Where did the Private Internal Moral Laws Arise from?

[Immanuel Can]

Of course I make judgements all the time.

You do. But not just about consumer choices. You have strong opinions about what it is okay or not okay for a person to ask, and want to foist them on VA and I, if nobody else. And you think it's "wrong" to make moral judgments in such situations...the most incoherent of your positions yet, since it is, itself, a judgment.

Surprise!

Since you refuse to answer my question,

Later. Later doesn't mean "no." It just means, not yet.

You'll figure it out.

[Immanuel Can]

... but if you are not, you have nothing to say on the subject.

You're slow, but with patience one can sometimes make you understand.

Talking about "slow"!

You interrogate others who pass moral judgments, as to their right to ask questions about moral situations. And you assume we'll all agree with you, on the assumption (as you put it) that it's "not their business." Well, in your world, it cannot be wrong to get into "somebody else's business."

So yes, you have nothing to say on the subject...at least, nothing non-hypocritical, nothing non-judgmental and nothing consistent.

[iambiguous]

...it's the government itself that's doing it, just as [China's] one-child policy...

Just for the record...

"China has announced that it will allow couples to have up to three children, after census data showed a steep decline in birth rates. China scrapped its decades-old one-child policy in 2016, replacing it with a two-child limit which has failed to lead to a sustained upsurge in births." May 31, 2021 BBC.

Of course, when you have thought yourself into believing that your own "Private Internal Moral Laws" are derived from, say, the Christian God, you are given a Scripture by which to judge all of the "Private Internal Moral Laws" of others.

That you merely take a more or less blind "leap of faith" to this Creator doesn't make the judgmental convictions of some any less adamant.

Yeah, that move came far too late.

They already created an immense pool of poor Chinese men who have no reasonable prospect of any marriage at all...and hence, the problem of "village women."

This is a case of simply "nailing the barn door shut long after the horse has bolted."

I suspect your whole point here revolves around the moral and political and spiritual assumption that, when it comes to Private Internal Moral Laws, the place to go is not to a Godless state government but to your own private and personal assumptions about the Christian God.

On the other hand, the government in China [which I suspect no one here doubts exist] has to deal with the reality of over 1.4 billion actual flesh and blood human beings. The role and the function of the individual amidst all of them.

You, on the other hand, want all individuals to subscribe to your own set of assumptions about morality and the Christian God, an entity that, to the best of my knowledge, you are not even able to demonstrate does in fact actually exist.

[henry quirk]

RC,

1. One who is owned as the property of someone else, especially in involuntary servitude.

This is what I talk about when I talk about slavery.

2. One who is subservient to or controlled by another: his boss's slave.

The wage slave is not a slave. A slave cannot, without dire consequence, tell the slaver I quit and walk out. The wage slave can.

3. One who is subject to or controlled by a specified influence: a slave to alcohol; a slave to an irrational fear.

Addiction or psycho-damage is awful, but it ain't slavery.

No, the person who enlists is not a slave. What he will soon be is an agent of The State.

In the Christian Bible one can choose to be a life-time slave and property of their master in exchange for a promise of being taken care of.

This sounds less like slavery and more like a business arrangement. Both parties benefit. There's sumthin' like a contract in place with each party obligated to make good or, presumably, the deal is off. It ain't slavery (life time slave is, I'm guessin', a poor translation from, what?, the original greek).

My real point is, since you seem to think you ought to take action against those you regard as enslaving others, when was the last time you attempted to save some gullible young person from being tricked into slavery by a military recruiter?

My 15 year old made some noise recently about enlistin' when he reached 18. I explained why bein' an agent of The State is a lousy idea. Slavery never came up cuz non-conscripted military service ain't slavery.

most know what they are joining and relish the opportunity to kill the enemy and destory their property.

You know, for a guy who makes such a big to-do about his individualism, who resists bein' lumped in with groups, you sure do spend an awful lotta time strippin' others of their singularness and lumpin' 'em together into lil groups.

Some folks join the military becuz they want the education and training and gamble they'll never see combat. Some legitimately are patriotic (they may be naive, but they aren't evil) and want to serve the nation. Some, yeah, are violence junkies lookin' to be violent. Some are long-thinkers lookin' at service today as a means to power tomorrow.

There is no one size fits all in motivation.

Anyway: non-conscripted military service is not slavery. At its worst, it's a training program for the enforcers of slavery.

Now, let's roll back to slavery...

You say: if someone has no objection to being a slave and there is no cruelty involved, however mistaken I think both the slave and master might be how is it my business to force my view down their throat.

Aside from, as I say, the fact there is no such person -- never has been, never will be -- who does not object bein' enslaved, I'm flabbergasted you see no role for yourself in bluntin' the slaver. If morality or compassion mean nuthin' to you, then how about self-preservation? The free rangin' slaver, left unchallenged, leads to a proliferation of slavers. If for no other reason than keep your own keister offa the auction block, I'd think you'd, at the very least, be able to say, without reservation or caveat: slavery is wrong full-stop.

[RCSaunders]

... but if you are not, you have nothing to say on the subject.

You're slow, but with patience one can sometimes make you understand.

Talking about "slow"!

You interrogate others who pass moral judgments, as to their right to ask questions about moral situations. And you assume we'll all agree with you, on the assumption (as you put it) that it's "not their business." Well, in your world, it cannot be wrong to get into "somebody else's business."

So yes, you have nothing to say on the subject...at least, nothing non-hypocritical, nothing non-judgmental and nothing consistent.

I really don't care what kind of lies you want to tell about me, but I am bewildered by why you do it. I never question anyone's, "rights." I do not believe in rights or that the concept identifies anything more than a wish.

I certainly won't ever ask you another question because you'll call it, "interrogation."

I do have to wonder how anyone could even contemplate the God you claim to represent after having any dealings with your disingenuous arguments and slanderous indictments if that is what belief in God produces. I cannot blame you or find fault with what you do if you are satisfied with the results. You perhaps see nothing wrong with deceit and false accusations, many people do not. Only you can judge whether what you do is right for you to do or not. It wouldn't be for me and and such methods will certainly never convince me, having the opposite affect.

I don't think I'd like to subject myself to any more of your abuse, however, so I can only wish you well.

[Immanuel Can]

I really don't care what kind of lies you want to tell about me

There are no "lies." It's evident that you both claim not to judge, and yet judge. It can be discerned from your own words. So the truth is that the two contradictory claims are inconsistent and hypocritical. That's observable.

[RCSaunders]

RC,
slavery is wrong full-stop.

I did not question whether slavery was wrong or not. Although I do question exactly what one means when they say it is, "wrong," but that's another question.

Lot's of things are wrong but one cannot spend their entire life discovering everything that is wrong and worrying about it or trying to fix it? There's an old piece of wisdom that says there are two kinds of things in this world, those you can do something about, and those you cannot. Wisdom is identifying which things can be changed and which cannot. There is a second half to that wisdom, even if something can be changed, if it is not part of one's own life, which will certainly have enough issues of its own to deal with, concerning oneself with what does not directly affect them is borrowing trouble.

Is slavery something you believe you can actually do anything about? Can you do something that will end it in the word? Do you really have so many left-over resources that you can afford the time and effort taken away from your own life and interests to solve problems like slavery? Does slavery actually matter to you and your life in any practical way?

By the way. I'm not suggesting anything either way. It just seems to me about 90% of the things people worry themselves about are really non-issues or at least none of their business.

This is really only a way looking at life itself and determining what's truly important and what isn't, not some profound philosophical concept.

[henry quirk]

You can't say it: slavery is wrong.

You can't simply, directly, say: it's wrong for one man to own another.

And, it seems to me, you also can't say: a man belongs to himself.

The test: when agents of The State come to you and lay claim to you or your property (as such folks have, over and over, thruout history, all over the world) how will you respond?

I'm bettin', like me, you won't go peaceably.

Or, if you do go, it'll be under duress.

Like me, like anyone, you'll burn inside knowin' your life is yours, your property is yours, and these agents of The State have no claim on either.

You may never say it, but you know it: slavery is wrong.

[RCSaunders]

You can't say it: slavery is wrong.

You can't simply, directly, say: it's wrong for one man to own another.

Of course I can say it, Henry, but I won't, because no matter how much I dislike something or oppose it, my feelings do not trump principles and nothing is just wrong. There are no intrinsic values. Nothing is just good, bad, right, or wrong because those words are terms of relationship, not absolutes. Things are only good, bad, right, or wrong relative to an objective, purpose, end, or goal. There are no values where nothing is at stake. I could only say slavery is wrong relative to some objective or purpose.

It seems to me, this might be why keep repeating:

And, it seems to me, you also can't say: a man belongs to himself.

Which I definitely will not say. My life is not something separate from me, like a piece of property or some good that is mine to use and dispose of as I choose. I am my life which makes me both responsible for all I choose and the sole authority for that choice, but I don't, "own," myself.

Frankly, I have never understood how you think saying, "a man belongs to himself," in any way relates to slavery or your idea of, "rights." When I grew a garden, all that I grew belonged to me, which meant I could do anything I chose to with it: eat it, preserve it, sell it, give it away, bury it, or burn it. But you don't think a man who owns himself can sell himself into slavery, so you don't really believe he owns himself, because he cannot do anything he chooses with what he owns. [I don't either.]

And don't animals own themselves? Of course, domestic animals and captured animals are owned, but the wild animals before they are captured, don't they belong to themselves? You don't think that provides them any protection from being captured and owned by others, do you? I'm sure they dislike it just as much as most human beings.

[In case you are tempted to misinterpret that. There is, in my view, nothing wrong with capturing, hunting (fishing or trapping) or in other way using or keeping animals for human benefit, with the exception of those who derive some perverse pleasure from seeing any other creatures suffer. So long as animal suffering is just an inevitable consequence of their use it is simply a fact of life just like suffering humans choose to endure to achieve their goals and higher values.]

I will never be a slave and will never have anything to do with slavery, because it is wrong for me and all that I live for and aspire to. I cannot and will not say anything is just wrong, including slavery, without saying exactly what one means by slavery, what it is wrong for and to whom.

The test: when agents of The State come to you and lay claim to you or your property (as such folks have, over and over, thruout history, all over the world) how will you respond?

I'm bettin', like me, you won't go peaceably.

Or, if you do go, it'll be under duress.

Like me, like anyone, you'll burn inside knowin' your life is yours, your property is yours, and these agents of The State have no claim on either.

You may never say it, but you know it: slavery is wrong.

Oh my. What a mistake. "Stand and fight," which is almost always a loosing strategy and the one that gets so many killed and maimed, from bar fights to wars.

For me, the test came years ago, fortunately after I had already learned the first rule of defense: whenever possible, don't be there when it happens. Guess you haven't learned that yet, but keep going the way you are and you will.

I have no objection to your viewing slavery being wrong as some kind of absolute, and I'm not going try to convince you otherwise. I don't think it's actually likely to be an issue in either of our lives and it is certainly not something that can be eliminated from the world. My view is, that slavery is like most social/political issues, totally irrelevant to my life and my only dealing with slavery is to never be one and never have one.

[henry quirk]

you don't think a man who owns himself can sell himself into slavery

No, I don't. Oh, he could go thru the motions, I suppose, but even then, he would know it's an illegitimate transaction. At no point would he say I'm property now and mean it. The kicker, of course, is no one sells himself. No one voluntarily becomes property.

That is: everyone, includin' you, understands that sellin' tomatoes from his garden is not the same as sellin' himself.

My tomato and my self: these are not equivalent.

I have never understood how you think saying, "a man belongs to himself," in any way relates to slavery or your idea of, "rights."

Like I told pro...

I just think that talk about 'owning' oneself is strange

Don't get hung up on a word.

Bottomline: you, pro, are yours, and no one else's. Call it ownness, or self-possession, or self-belonging, or your right to yourself, or whatever you like. The placeholder is not the fact.

animals own themselves?

Only the ones who are persons do.

I will never be a slave and will never have anything to do with slavery, because it is wrong for me and all that I live for and aspire to.

Of course not. This applies to everyone. Everyone knows this about themselves. Even the slaver -- as he is involved in slavin' -- knows it's wrong.

"Stand and fight" vs "don't be there when it happens"

Bad guys don't always telegraph their purpose, so: the second may be preferable, but -- sometimes -- the first is unavoidable.

For me, the test came years ago.

Me too.

I don't think it's actually likely to be an issue in either of our lives

Oh, it's an issue, here & now, for both of us.

[RCSaunders]

you don't think a man who owns himself can sell himself into slavery

No, I don't. Oh, he could go thru the motions, I suppose, but even then, he would know it's an illegitimate transaction. At no point would he say I'm property now and mean it. The kicker, of course, is no one sells himself. No one voluntarily becomes property.

That is: everyone, includin' you, understands that sellin' tomatoes from his garden is not the same as sellin' himself.

My tomato and my self: these are not equivalent.

I have never understood how you think saying, "a man belongs to himself," in any way relates to slavery or your idea of, "rights."

Like I told pro...

I just think that talk about 'owning' oneself is strange

Don't get hung up on a word.

Bottomline: you, pro, are yours, and no one else's. Call it ownness, or self-possession, or self-belonging, or your right to yourself, or whatever you like. The placeholder is not the fact.

animals own themselves?

Only the ones who are persons do.

I will never be a slave and will never have anything to do with slavery, because it is wrong for me and all that I live for and aspire to.

Of course not. This applies to everyone. Everyone knows this about themselves. Even the slaver -- as he is involved in slavin' -- knows it's wrong.

"Stand and fight" vs "don't be there when it happens"

Bad guys don't always telegraph their purpose, so: the second may be preferable, but -- sometimes -- the first is unavoidable.

For me, the test came years ago.

Me too.

I don't think it's actually likely to be an issue in either of our lives

Oh, it's an issue, here & now, for both of us.

Speak for yourself. Of course life is full of trouble if you go through life looking for it. If you regard every difference as a conflict and fighting the only solution to differences, that's what you'll have.

[henry quirk]

Speak for yourself. Of course life is full of trouble if you go through life looking for it.

As I say: bad guys don't always telegraph their purpose. Sure, it's preferable to not be there when it happens but sometimes you gotta stand and fight.

If you regard every difference as a conflict and fighting the only solution to differences, that's what you'll have

Hey, I'm quite content to leave others to their lives. Some of 'em, though, aren't content to leave others to their lives (hi, bubba!). They're the ones the ones who infringe, not me.

[Sculptor]

RC,

1. One who is owned as the property of someone else, especially in involuntary servitude.

This is what I talk about when I talk about slavery.

2. One who is subservient to or controlled by another: his boss's slave.

The wage slave is not a slave. A slave cannot, without dire consequence, tell the slaver I quit and walk out. The wage slave can.

3. One who is subject to or controlled by a specified influence: a slave to alcohol; a slave to an irrational fear.

Addiction or psycho-damage is awful, but it ain't slavery.

No, the person who enlists is not a slave. What he will soon be is an agent of The State.

In the Christian Bible one can choose to be a life-time slave and property of their master in exchange for a promise of being taken care of.

This sounds less like slavery and more like a business arrangement. Both parties benefit. There's sumthin' like a contract in place with each party obligated to make good or, presumably, the deal is off. It ain't slavery (life time slave is, I'm guessin', a poor translation from, what?, the original greek).

My real point is, since you seem to think you ought to take action against those you regard as enslaving others, when was the last time you attempted to save some gullible young person from being tricked into slavery by a military recruiter?

My 15 year old made some noise recently about enlistin' when he reached 18. I explained why bein' an agent of The State is a lousy idea. Slavery never came up cuz non-conscripted military service ain't slavery.

most know what they are joining and relish the opportunity to kill the enemy and destory their property.

You know, for a guy who makes such a big to-do about his individualism, who resists bein' lumped in with groups, you sure do spend an awful lotta time strippin' others of their singularness and lumpin' 'em together into lil groups.

Some folks join the military becuz they want the education and training and gamble they'll never see combat. Some legitimately are patriotic (they may be naive, but they aren't evil) and want to serve the nation. Some, yeah, are violence junkies lookin' to be violent. Some are long-thinkers lookin' at service today as a means to power tomorrow.

There is no one size fits all in motivation.

Anyway: non-conscripted military service is not slavery. At its worst, it's a training program for the enforcers of slavery.

Now, let's roll back to slavery...

You say: if someone has no objection to being a slave and there is no cruelty involved, however mistaken I think both the slave and master might be how is it my business to force my view down their throat.

Aside from, as I say, the fact there is no such person -- never has been, never will be -- who does not object bein' enslaved, I'm flabbergasted you see no role for yourself in bluntin' the slaver. If morality or compassion mean nuthin' to you, then how about self-preservation? The free rangin' slaver, left unchallenged, leads to a proliferation of slavers. If for no other reason than keep your own keister offa the auction block, I'd think you'd, at the very least, be able to say, without reservation or caveat: slavery is wrong full-stop.

Since we are talking about morality it might be useful to actually survey the moral viewpoints about slavery before pretending that each of us has the natural and moral high ground.
Aristotle asserts that slaves are so because they are naturally slavish and that it would be a disservice to them to not enslave them. This natural slavery was pretty much believed throughout the ancient world are remained a key argument well into the 19thC.
When you juxtapose this moral norm from the beginnings of civilisation across thousands of years until you get to the weak arguments of Internet warriors that think what they have learned in school is really a private, internal and normative moral law, you can only laugh.

Morality has to be argued for. It is not "natural" though it might hang on natural tendencies, it is learned.

[henry quirk]

Morality has to be argued for. It is not "natural" though it might hang on natural tendencies, it is learned.

Oh, I have. I point to the simple fact that each man knows about himself -- that he is his own -- and I derive an ethic or morality from that: A man's life, liberty, and property are his; it's wrong to use him as property, to steal from him, to kill him, to defraud him, etc.

I don't see how the fact or the ethic derived from the fact are disputable.

Mebbe you can?

C'mon, give it a shot.

[RCSaunders]

Speak for yourself. Of course life is full of trouble if you go through life looking for it.

As I say: bad guys don't always telegraph their purpose. Sure, it's preferable to not be there when it happens but sometimes you gotta stand and fight.

If you regard every difference as a conflict and fighting the only solution to differences, that's what you'll have

Hey, I'm quite content to leave others to their lives. Some of 'em, though, aren't content to leave others to their lives (hi, bubba!). They're the ones the ones who infringe, not me.

Then don't hang out with them.

When I had your attitude, and I did, someone explained to me, "you know, except to yourself and a few very close to you, most people don't even know you exist or care about or think about you at all." The idea that others were out to get me, that others were just looking to infringe on my life or interests was hubris. Of course it happens. So do earthquakes, tornadoes, fires, and disease, but they are exceptions one makes preparations for, which mostly means, avoiding them--not fighting them.

One should certainly defend themselves against physical threats from others and know how to do it, as one ought to be able to deal with any kind danger or threat, but most of those who are actually threatened by others have put themselves in situations that made those threats possible or likely, situations that could very easily have been avoided.

I have been asked, "why should I have to change what I'd like to do just because someone else threatens me?" Of course you don't. What you cannot do is evade the choice. If there is going to be a threat, if you decide to risk it and it happens, you'll have to defend yourself if you can. Or, you could just not do the thing you think is so important it's worth the risk of physical threat. But you have to decide which, in the long run, is better for you.

Your not going to teach an earthquake, tornadoe, fire, or disease, a lesson by intentionally confronting them, and your not going to change a thug into nice guy by confronting him. If I believed like you that some kind of threat to my person or property were imminent, I'd not be there any longer, but I seriously doubt anyone is after you or yours, Henry.