Why is slavery wrong?

[uwot]

*knock yourself...elsewhere

I will knock myself precisely where it pleases me to do so. If you have a problem with that, you are not the libertarian you pretend to be.

**slavers are cunts...well, okay...gonna put that one in the slavery is wrong cuz it's offensive pile

Do you have a better pile?

[promethean75]

"not sure what your point is, pro... "

I had no point.

Can't a man just troll a thread in peace without some serious philosopher bothering em?

[uwot]

Can't a man just troll a thread in peace without some serious philosopher bothering em?

Of course, but the longer they do so, the greater the risk of bumping into a serious philosopher.

[promethean75]

Indeed. A troll is beset on all sides by the iniquities of serious philosophers, and he must remain the most vigilant, therefore.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Can't a man just troll a thread in peace without some serious philosopher bothering em?

Of course, but the longer they do so, the greater the risk of bumping into a serious philosopher.

Or perhaps a not so serious one?

[henry quirk]

uwot,

I will knock myself precisely where it pleases me to do so.

I guess it wouldn't help if I asked nice: please, sir, can you leave my thread be?

If you have a problem with that, you are not the libertarian you pretend to be.

pretend to be: you may be right, though not for the reason you think

[henry quirk]

"not sure what your point is, pro... "

I had no point.

Can't a man just troll a thread in peace without some serious *philosopher bothering em?

*not me

[henry quirk]

still: no answer to the question

[RCSaunders]

RC:

This is my final response to your cavilling about God here. Henry's right: this thread was started by him, for the topic above. I am going to honour his wishes and revert to that here. Here, this discussion amounts to a mere "red herring," and I will jump at no more here.

Nevertheless, lest you think I had any fear of answering, or that your devastating rebuffs had magnificently "struck me into dumbness," (to quote the Bard), I shall give you one final answer below. It shall have to suffice for you.

No, it's based on the impossbility of an infinitely regressing chain of causes -- a mathematical certainty that requires no reference to belief in anthing but maths.

More reification! "Maths," can only describe countable or measurable attributes of things that actually exist. There are no, "maths," except as concepts in human minds. You really have a problem with floating abstractions.

You're incorrect.

Mathematical properties never purport to exist in a nominal way...they exist as adjectives. And to complain that you can find no concrete "red" or absolute "blue" does not count as any argument against colours; for they, too, are adjectival, not nominal.

But adjectivally, mathematical quantities are very real. A "two" may never exist on its own, but "two sheep," "two aqualungs," and "two jelly beans" all genuinely share the adjectival reality of "two-ness."

And better still, numbers are remarkably concrete as adjectives. "Redness" and "blueness" admit of degrees and shades. But 2 is two. And 2+2 will always equal 4, no matter what anybody says.

So it's no case of "reification." A "reification" is something that becomes only apparently objective as a result of a process like longevity or general acceptance. But 2 is II, is two, is deux, is dos, is **. And no skepticism on your side changes that.

So a proof against the idea of an infinite regression of causes that appeals strictly to the absolute regularities of mathematics, is indeed a powerful one. In fact, I would suggest it has no rational objection to it.

The second law of thermodynamics is actually an additional reason for believing in a Uncaused Cause.

That is your mistaken mystical view of the nature of cause (as if it were something that made things be or happen).

I said no such thing. What I said was...

For it shows that at one time, there had to be a singular, massive infusion of order into the universe ...

And you tried the very lame reply,

More reification! "Order," is not a, "something." You don't know what order is.

If it were true that you could not know what "order" is, then you could not say there was any such thing as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For that law is a claim about "entropy," and "entropy" means," lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder." (Oxford)

So your appeal to the Second Law of Thermodynamics would sum up as, "A law we don't know the meaning of says something against Theism..." Not a great argument, I think we can both see.

The state of the universe cannot, in that sense, be "perpetual," simply because the universe is a contingent ...

What you mean by, "universe," is obscure. It usually means, "all there is," in which case it could not possibly be contingent on anything else, because there could not be anything else.

I'm referring not to the expansive definition, but to the common one: the realm of the physical.

And your critique is that since God exists within the universe, He, like anything else, would have to be a caused being. But the fallacy is in the premise: God -- even considered just as a concept in which IC believes but RC does not -- denies that God is a piece of furniture within the universe defined as the material-physical realm.

If one understands the term "God" to refer to "The Supreme Being" and "The Creator of the Universe," then one is already positing the existence of a Being beyond and transcending the physical-material universe.

The important point is simply this: there is no aspect of the concept (I'm not requiring you to believe in it, here, just to consider it as a concept) that makes the idea that "God has to have a cause" logical. It's clearly a demand that is not required by the concept itself, and in fact, which the concept itself denies.

Anyone who understands, therefore, what is meant by "God" does not think of some contingent being bound within the confines of time and space, or beholden to the regularities of a merely physical-material universe -- a universe which all Theists believe He created in the first place.

But, having answered your off-topic stuff now, I'm going to go back to the matter of the "wrongness" of slavery. (Further discussion of God should be referred to the appropriate thread, not here, as Henry has rightly pointed out.)

Have you got anything interesting on that?

You insist that reality is contingent, and insist the only basis for slavery being wrong is the thing reality is contingent on (or God), then refuse to let anyone question your premise. Sorry, but that is dishonest, and it's not a mistake, but you have to live with your own deceit.

[RCSaunders]

take it elsewhere, guy...please

I don't think I wrote anything to you, but if I wrote anything that offends you, the offense was not intentional. What I write to others is really none of your business. If you are referring to that, well I'm not accustomed to doing what others want just because they get their panties in a wad. If you don't like what I write, don't read it.

Have a nice day--boss!

buddy, you couldn't offend me if you tried: you just ain't that interestin'

no, as I wrote up-thread...

now, fellers, I likes me a good God fight as much as anybody, but this thread ain't about that

this thread is about is slavery wrong?/why is slavery wrong?

if God is the Reason, that's well & fine: say so, then take the debate about His existence to any of the other extant threads where such things dominate

now, what I would like to see here, if you say God is the Reason, is some examination of His nature, His character

connect the dots between God and slavery as immoral (cuz I can envision a Creator who doesn't give a flip about free will, personhood, etc.)

but, the whole God exists! God doesn't exist! debate, please, take that elsewhere

"Slavery is wrong because God made men what they and therefore they own themselves, but you are not allowed to question the God part of that argument."

Sure. Just ignore the man behind the curtain.

[henry quirk]

I get your point: reality is though, we start down that road God exists! God doesn't exist! and the question on the table disappears and the folks who say there is no moral reality are off the hook to explain why they see slavery as wrong beyond personal preference

your own position, for example: relative to any individual's own success and well-being, enslaving others or being a slave is self-harmful and ultimately self-destructive

why? you say there are no natural rights, and no Creator from who natural law and rights extend...so why is it wrong for one man to own another? what is there about man that makes slaving him harmful and destructive?

If I'm wrong and there is no Creator, and Reality is just an amoral, rudderless, affair, then why is owning a man any different than owning a chimpanzee or a cow or a goldfish?

[Immanuel Can]

You insist that reality is contingent and insist the only basis for slavery being wrong is the thing reality is contingent on (or God),

These words I have never said. In fact, your grammar doesn't even make sense.

then refuse to let anyone question your premise.

Never did that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Did you read the rest of my post??

Absolutely. It was just a vague "appeal to authority" fallacy, referring to Hare, with a fair number of red herrings thrown in. The only premise on which your whole argument really rested was the one in red.

This is your cheap trash.
I have never banged on the statement in red. That was merely a highlight of an intuitive statement which Hare insisted should not be relied upon but rather 'why slavery is wrong' must be justified with facts and philosophical reasoning.

Don't insult your intelligence, read it again,

Nearly everybody would agree that slavery is wrong; and I can say this perhaps with greater feeling than most, having in a manner of speaking been a slave {as a prisoner of war -Burma}.

However, there are dangers in just taking for granted that something is wrong; for we may then assume that it is obvious that it is wrong and indeed obvious why it is wrong; and this leads to a prevalence of very bad arguments with quite silly conclusions, all based on the so-called absolute value of human freedom.

I provided an argument from RM Hare [which I agree mostly] where he relied upon utilitarianism and based on empirical facts.

You allege two arguments here: "utilitarianism," and "empirical facts."

Utilitarianism has been soundly debunked so many times I'm surprised to find it even mentioned. But here's a fair, two-sided critique of its strengths and weaknesses. Rather than me bothering, you can just read this yourself. https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/jcander ... iticis.htm

As I had started I agree with Utilitarianism to a certain extent after discounting the obvious criticism. Note Uwot's point.

Your point was the answer is as easy as ABC, I highlighted Hare's article to demonstrate that is not the case.

As for "empirical facts," I can't imagine what you mean, unless you're saying that old think you do say, that the Is-Ought Problem has just conveniently disappeared; which it most assuredly has not, but for some reason you won't even hear about.

So not citing "Hare" as if he's on your side, and not appealing to "Utilitarianism," and not sliding over to "empirical facts" helps you at all. Those are just distractors, and easily dispatched. You don't even develop what you mean when you say you only "partly" agree with Hare, or that you think Utilitarianism backs your play, or what empirical fact you think warrants the claim that slavery is wrong. Those three things are transparent bluffs.

Your only real claim is that you think people all "agree" that slavery is wrong. But you're wrong about that, as well, of course, as I pointed out.

The "is-ought" has its limitations for moral issues based the numerous threads I had posted in the 'Ethical Theory' section.

Hare in his article stated empirical facts, historical facts, e.g. reports of the torture [physical and mental] sufferings by slaves in various books and other sources.

Also read my point re how scientific facts are processed as moral facts within a Moral FSK.
viewtopic.php?p=558050#p558050

[uwot]

uwot,

I will knock myself precisely where it pleases me to do so.

I guess it wouldn't help if I asked nice: please, sir, can you leave my thread be?

thread started as a mockery

If you have a problem with that, you are not the libertarian you pretend to be.

pretend to be: you may be right, though not for the reason you think

Well aren't you the mystery?

[uwot]

Can't a man just troll a thread in peace without some serious philosopher bothering em?

Of course, but the longer they do so, the greater the risk of bumping into a serious philosopher.

Or perhaps a not so serious one?

Who of us takes themselves the more seriously Gus?