"Patria Potestas" and the idea of excusing injustice

[Gustaf]

I thought you didn't believe in objective morality, so how can anything be right or wrong about it? In fact, what is the point in discussing it at all, if it is purely subjective?

[Gustaf]

BRTD's inability to comprehend arguments that do not consist solely of hateful ramblings seems to have no end.

My point on that issue has always been a rather simple one: it is stupid to say of a particular Roman that he was misogynist because he controlled the household. In the same way it is stupid to say of a particular slave-holder in the 18th century that he was racist. And so on.

That doesn't necessarily free them of responsibility and it doesn't change the verdict of their time or their culture as morally inferior.

But saying that I'm a better person than Thomas Jefferson because I don't own any slaves is kind of stupid, imo, since nothing says I wouldn't have owned slaves if I had grown up in his society.

And, of course, I don't think we should randomly murder people on the street for having been vaguely associated with atrocious regimes. That's a moral difference between me and BRTD, I guess.

Earth, I know debating with you is impossible since you don't recognize the laws of logic or feel obliged to maintain the same position throughout the discussion. But making value judgements is not the same as discussing them. I can make value judgements even if they are subjective, but why would I discuss them? You seem to believe either that they are merely emotive responses or possibly some sort of description of one's own feelings (I never understood which) but neither of those lend themselves to any discussion.

[Gustaf]

My point on that issue has always been a rather simple one: it is stupid to say of a particular Roman that he was misogynist because he controlled the household. In the same way it is stupid to say of a particular slave-holder in the 18th century that he was racist. And so on.

And if he acted as if he were a misogynist, would that not make him one? Unless we know of how the particular slaveholder treated his slaves, it's irrelevant to my point. I'm pointing out that regardless of time period, one could still judge these people much the same way as if you'd judge one currently. Abolishionists were obviously philosophical forebearers to mainline thought about slavery today, and spoke their minds.

Earth, I know debating with you is impossible since you don't recognize the laws of logic or feel obliged to maintain the same position throughout the discussion.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you have some sort of grudge against me? Whatever problem you have, take it to pm, and leave it out of the thread.

I can make value judgments even if they are subjective, but why would I discuss them?

If you feel this way, what's the point of speaking your mind at all?

I don't like it when someone behaves like you did in a debate. It is rather low, in my opinion. So I am not going to pretend as if it never happened. I haven't read many of your other posts so they naturally frame my opinion. And you simply contradicted yourself flat-out till I explicitly pointed it out and then you left the discussion. I am a bit wary of ending up in that situation again. I guess you can call it a grudge if you want, but it is fundamentally pointless to debate someone who think it is ok to contradict himself, since a contradiction can logically justify any statement.

Anyway, I guess I can see how it goes this time. No more mentions of past controversy from me in this thread.

Your first paragraph I don't understand. You're saying that my point is irrelevant but you aren't saying why. If you are claiming that it is physically possible to judge people by the same standard I'm not disagreeing but I don't see an argument as to why that is reasonable.

Your last question I also don't really understand. I'm saying that it is pointless to discuss moral statements if they are subjective. You seem to think this implies that it is meaningless to "speak one's mind." You can either mean in a general sense, and then the obvious answer would be that there might be areas where there is objectivity. If you mean, roughly, "make moral judgements" there are a variety of reasons. The most obvious one is that I might want to move things in my direction and it is conceivable that speaking my mind might lead to that.

Example: my girlfriend is pregnant and wants to have an abortion. I tell her not to, becase I oppose them. She doesn't get one. End of story.

If you want a less controversial, obviously subjective example, someone is about to order a vanilla ice-cream for me. I don't like vanilla, so I say I don't want it. There is an obvious incentive to speak my mind, but there is no point in debating the pros and cons of vanilla flavours. 

[Gustaf]

These discussions about sexuality or whatever ARE usually pointless. They're not discussions. It's more about people being attention-whores or feeling the need to express themselves.

What exactly is there to discuss? A discussion needs at the very least an element of fact in order for it to lead anywhere. Simple emotive outbursts do not make for a discussion.

And even if you assign some sort of subjective descriptive quality to value judgements there isn't much to discuss.

"I like vanilla ice-cream"

"Really, how interesting, why is that?"

"I don't know, I just like the taste I guess"

"I myself like chocolate ice-cream, you should try it some time"

"Yeah, I have, didn't like it"

I guess you can string out this kind of "discussion" for a few more sentences, but there isn't really much point to it.

Do you really think that it is as bad to view black people as inferior in the 18th century as it is to do so today? That it says the same of those peoples' moral character?

[Gustaf]

These discussions about sexuality or whatever ARE usually pointless. They're not discussions. It's more about people being attention-whores or feeling the need to express themselves.

There's a big difference between you not thinking it's worth it, and it not being a discussion. Just because most sexuality threads on here devolve into "Who I'd fuck, and not" doesn't mean others are pointless.

A discussion needs at the very least an element of fact in order for it to lead anywhere. Simple emotive outbursts do not make for a discussion.

You're just moving the goalposts now. In order to satisfy your criteria for a meaningful discussion, you just discount what you don't like.

There's no difference between a discussion of sexuality that starts with "I feel...", and one of politics that starts the same way. You're using your own emotions, and intuitions to guide your political development, alongside more tangible reasons.

Do you really think that it is as bad to view black people as inferior in the 18th century as it is to do so today? That it says the same of those peoples' moral character?

Of course I do. What changed with black people to make it okay to view them as inferior in the 18th century compared to now?

I'd say it's even worse to view blacks, or whoever, as inferior then because of the amount of suffering that was socially acceptable to administer. You can still get away with virulent racism now, but you can't use it to justify the way you act towards them now. To make it clearer:

Now: "I believe in the righteousness of the white race", possible outcome: social ostracism, alienation, possible violence.

Then: "I believe in the righteousness of the white race", outcome: practically nothing. You could go and buy a slave, and treat them however you like.

The latter is infinitely more disturbing than former.

No, I'm not using my own emotions and intuitions.

See, usually in a philosophical discussion one applies the principle of benevolent interpretation. That is, you make what seems to be the most reasonable interpretation of what someone else says.

And you really have to quit this vagueness. "You're just moving the goalposts" - what does that even mean? I would prefer if you could, for once, specifically state what you disagree with instead of just casually dismissing my argument.

Since your responses to my post are largely incomprehensible I will focus on the latter part.

You seem to think that if immoral behaviour leads to a positive outcome for the person peforming the immoral act that person becomes more immoral. I don't really follow why that is. Is there a principle involved here that you would care to elaborate on or are you just being guided by your emotions?

If I understand you correctly this would follow:

James gets told by everyone around him to murder Jill. He is encouraged by everyone to do it and is told that he will get a big reward if he does and get killed himself otherwise. So, reluctantly, he does.

John gets told by everyone around him not to murder Jill. He is discouraged by everyone to do it and is told that he will get a big reward if he does not and get killed himself if he does. Despite this, he kills her.

You seem to think that John is the more moral person of the two. I can't for my life understand why.

Now, just to be clear, since I felt I made a mistake last time in not making this clear from the outset, I never heard anyone espouse this idea of yours. I never heard of a principle that would explain it. Since it is so odd you cannot really expect me to understand or accept it without considerable explanation. That's not an argument against it, but you can't just throw it out and expect me to get it without a clarification of your thinking. 

[Gustaf]

You seem to think that if immoral behaviour leads to a positive outcome for the person performing the immoral act that person becomes more immoral. I don't really follow why that is.

Where did you get this idea from?

 

I'd say it's even worse to view blacks, or whoever, as inferior then because of the amount of suffering that was socially acceptable to administer. You can still get away with virulent racism now, but you can't use it to justify the way you act towards them now. To make it clearer:

Now: "I believe in the righteousness of the white race", possible outcome: social ostracism, alienation, possible violence.

Then: "I believe in the righteousness of the white race", outcome: practically nothing. You could go and buy a slave, and treat them however you like.

The latter is infinitely more disturbing than former.

I made the reasonable interpretation that you meant that it was worse to be a racist back then because there were no negative consequences for you. Since...that is what you said. The idea that it is better to act immorally if you are punished for it is an odd idea though.

It is possible, given your last post contradicting this one, that what you meant was actually that the society back then was less moral as a whole because it allowed for such horrible acts.

I assumed, however, that this was not the case since I specifically stated in my first post on the issue, where I explained my position, that I agreed that the cultures of those times were morally inferior but that I thought it odd to judge the individuals. Here it is:

My point on that issue has always been a rather simple one: it is stupid to say of a particular Roman that he was misogynist because he controlled the household. In the same way it is stupid to say of a particular slave-holder in the 18th century that he was racist. And so on.

That doesn't necessarily free them of responsibility and it doesn't change the verdict of their time or their culture as morally inferior.

But saying that I'm a better person than Thomas Jefferson because I don't own any slaves is kind of stupid, imo, since nothing says I wouldn't have owned slaves if I had grown up in his society.

So, another possible interepration of your last post is that you are claiming that individual acts of, say, slavery are morally more reprehensible than individual acts of, say, thrash-talking black people. But since that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand I don't want to jump to that conclusion. That one is worse than the other in a given cultural context is clear. The question was precisely whether it makes sense to judge the same act equally harsh regardless of context, not about judging different acts over time.
--------------

Now, it is true that your English is grammatically correct. I can understand the sentences viewed individually just fine. But since your thinking tends to be extremely muddled and you are constantly vauge in everything you say it is impossible to make sense of it. The above example is a good one. I'm still not sure what you meant. I made the most reasonable interpretation and you immediately rejected it. Last time, you eventually got back to making the claims that you initially said you never had made. Which leaves me confused. I assume there must be SOMETHING you actually mean, so why can't you just explicitly state it and defend its implications? Or perhaps admit that you didn't quite get what I was saying which right now seems like the most reasonable interpretation.

Furthermore, you still haven't explained how I moved the goalposts.

I made the statement that if there are no objective facts involved it is meaningless to discuss it. You claimed that I have moved the goalposts from that statement to exclude things I don't like. But I have not. I merely stated that the examples you mentioned were examples of what I meant.

You can't just throw out a general unfounded insult like that without specifying what you are talking about. If you can show that there is a difference between my original definition and my later one, by all means, try it. 

It is also ironic because if anyone has a history of moving the goalposts it is actually you, since you tend to abandon your position for the opposite one once disproven, just like you seem to be doing right now with your claim regarding morality relative to its incentives.

--------------

Anyway, you asked me a question. Not surprisingly, it was a loaded question with false premises.

1. I never said that it was "okay" to view black people as inferior. I'm not sure what you mean by that precisely.

2. I never said anything changed with black people either.

So the question isn't really possible to answer, seeing as it is misphrased.

I will give you an example though that may explain my point. Back in the days a lot of people (supposedly, anyway) thought the Earth was flat. That was wrong. If someone told me they thought that today I would think them an idiot.

But saying that Aristotle or Julius Caesar were idiots for thinking the Earth was flat, is stupid and a little bigoted. Not because the Earth has changed, because it has not. And not because it was right to think so back then either. But because the conditions changed making the judgement a little different.

Whether this is a correct example is not relevant, of course. You could take any historically common false belief.

[Gustaf]

So, I'm once again left in perplexion. What was your point then? It was completely crazy, so I pointed out possible interpretations. You reject all of them but you fail to provide one of your own. That is what makes it so difficult to debate you.

How could I recognize what you were saying? You made a moral judgement, saying that the past was worse than the present in some way. That much is clear.

Now, you could either be referring to the societies, comparing them. That would have been irrelevant, given my post and you just denied that in your last post.

Or you could be referring to the individuals, which, as I pointed out, doesn't make sense in itself. If you are comparing the same act and saying that one is worse for because society advocated it, well it is pretty odd. But you deny that was your point. If you are comparing different acts it is irrelevant, which you seem to agree to.

So, what did you mean then? You've rejected every interpretation I can think of. It's not about me not understanding English as you pleasantly suggested. It is about you not making sense.

And I still don't get how this is consistent with your view on general morality. If you don't think morality is objective, then how is it contradictory to have different views on morality in different contexts? In fact, why would it even be contradictory to hold different views on the same act in the same context?

But, moving on. You now say that you agree with my point. Since I explicitly said it was my only point I'm not sure why you jumped at me in the first place. I have to say that I get the impression you don't really read my posts very thoroughly. I state things as explicitly as possible and you still seem to ignore or overlook them.

--------------

Now, you seem to think that disagreeing with your definitions constitute moving the goalposts. It doesn't. Moving the goalposts is changing the perimteters after being proven wrong. I said that objective facts need to be excluded in order for something to be a meaningful topic od dsicussion. You provided examples that supposedly were meaningful topics of debate in spite of lacking objective facts. I disagreed. I didn't move anything, I just did not agree with you, which is hardly a logical fallacy in any wikipedia article.

If you want an example of moving the goalposts I can give you one though:

Person A: things cannot be objective if people disagree on it.

Person B: Sure they can, people have disagreed on lots of things that are objective.

Person A: yes, of course I never said that. What I meant was a thing cannot be objective if there isn't evidence for it.

Person B: Sure they can, there are lots of things that haven't been proven to exist that are objective.

Person A: yes of course, I never said that. What I meant was a thing cannot be objective if it is impossible to prove that it exists.

Person B: how do you know it is impossible?

Person A: it hasn't been proven to exist.

And don't tell me I don't know the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. Really don't. I passed exams on knowing that. The problem was, rather obviously, though I didn't want to assume it from the beginning, that you didn't. Otherwise you probably wouldn't have claimed that an issue cannot be objective if people disagree on it. Or that it cannot if there is not evidence for it. Both were utterly ridiculous statements that would have failed you in any philosophy class.

[Gustaf]

You're not runnning away on me AGAIN are you?