"White Man's Burden"

[Brian Fantana 6872]

7 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm just glad I don't have to utter the phrase, President Hillary Clinton........

Yes, I'm super glad we have President I Can't Tie My Shoes instead.

[David Dennison 19561]

Just now, Brian Fantana said:

In this, the legal system disagrees, but we're talking specifically late term/past the point of viability. There's plenty of time to legally and safely get an abortion before that point.

Oh, I personally think viability should be the standard. But I do not consider viable fetuses to be human beings.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

In this, the legal system disagrees, but we're talking specifically late term/past the point of viability. There's plenty of time to legally and safely get an abortion before that point.

No sorry, thanks for playing, but untill it leaves the vagina it's not human, Dennison has spoken.  I doubt he's been in more than one vagina in his life.

[David Dennison 19561]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

No sorry, thanks for playing, but untill it leaves the vagina it's not human, Dennison has spoken.  I doubt he's been in more than one vagina in his life.

That is correct. You are not a human being until you are born.

[Brian Fantana 6872]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

No sorry, thanks for playing, but untill it leaves the vagina it's not human, Dennison has spoken.  I doubt he's been in more than one vagina in his life.

Be silent, child.

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Oh, I personally think viability should be the standard. But I do not consider viable fetuses to be human beings.

Sure, I'm just saying both can be true from a legal standpoint. You're not a person, legally, until you're born, but if someone kills you when you're a viable fetus, they're still a murderer.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Brian Fantana

[Chrispy 132]

4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Both what I said and the point you're making can be and are true.

It’s quite possible I misunderstood your first comment, as I interpreted it to mean an unborn baby was not viewed as a person in the law’s eyes. 

[Brian Fantana 6872]

2 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

It’s quite possible I misunderstood your first comment, as I interpreted it to mean an unborn baby was not viewed as a person in the law’s eyes. 

It isn't, from a legal personhood standpoint, except in certain cases where human rights are concerned like your mother being murdered while she's carrying you. You're also not legally a person until you're documented, which happens after birth. It's something of a legal paradox but makes sense if you think about it.

[bad_teammate 13562]

31 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

The point of the OP was a question on the ethical evaluation of the summed actions, both positive and negative, of a group.   Why is it important to you to get acknowledgement that the OP falls into your trivial created category of "banal white supremacy"?  Insisting on trivialities and avoiding the subject of discussion is blatant pedantry.  

I invite you to go to Page 1 and reread the OP.

The central premise of white supremacy is stated clearly and the two questions are based on that premise.

Addressing the central premise is not avoiding the subject.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

15 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

It isn't, from a legal personhood standpoint, except in certain cases where human rights are concerned like your mother being murdered while she's carrying you. You're also not legally a person until you're documented, which happens after birth. It's something of a legal paradox but makes sense if you think about it.

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, it didn't make a sound  ?  

Being documented is the chief mechanism for being considered an actual human ?  They didn't live or die if they weren't documented ?  From a legal standpoint that may make sense, from a moral standpoint it has no bearing, and falls into the same type of law as the 3/5's rule.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Onboard 2.0

[JBJ 3828]

Personhood isn't very well legally defined. 

For example, we even had to pass a law - within the past 20 years - identifying a born baby as a legal person to limit the ability of states to enforce laws that abandon infants to die.

[DixonHur 11967]

27 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

I believe that morality is absolute and affected by neither culture nor the passage of time.

I respect your position, but I disagree.  I think morality is a necessary tool of society to maintain order among its people, and it is ever evolving.  

In short, morality is the thin veneer of civility needed to prevent our base instincts from taking over.  

For example, killing isn't always amoral...it's only condemned within one's own group.  It celebrated during war, because you're killing the 'bad' guys.  Only problem is that the definition of 'bad' depends on which side you're on.

 

[seven 1368]

41 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Nope, she was the worst crook in our political system in decades.  Nixon was a Boy Scout in comparison to the shit she was pulling and trying to pull. 

You obviously don't actually care about corruption or you'd be as militantly against trump. Fucking lying brain dead moron 

[TwiceHorn 32087]

Gah, can we please dispense with the partisanship?  I sorely wanted to put this in current events, but it probably would have turned into a shitshow even faster.

[JBJ 3828]

4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

For example, killing isn't always amoral...it's only condemned within one's own group.  It celebrated during war, because you're killing the 'bad' guys.  Only problem is that the definition of 'bad' depends on which side you're on.

This is an argument that pacifism isn't moral. A point that most moral absolutists would agree with you on.

[Chrispy 132]

22 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

It isn't, from a legal personhood standpoint, except in certain cases where human rights are concerned like your mother being murdered while she's carrying you. You're also not legally a person until you're documented, which happens after birth. It's something of a legal paradox but makes sense if you think about it.

I suppose it’s up to your interpretation of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The language of the law is very cleverly worded to be sure. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I respect your position, but I disagree.  I think morality is a necessary tool of society to maintain order among its people, and it is ever evolving.  

In short, morality is the thin veneer of civility needed to prevent our base instincts from taking over.  

For example, killing isn't always amoral...it's only condemned within one's own group.  It celebrated during war, because you're killing the 'bad' guys.  Only problem is that the definition of 'bad' depends on which side you're on.

 

Morality is not an absolute in my opinion. Morality changes/evolves over time, to become hopefully, a better more enlightened society and civilization.  Ascribing our moral code to people from the past isn't a fair apples to apples comparison.  Lots of practices were considered moral then that we'd never accept today.

[DixonHur 11967]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

This is an argument that pacifism isn't moral. A point that most moral absolutists would agree with you on.

No.  It's simply an argument that morality is ever evolving.  That some choose to use it for political purposes misses the point.

[DixonHur 11967]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Morality is not an absolute in my opinion. Morality changes/evolves over time, to become hopefully, a better more enlightened society and civilization.  Ascribing our moral code to people from the past isn't a fair apples to apples comparison.  Lots of practices were considered moral then that we'd never accept today.

Yes. And I'm sure many things we find morally acceptable today will likely be viewed differently in the future.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Yes. And I'm sure many things we find morally acceptable today will likely be viewed differently in the future.

As it should be, we should hopefully always be evolving for the better as a society.

[David Dennison 19561]

12 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

As it should be, we should hopefully always be evolving for the better as a society.

Moral relativism from a conservative.

Interesting.

[JBJ 3828]

23 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

No.  It's simply an argument that morality is ever evolving.  That some choose to use it for political purposes misses the point.

I think that society's moral focus (ethics) change over time.  But that there's an absolute morality that does not.

OnBoard thinking that ethics can improve over time reveals his belief that there are moral absolutes that mankind is working towards - or conversely against.

Moral relativism isn't that murder and war-killing are different.  Moral relativism is that murder cannot be described as good or bad.

[David Dennison 19561]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I think that society's moral focus (ethics) change over time.  But that there's an absolute morality that does not.

OnBoard thinking that ethics can improve over time reveals his belief that there are moral absolutes that mankind is working towards - or conversely against.

Moral relativism isn't that murder and war-killing are different.  Moral relativism is that murder cannot be described as good or bad.

Sometimes murder is good. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Thanks, very insightful.

 

Additional thought/question.  For whatever reason, the Chinese and perhaps Asians more broadly seem not to have embraced ocean navigation/exploration the way some societies had in the distant past.  I think you imply or state, and I would agree that that is "materialist."  But it isn't necessarily warlike (or maybe my definition of warlike is too narrow).  I think at one time the Portuguese were regarded as the most prolific explorers of the ocean, and at another the Dutch, yet neither of them are not particularly notorious (or maybe it's just unsuccessful) for being warlike or even accumulating many colonies.

I think I am arriving at a notion that, as you say, some tempered materialism or being "second best" technologically (assuming those are relatively synonymous), is the best place to "be," but I am struggling a little to separate benign materialism from belligerent, if you will.

The Chinese were certainly ocean faring.  There are probably two reasons that you were somewhat unaware of that.  One, we certainly have a Eurocentric view of history.  Two, the Chinese (and Japanese) had both closed into shells by the time Europe was in full exploration mode.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_treasure_voyages

This is just a little bit of their history, but if you scroll to the bottom, you'll see distant exploration ended in 1433.

 

Also, there is quite a bit of evidence that Zheng He was actually the first person to circumnavigate the globe.

https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2006/01/12/china-beat-columbus-to-it-perhaps

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He

 

There's also evidence that both China and Japan visited the Americas prior to Europe doing so.  However, again, they just stopped.  And again, the days of exploration seem to point toward materialism.  The Chinese voyages were even called treasure voyages.  Perhaps imperial rule and the idea of the divine emperor tempered materialism.

 

Edited July 5, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I invite you to go to Page 1 and reread the OP.

The central premise of white supremacy is stated clearly and the two questions are based on that premise.

Addressing the central premise is not avoiding the subject.

I did read the OP.  He  phrased things in a way in the opening statement that could easily be misconstrued and distorted, especially by those who have a deliberate intention to malign anyone not swimming in the direction they want the school of fish to swim.   

But for anyone being remotely honest & thorough and who apply the principle of charity to understand what he is actually getting at, they would see that the focus is a set of questions on the ethical evaluation & justification of the actions of a group, considering both their accomplishments and wrondgoings.  This quote from the OP is what he is getting at:

First, in historical context, were the malfeasances of WWEM worse than other conquering or imperialistic cultures or groups?  Second, were the malfeasances in any way necessary to establish the advanced culture and civilization (perhaps not "necessary" per se, but expedient, at least**).  Third, did the advanced culture and civilization itself lead to the enlightenment necessary to acknowledge and at least feebly attempt to redress the malfeasances?

 

19 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I respect your position, but I disagree.  I think morality is a necessary tool of society to maintain order among its people, and it is ever evolving.  

In short, morality is the thin veneer of civility needed to prevent our base instincts from taking over.  

For example, killing isn't always amoral...it's only condemned within one's own group.  It celebrated during war, because you're killing the 'bad' guys.  Only problem is that the definition of 'bad' depends on which side you're on.

 

I respect your position as well and I suspect that we will not agree, but here is a bit of elaboration regardless:

I consider mathematics and mathematical objects absolute and unaffected by the passage of time, even though we are always finding out more and more about math and discovering new truths that give us broader perspective.  There are also approaches that we used to take in mathematics that we no longer take today as they are not believed to be fully rigorous.  Just as you argue for morality, it could be said that mathematics is a necessary tool of society and that our knowledge of it is ever evolving.  But among those who take the mathematical realism view (which is the majority of professional mathematicians), none of these facts are seen as serious challenges to the view that mathematics is absolute and unchanging.  

When I speak of morality as being absolute and unchanging, I am talking about morality as an independent ontological framework (e.g. natural law).  What we know about this framework, i.e. the epistemology of morality, is always changing - just as our knowledge of math changes.  But the fundamental ontological nature of both mathematics and morality does not change because our knowledge changes. 

 

[TwiceHorn 32087]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

The Chinese were certainly ocean faring.  There are probably two reasons that you were somewhat unaware of that.  One, we certainly have a Eurocentric view of history.  Two, the Chinese (and Japanese) had both closed into shells by the time Europe was in full exploration mode.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_treasure_voyages

This is just a little bit of their history, but if you scroll to the bottom, you'll see distant exploration ended in 1433.

 

Also, there is quite a bit of evidence that Zheng He was actually the first person to circumnavigate the globe.

https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2006/01/12/china-beat-columbus-to-it-perhaps

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He

 

There's also evidence that both China and Japan visited the Americas prior to Europe doing so.  However, again, they just stopped.

 

You are correct, I was unaware of that, but still seems relatively small and short-lived.  Also somewhat undercuts the notion that the Chinese were not warlike.

 

And as with gunpowder, Chinese invented the compass, made some use of it, then sort of seemingly abandoned it at least as a marine instrument.  Why did they turn inward?

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

And there are small-scale dehumanizations going on everywhere. It's kind of the MO of online communities of all kinds, including this one.

I think dehumanization is a chicken versus egg thing.  It doesn't occur in a vacuum.  It usually comes before or after a taking.  You come to America.  You want land that people are on.  You justify taking the land by dehumanizing the people who are on it as savages.  Plus it makes you feel better about doing it because you wouldn't take from someone you considered an equal.

The same thing with slavery.  If you're going to steal their labor and life, you have dehumanize them.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You are correct, I was unaware of that, but still seems relatively small and short-lived.  Also somewhat undercuts the notion that the Chinese were not warlike.

 

And as with gunpowder, Chinese invented the compass, made some use of it, then sort of seemingly abandoned it at least as a marine instrument.  Why did they turn inward?

They aren't even fully sure why they turned inward.  They were certainly warlike and materialist well into the 15th century.  Doing a little reading it looks like they got their ass handed to them by guerrilla warfare in Vietnam in the mid 1400s.  That sounds familiar.  Then they were subject to various rebellions and outside attacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_dynasty

Edited July 5, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[TwiceHorn 32087]

11 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I think dehumanization is a chicken versus egg thing.  It doesn't occur in a vacuum.  It usually comes before or after a taking.  You come to America.  You want land that people are on.  You justify taking the land by dehumanizing the people who are on it as savages.  Plus it makes you feel better about doing it because you wouldn't take from someone you considered an equal.

The same thing with slavery.  If you're going to steal their labor and life, you have dehumanize them.

I take your point and generally agree.  I was simply referring to the dehumanization of political opponents, or others with whom one disagrees (e.g. Derka and his antagonists), which seems to be an unfortunate consequence of the anonymity and remoteness of engaging others on the internet. I try not to go there too often, but b_t really grinds my gears, in no small part because he seems to be a bright fellow with sincerely held beliefs that rarely exposes them except by demeaning and casting aspersions on people who may not agree with him.

Although, I might add that the basic human drive underlying racism and xenophobia, or fear of "other," however classified, is self-preservation and I imagine that, in the "occupier" model, it starts going both ways.  The parties clash, fear is raised, enemies are made, dehumanization commences.  Of course, it also goes on much longer than the opponent poses a threat.

Edited July 5, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Guest]

On 7/3/2018 at 9:06 AM, TwiceHorn said:

So, white western European males (WWEM) arguably advanced culture and civilization to its highest known point in history.  Along the way, it perpetrated all kinds of malfeasances (slavery, other subjugation of native people and women, etc.).

You may take issue with the above thesis statement, but I am also interested in a couple of other points.

First, in historical context, were the malfeasances of WWEM worse than other conquering or imperialistic cultures or groups?  Second, were the malfeasances in any way necessary to establish the advanced culture and civilization (perhaps not "necessary" per se, but expedient, at least**).  Third, did the advanced culture and civilization itself lead to the enlightenment necessary to acknowledge and at least feebly attempt to redress the malfeasances?

 

Kindly be civil, this is a sincere attempt to explore these issues.

 

**Obviously, malfeasances were expedient in that, for example, slavery was expedient to agriculture and building physical infrastructure.  What I really mean is would not engaging in the malfeasances have inhibited establishment of the culture/civilization to the point of failure.

No they were not worse, no they were not necessary, and yes they led to enlightenment, starting in the early part of the 19th century. And there is no “arguably” label needed about your thesis. 

[bad_teammate 13562]

Ugh the victimhood cries after being mildly confronted... it's exhausting.

"Look I'm just trying to argue that whites are arguably superior and that maybe all the shit they've done is OK because of how awesome iPhones are, OK? And it's all in a context of a rising tide of open anti-white hostility spearheaded by an executive and Congress stocked with racists. Why are people openly confronting me in somewhat not-friendly tones? It's basically like I'm a Holocaust victim! I'm just asking questions!"

What dehumanization has actually happened towards you, Mr. Victim? Read the thread. You started name-calling. I specifically attacked your ideas.

A challenge for you: Find the first instance of me personally insulting you or calling you a name.

This is how coddled and sensitive you are; direct and aggressive challenges to your ideas feel like personal attacks.

[David Dennison 19561]

1 minute ago, Rex Kramer said:

No they were not worse, no they were not necessary, and yes they led to enlightenment, starting in the early part of the 19th century. And there is no “arguably” label needed about your thesis. 

It's also not arguable that WWEM had lots of help from lots of other cultures. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's also not arguable that WWEM had lots of help from lots of other cultures. 

No doubt. I’m not sure this needs to be stated. It’s as if you think others think WWEM did this from scratch. 

[TwiceHorn 32087]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's also not arguable that WWEM had lots of help from lots of other cultures. 

Don't disagree with that at all. 

 

And, I'm also good with the notion that, everything considered, what "we have" is not the "best," or that there are other metrics that could or should be applied.  As bad_teammate suggests, but never expounds upon.

[JBJ 3828]

 

25 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

They aren't even fully sure why they turned inward.  They were certainly warlike and materialist well into the 15th century.  Doing a little reading it looks like they got their ass handed to them by guerrilla warfare in Vietnam in the mid 1400s.  That sounds familiar.  Then they were subject to various rebellions and outside attacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_dynasty

Usually the Song Dynasty is what people are referring to as the golden age of China.  The Ming Dynasty simply rediscovered things already developed under Song.  Paper, gunpowder, the Great Wall and the Great Canal were developed under Song rule - along with a wide swath of agricultural developments and hydro technology.

The First Song Dynasty started it's fall after losing an invasion into Vietnam (which is common in Chinese history), and manchurians successfully invading the north.  The manchurian invasion inspired the Second Song Dynasty to build its navy and turn to sea-faring.  They developed the compass, but I don't believe they ever used it in navigation.  Song teamed up with the Mongolians in recapturing northern China, but that only gave the Kahns a launching point to invade.

Edited July 5, 2018 by JBJ

[DixonHur 11967]

31 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

I respect your position as well and I suspect that we will not agree, but here is a bit of elaboration regardless:

I consider mathematics and mathematical objects absolute and unaffected by the passage of time, even though we are always finding out more and more about math and discovering new truths that give us broader perspective.  There are also approaches that we used to take in mathematics that we no longer take today as they are not believed to be fully rigorous.  Just as you argue for morality, it could be said that mathematics is a necessary tool of society and that our knowledge of it is ever evolving.  But among those who take the mathematical realism view (which is the majority of professional mathematicians), none of these facts are seen as serious challenges to the view that mathematics is absolute and unchanging.  

When I speak of morality as being absolute and unchanging, I am talking about morality as an independent ontological framework (e.g. natural law).  What we know about this framework, i.e. the epistemology of morality, is always changing - just as our knowledge of math changes.  But the fundamental ontological nature of both mathematics and morality does not change because our knowledge changes.

I suspect there's a thin line between our positions.  I too see math as absolute.  But math (and science) is repeatable, and something that can be objectively proven or disproven by anyone with the skills to do so.  

Morality is much more subjective.  There may be common kernals within most cultures, but going back to math, correlation doesn't prove causation.  It could be that these beliefs are inate, or it could be that they've been shown necessary to a functioning society.

Either way, it's nice to be able to have a civil discourse on the matter.

[TwiceHorn 32087]

4 minutes ago, JBJ said:

 

Usually the Song Dynasty is what people are referring to as the golden age of China.  The Ming Dynasty simply rediscovered things already developed under Song.  Paper, gunpowder, the Great Wall and the Great Canal were developed under Song rule - along with a wide swath of agricultural developments.

The First Song Dynasty started it's fall after losing an invasion into Vietnam (which is common in Chinese history), and manchurians successfully invading the north.  The manchurian invasion inspired the Second Song Dynasty to build its navy and turn to sea-faring.  They developed the compass, but I don't believe they ever used it in navigation.  Song teamed up with the Mongolians in recapturing northern China, but that only gave the Kahns a launching point to invade.

This is good shit.  I'm learning a lot thanks.

[DixonHur 11967]

50 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Moral relativism isn't that murder and war-killing are different.  Moral relativism is that murder cannot be described as good or bad.

Fair enough, but what I'm saying is that I don't believe in moral relativism, as described.  I think murder can be viewed as right or wrong based on the current morals of society.

I think morality serves a great purpose in creating a working society.  I just don't like the idea of imposing my morality on those from different historical periods.

Sidestepping race for a moment, because clearly we have  a ways to go on that front, our society sees men and women as essentially equal... others don't.  And our own view on this matter is relatively new,  having evolved greatly in just 40 years.

[ruitxn 299]

4 hours ago, Whitman said:

With my personal experience with (now dead) very old relatives, one of the ways slavery was rationalised was that the individuals were dehumanized.  Many did not think of blacks as humans, so you weren't owing a human.  My maternal grandmother was like this.  Though born after the war, she knew people that had been born slaves and we had slaves here on the farm that I currently own.  If you had asked her, there were "people", that was the white folks, "animals", like oxen and horses and cows, and then there were "nigras".  As repungnant as that is to us, if you dehumanize people, you can do some pretty terrible things to them.  I would imagine that happened often and by many in Nazi Germany with jews and even to some extent in any current military in a combat situation. 

This post might seem to be aberrant to younger or those with a non-agriculture heritage but from my experience it is spot on..Thankfully my kids and grandkids did not experience these influences.

[TwiceHorn 32087]

14 minutes ago, ruitxn said:

This post might seem to be aberrant to younger or those with a non-agriculture heritage but from my experience it is spot on..Thankfully my kids and grandkids did not experience these influences.

I think clearly the animating force behind slavery, besides simple greed, was the conclusion that blacks were a subhuman, inferior species.  Even a lot of abolitionists held that view.

[bad_teammate 13562]

47 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, I'm also good with the notion that, everything considered, what "we have" is not the "best," or that there are other metrics that could or should be applied.  As bad_teammate suggests, but never expounds upon.

Why would I expound upon which culture is the best? Do I believe such an assessment is possible?

[BrazilHorn 6853]

Why not look equally at religions role in subjecting women as well as casting those with different belief systems as "going to hell" etc

It is not necessarily a white man's burden but rather a man's burden as many religions globally set women as a sub class and view them as just meant to keep the house, have babies etc

 

[David Dennison 19561]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think clearly the animating force behind slavery, besides simple greed, was the conclusion that blacks were a subhuman, inferior species.  Even a lot of abolitionists held that view.

The uniquely virulent form of white racism in America, including the view that blacks are inferior, grew out of the institution itself. Many historians argue that it became a justification for African slavery after the fact. 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 32087]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The uniquely virulent form of white racism in America, including the view that blacks are inferior, grew out of the institution itself. Many historians argue that it became a justification for African slavery after the fact. 

 

 

As far as I can tell, that was a quite universal sentiment concerning African slavery.  The notion of black inferiority was well-entrenched prior to abolition.  Whether it may have extended post-abolition, I don't know.  Sounds plausible.

 

One of the reasons American racism is/was virulent is that you had a fairly large segment of society (the black slaves) suddenly, by fiat, granted full citizenship and forced to integrate into a society that looked down on them.  That is pretty unique among slavery-abolishing countries in the last 500 years or so.  Everyone else that did it kept their slaves far away in colonies, so the concept of slavery, and its converse, freed slaves, was mostly an abstraction.  I don't know how you avoid it, and I'm certainly not proposing that they shouldn't have been freed, but it is a unique circumstance.

 

It's also fairly well-documented among psychologists and sociologists (if you can believe anything they say anymore) that gradual integration of in-groups and out-groups is far more successful than a sudden thrusting of them together.

[JBJ 3828]

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

Fair enough, but what I'm saying is that I don't believe in moral relativism, as described.  I think murder can be viewed as right or wrong based on the current morals of society.

I think morality serves a great purpose in creating a working society.  I just don't like the idea of imposing my morality on those from different historical periods.

Sidestepping race for a moment, because clearly we have  a ways to go on that front, our society sees men and women as essentially equal... others don't.  And our own view on this matter is relatively new,  having evolved greatly in just 40 years.

I think morality is best understood like an irrational number (pi).  We use approximations that change over time, that the end result is real, that our knowledge of end result is ultimately limited, and that the history can be judged through both the approximations of that time and through our own approximations - but the distinction is important.

For example, in a world where slave ownership was [3.1].  George Washington can be described as a [3.14] slave-owner.  We like to look back and call him immoral because now we see it as [3.1415]. 

It blurs further when it comes to law-making.  We create laws based on approximations of personal morality.  There are people with valid self-defense claims who killed their assailants with murderous intent.  We can't crawl inside the minds of the accused to determine who was acting morally or not, so we defer to this standard out of reasonableness.

Edited July 5, 2018 by JBJ

[David Dennison 19561]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's also fairly well-documented among psychologists and sociologists (if you can believe anything they say anymore) that gradual integration of in-groups and out-groups is far more successful than a sudden thrusting of them together.

I guess that means it's a good thing white people becoming the out group is happening gradually.

[DixonHur 11967]

1 hour ago, JBJ said:

I think morality is best understood like an irrational number (pi).  We use approximations that change over time, that the end result is real, that our knowledge of end result is ultimately limited, and that the history can be judged through both the approximations of that time and through our own approximations - but the distinction is important.

For example, in a world where slave ownership was [3.1].  George Washington can be described as a [3.14] slave-owner.  We like to look back and call him immoral because now we see it as [3.1415]. 

It blurs further when it comes to law-making.  We create laws based on approximations of personal morality.  There are people with valid self-defense claims who killed their assailants with murderous intent.  We can't crawl inside the minds of the accused to determine who was acting morally or not, so we defer to this standard out of reasonableness.

I picked the wrong day to stop taking LSD. 😉

[JBJ 3828]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

I guess that means it's a good thing white people becoming the out group is happening gradually.

If history tells us anything, it's that society will just realign.

I'm currently white, but wouldn't have been in 1900.  Russell Crowe and Dwayne Johnson are considered white.  I'd bet that for all his belly-aching Brisket's children will be considered white within their lifetime (or whatever the new nativist word is). 

Edited July 5, 2018 by JBJ

[Guest]

4 hours ago, DixonHur said:

I suspect there's a thin line between our positions.  I too see math as absolute.  But math (and science) is repeatable, and something that can be objectively proven or disproven by anyone with the skills to do so.  

Morality is much more subjective.  There may be common kernals within most cultures, but going back to math, correlation doesn't prove causation.  It could be that these beliefs are inate, or it could be that they've been shown necessary to a functioning society.

Either way, it's nice to be able to have a civil discourse on the matter.

My view is that it is more difficult for us to know facts of absolute morality with certainty compared to basic facts of mathematics; but this only says something about our ability to know absolute morality and doesn't cast doubt on its existence. 

Suppose a boy in an ancient culture was born into a particularly harsh form of slavery in which slaves have no rights at all and no chance at freedom.  In this culture slavery is legal and is viewed as a morally permissible & beneficial institution; it is taught that slavery is in the best interests of slaves as their better educated masters have the slaves best interests in mind and will look out for them (as a good land owner will look out for and take care of all of his property).  As a young man the slave knows he holds an inferior place in society and senses the base injustice of it all, although he is not able to articulate exactly why it is wrong.  As he grows older he realizes that he is a slave merely because it benefits his masters and their social class and that the practice is intrinsically unfair & unjust to children born into slavery with no chance to advance or educate or free themselves.  On what basis can he claim that the system is unjust?  If morality is subjective and cultural dependent, then he cannot claim slavery is unjust from the perspective of his culture as it is both legal and widely considered morally permissible.  But what he rightfully appeals to is natural law/absolute morality.  It is unjust because it violates fundamental moral principles.

When anyone claims that something is inherently unjust, they are appealing to absolute morality.  Every child from every culture knows that when he and his brother each have a toy and his brother takes his toy merely because he can that this is an injustice.  And what will the boy rightfully scream as soon as the theft occurs?  What is he appealing to when he says that this is not fair?  Certainly not any subjective standard of cultural norms.  He is appealing to the same transcendental standard of justice that all men appeal to when they know they've been wronged.  

[Marcus Aurelius 5]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

You are correct, I was unaware of that, but still seems relatively small and short-lived.  Also somewhat undercuts the notion that the Chinese were not warlike.

 

And as with gunpowder, Chinese invented the compass, made some use of it, then sort of seemingly abandoned it at least as a marine instrument.  Why did they turn inward?

In addition to the previous responses, I want to add that the Chinese didnt have as much of an incentive to explore the world as the Europeans did. The fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Ottomans resulted in western Europe being cut off from lucrative trade routes that used to be open. This was the main impetus behind Portugal and Spain´s exploration campaigns as they wanted to find a way to circumvent the Ottomans.This is why Columbus was looking for India after all. In short, a big reason why (but not the only one) the new world wasnt conquered by China or the Ottoman Empire is because they really didnt have a pressing economic need to do so because they were already situated along the prime trading routes. China also had a good thing going with their tribute system in which their neighbors were economically subordinate.

Theres an interesting theory that the Confucian principles imbedded in Chinese society may have contributed to restraining the desire for overseas explorations versus the Christian ethos of spreading the gospel but I´m not to well versed in that department.

 

 

[DixonHur 11967]

1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

My view is that it is more difficult for us to know facts of absolute morality with certainty compared to basic facts of mathematics; but this only says something about our ability to know absolute morality and doesn't cast doubt on its existence. 

Suppose a boy in an ancient culture was born into a particularly harsh form of slavery in which slaves have no rights at all and no chance at freedom.  In this culture slavery is legal and is viewed as a morally permissible & beneficial institution; it is taught that slavery is in the best interests of slaves as their better educated masters have the slaves best interests in mind and will look out for them (as a good land owner will look out for and take care of all of his property).  As a young man the slave knows he holds an inferior place in society and senses the base injustice of it all, although he is not able to articulate exactly why it is wrong.  As he grows older he realizes that he is a slave merely because it benefits his masters and their social class and that the practice is intrinsically unfair & unjust to children born into slavery with no chance to advance or educate or free themselves.  On what basis can he claim that the system is unjust?  If morality is subjective and cultural dependent, then he cannot claim slavery is unjust from the perspective of his culture as it is both legal and widely considered morally permissible.  But what he rightfully appeals to is natural law/absolute morality.  It is unjust because it violates fundamental moral principles.

When anyone claims that something is inherently unjust, they are appealing to absolute morality.  Every child from every culture knows that when he and his brother each have a toy and his brother takes his toy merely because he can that this is an injustice.  And what will the boy rightfully scream as soon as the theft occurs?  What is he appealing to when he says that this is not fair?  Certainly not any subjective standard of cultural norms.  He is appealing to the same transcendental standard of justice that all men appeal to when they know they've been wronged.  

4

Assuming we take the modern dictionary definition of 'fair', does something being unfair automatically make it amoral?  Is it amoral for the older brother to take the toy?  Or is it simply a case of Darwinian survival of the fittest? 

My dogs get upset when the other takes its toy/bone, but I would prescribe morals to them.  It's just resource guarding.

As my mom always said..."life isn't fair"