth" religious values change over time, to suit the needs and interests of humans, though much more slowly than the more progressive folks.
 
A Christian Sceptic said:
That brings up the question - how many people need to consider the institution of slavery immoral in order for it to be considered immoral?
Click to expand...


Hmm, thinking about it, another question arises. How many rational actors or those with the same ethical intuitions need there be to form a moral community?

Stark reality confronts us with the following: not everyone shares the same ethical intuitions. There are sociopaths in our midst. So, those who do share the ethical intuition that murder is wrong make the rule -- murder is wrong. The fact that not everyone shares the same ethical intuition does not excuse those folks from the general rule that murder is wrong. The rule still makes sense rationally whether or not they feel it.

I suppose there need be some critical mass of people who share the same ethical intuitions for us to agree, as a whole, on particular ethical rules. Our rationality does not exist in a vacuum, but is grounded in feeling/ethical intuition. But, it is the rational expression of those intuitions that form what we call morality/ethics.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Already answered that. If we use rationality to answer the question, then it is wrong. The justifications used in the past were simply wrong and not evidence of moral relativism but incorrect thinking and rationalization based on economic necessity. Aristotle actually got close to this answer but shied away from it. IIRC his only justification for slavery on purely moral grounds was that those who could not participate in rational thought were natural slaves -- in other words, the mentally defective. Those who were enslaved by acts of war were slaves only by convention. He just didn't question the convention from what I recall (but it's been years since I read the Nichomachean Ethics or Politics, so don't quote me on that).
Click to expand...

Damn!
IGOR! LET THEM OUT OF THE BASEMENT!

I don't know if you're implying that rationality is how we should determine moral truths or not.
If so, I would disagree. I think we use conscience to determine (more accurately, perceive) moral truth. Rationality enters into the picture when we have to formulate the findings of our conscience into words, arguments, ethical systems, laws..etc..
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Hmm, thinking about it, another question arises. How many rational actors or those with the same ethical intuitions need there be to form a moral community?

Stark reality confronts us with the following: not everyone shares the same ethical intuitions. There are sociopaths in our midst. So, those who do share the ethical intuition that murder is wrong make the rule -- murder is wrong. The fact that not everyone shares the same ethical intuition does not excuse those folks from the general rule that murder is wrong. The rule still makes sense rationally whether or not they feel it.

I suppose there need be some critical mass of people who share the same ethical intuitions for us to agree, as a whole, on particular ethical rules. Our rationality does not exist in a vacuum, but is grounded in feeling/ethical intuition. But, it is the rational expression of those intuitions that form what we call morality/ethics.
Click to expand...

Yes. Your 'ethical intuition' sounds like my 'conscience'.. so it seems we pretty much agree. Yay! First time for everything ;)
I describe conscience as a form of perceiving truth.. so your sociopath equates to someone with impaired moral perception. In the same way that blind people don't perceive, say, the truth of chairs, as well as the sighted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom