However, I think humans tend to read, internalize and conform to moral conventions. I think if Lincoln were transplanted here, and entered politics, he wouldn't go around saying anything that might suggest he believed whites to be superior to blacks. And probably in very little time living here, he would reject that belief (if he did indeed hold it).
That's a good point. I agree that he would adapt pretty quickly, maybe even with a sigh of relief at not having to deal with so much cognitive dissonance. But that first meeting at the White House, where he stepped out of the time machine and complimented President Biden on having such a fine-looking servant, would sure be awkward.
Similarly, if you or I were transplanted back to the 1850s, we probably wouldn't have the guts (or insanity or whatever it takes) to do what John Brown did.
I agree, and that's a perfect example why I don't think we can condemn ordinary people for not sacrificing themselves too much (whatever "too much" is) for a particular cause. Also, personally, I don't think John Brown was a hero. He was fighting for the right side, but going about it so wrong that it may have caused more harm than good.
Combining with the other post:
Similarly, I think it's not quite right to say that the conventional aspect of morality is "just doing what everyone else is doing". That's far too dismissive of the conventional nature of moral norms. We certainly look back on history and praise forward thinking people who rejected the conventions of the time to advance morality. But I don't think it's fair to condemn those who conformed to the conventions of their time.
Yet that's where one gets to that fuzzy line. I was reading an Englishman's diary about a visit to Alabama in the 1830s. He said the slaveowners wouldn't really talk much about how they treated their slaves, probably due to an ongoing suspicion of abolitionists lurking, though some would occasionally describe some sadistic punishment that a neighbor dreamed up, always condemning it of course.
So, one could say (based on that and other research) that what we'd consider unreasonable punishment was common enough to be within the norm on the big cotton plantations, and truly barbaric punishment was teetering out there on the very edges of the norm. One could also say it was the norm to realize you shouldn't talk about anything but the mildest punishments to strangers who might be abolitionists or who might otherwise "not understand."
So there's a huge fuzzy line. If you only whip your slaves 20 lashes, while the neighbors all whip theirs 100 for the same crime, are you good? Bad?
If you only whip them 20 lashes but feel guilty about it, but do it anyway against your best judgment because it's what everybody does, is that better or worse than whipping them 100 lashes without feeling any shame? Is a person who knowingly does wrong, worse than someone who has totally internalized the cultural norm?
Or, if you follow the norm perfectly, whip 100 lashes and don't feel guilty but don't feel comfortable talking about it to strangers, is that a sign the culture
knows it's doing wrong and therefore should shoulder some guilt?
I'm not sure where to draw the line, myself. And of course, it's an ongoing issue. For example, I'd gladly give up eating meat if that was the cultural norm, and think it would be better if things eventually went that way all else being equal, but I don't feel the least bit guilty about eating meat right now. Two hundred years from now, if people are appalled at eating meat, I figure society will judge people like me accordingly, some condemning me for not being a vegetarian right now, others condemning me for not being on the front lines with PETA, others saying I'm just a product of my time.
