Should slave owners be removed from the dollar bill?

You completely missed my point, george.

Namely, either there is universal moral right and wrong or there ain't.

Setanta's "of course" seems to suggest there is, but how could that be?

0 Replies

Well, I happen to believe there is a "universal" right and wrong (i.e. a moral standard that is independent of current political imperatives and fashion), however, I strongly suspect that in that I am in a small minority here on A2K. Perhaps you are too -- and it does look like I did indeed miss your point.

I can't speak for Setanta on that point: my impression of what he wrote here is that he was offering assurance that he certainly believes that slavery is now, and was then, morally wrong. I am inclined to take him at his word, finding that statement entirely consistent with everything else I have read of his.

0 Replies

Well, Set is well able to speak for himself, but what I recollect is that he didn't think there was any such thing as a universal good and bad, but that the concepts were wholly dependent on the culture.

0 Replies

Possibly so -- we are surrounded by relativists, and it is important to stay alert and point out their hypocrisy. :wink:

0 Replies

You said that, not me. I was just posing a question.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

jasonrest wrote:
fishin wrote:
"owners"?? There is only one persons image on the dollar bill.

I never specified the "one" dollar bill.

*nods* I understand your problem. English is a difficult language to learn. :wink:

Fishin - not only English, but all Indoeuropean languages are extremely difficult to learn for someone whose linguistic structures fundamentally differ from ours.

Concepts ride along the languages: concepts in Yoruba (syntactical basis of Creole, even though the English superstructure is the only thing we notice) simply don't correspond to anything Western or even most Eastern, like Japanese and Chinese, languages have concepts for.

This thread e.g. is interesting from a mathematical syntax standpoint: neither Jason nor Snood seem able to grasp that "crime" means something "illegal" and that "illegal" isn't anywhere near the same thing as "immoral".

I'd like to hear them explain their concepts - though that may be impossible. In linguistics this problem is known as:

"CODE-SWITCHED STRUCTURES" (*)

and communications between 2 different such structures is illusory without hard work on both sides.

Quote:

(*)
http://www.njas.helsinki.fi/pdf-files/vol13num1/tayolamidi.pdf

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

jasonrest wrote:
Convict: to impress with a sense of guilt.

There are many people who are convicted who display no remorse, nor the least sense of guilt.

However, this still doesn't make your sentence any less nonsensical. Why should one attempt to impress a just man with a sense of guilt? Of what would you allege a just man to be guilty?

[..............

Setanta - pls read what was posted above: I don't believe Jason to be of bad faith, he simply has different concepts underlying seemingly (and inadvetently deceptively) "English" words.

Ferdinand de Saussure, Noam Chomsky (even some teraflop computers!) might be able to translate one to the other, but neither you nor I can easily see how Smile

0 Replies

georgebob, question....

What would be an example of a universal truth.

Not meaning to argue the point with you, I just can't think of one myself.

Than again, maybe I'm missing forrest for the trees.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I think he was just making the distinction between moral right and wrong and what the law at the time established as acceptable (i.e. criminal or non-criminal). He was pretty clear that he believes that slavery was morally wrong then and always.

Bingo . . . somebody give that man a cee-gar . . .

0 Replies

snood wrote:

You completely missed my point, george.

Namely, either there is universal moral right and wrong or there ain't.

Setanta's "of course" seems to suggest there is, but how could that be?

As far as i am concerned, there is no universal right or wrong. I have no good reason to believe that "right" and "wrong" are anything other than subjective judgments by individuals.

However, i wrote "of course" because it is, or ought to be, evident from the tenor of the remarks i have made so far in this thread that i consider slavery to be wrong.

To quote Mr. Lincoln: "As i would not be a slave, so i would not be a master."

0 Replies

Chai wrote:

georgebob, question....

What would be an example of a universal truth.

Not meaning to argue the point with you, I just can't think of one myself.

Than again, maybe I'm missing forrest for the trees.

...my name isn't George (or Bob, for that matter, but then neither is his) however I can post a universal truth: the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its radius is equal to.............3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348
..................
......................................and it goes on, forever.............

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Well, Set is well able to speak for himself, but what I recollect is that he didn't think there was any such thing as a universal good and bad, but that the concepts were wholly dependent on the culture.

This is false. I do not hold that judgments of what is "right" or "wrong" are dependent upon culture. I consistently state that i see no reason to believe that such judgments are anything other than subjective.

0 Replies

eek I meant "diameter" wrote "radius" then had no time to correct - sorry

nice to see Setanta back on thread

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

snood wrote:
Well, Set is well able to speak for himself, but what I recollect is that he didn't think there was any such thing as a universal good and bad, but that the concepts were wholly dependent on the culture.

This is false. I do not hold that judgments of what is "right" or "wrong" are dependent upon culture. I consistently state that i see no reason to believe that such judgments are anything other than subjective.

Bear with me, Set. I am not trying to be obtuse or sly, I really want to understand you on this...

So, if you think such judgements are always subjective, then why would anyone's holding slavery as abhorrent be a matter "of course"? We can't assume anything is going to be considered right or wrong by anyone if all such judgements are subjective, can we?

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

Chai wrote:
georgebob, question....

What would be an example of a universal truth.

Not meaning to argue the point with you, I just can't think of one myself.

Than again, maybe I'm missing forrest for the trees.

...my name isn't George (or Bob, for that matter, but then neither is his) however I can post a universal truth: the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its radius is equal to.............3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348
..................
......................................and it goes on, forever.............

existential, no answer, no truth.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Bear with me, Set. I am not trying to be obtuse or sly, I really want to understand you on this...

It may not be your intent to be obtuse, but the effect is the same, because, apparently, you are not paying attention.

[url=http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3103320#3103320][b]In my post #3103320[/b][/url], I wrote:

However, i wrote "of course" because it is, or ought to be, evident from the tenor of the remarks i have made so far in this thread that i consider slavery to be wrong.

Therefore, my use of the phrase "of course" has reference to my previous remarks, and has no reference to a basis for morality. Therefore, this:

Quote:

So, if you think such judgements are always subjective, then why would anyone's holding slavery as abhorrent be a matter "of course"? We can't assume anything is going to be considered right or wrong by anyone if all such judgements are subjective, can we?

. . . is a non sequitur.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Bear with me, Set. I am not trying to be obtuse or sly, I really want to understand you on this...

No, you're not "trying" to be obtuse, or sly, or obnoxious, or irrelevant, or absurd, or a lying cheat either: fact is, you can't help these things and you know it.

Why, knowing this, you persist in your time-wasting singsong is beyond my understanding - for now.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

snood wrote:
Bear with me, Set. I am not trying to be obtuse or sly, I really want to understand you on this...

It may not be your intent to be obtuse, but the effect is the same, because, apparently, you are not paying attention.

[url=http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3103320#3103320][b]In my post #3103320[/b][/url], I wrote:
However, i wrote "of course" because it is, or ought to be, evident from the tenor of the remarks i have made so far in this thread that i consider slavery to be wrong.

Therefore, my use of the phrase "of course" has reference to my previous remarks, and has no reference to a basis for morality. Therefore, this:

Quote:
So, if you think such judgements are always subjective, then why would anyone's holding slavery as abhorrent be a matter "of course"? We can't assume anything is going to be considered right or wrong by anyone if all such judgements are subjective, can we?

. . . is a non sequitur.

I got it! Now, if I may ask, how do you think it is you yourself came to the belief that slavery is wrong?

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

snood wrote:

Bear with me, Set. I am not trying to be obtuse or sly, I really want to understand you on this...

No, you're not "trying" to be obtuse, or sly, or obnoxious, or irrelevant, or absurd, or a lying cheat either: fact is, you can't help these things and you know it.

Why, knowing this, you persist in your time-wasting singsong is beyond my understanding - for now.

A lying cheat? Obnoxious, absurd and irrelevant? A strangely personal attack from someone with whom I have no memory of ever even engaging at all. But to each their own. You, sir have my permission to go and thoroughly f*ck yourself.

0 Replies

jasonrest wrote:

Again, I ask is slavery only recently abominable?

Was slavery justified in times past simply because the majority
thought so. I think not.

Historically (or perhaps, prehistorically) speaking, yes, slavery is only recently abominable.

In a subsistence-level culture, one could not afford slaves. One simply killed one's enemies.

When you have some extra food, you can afford to keep slaves.

When someone finally figures out how to harness a horse without choking it, slavery becomes uneconomical.

0 Replies

Should slave owners be removed from the dollar bill?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know