Date: March 14, 2018 03:52PM
Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
> And if you don't like it, it should be outlawed?
Maybe. I'd have to (as above) make a damn good argument for why, though, and convince others to agree.
> I don't disagree with the basic premise, but your
> version of what makes us all happy is hardly
> something I'd be willing to go to war to defend.
How about if my version doesn't want anybody to go to war, ever? I can make a good argument for *that,* too, though I'm not sure I can convince enough people (yet) to push that through...
> And empathy is not a universal either. It's simply
> the ability to understand and share the feelings
> of others. That's not a foundation for a moral
Of course it is. It's what all "moral codes" are already based on. All the "imposed by god" or "imposed by authority" are just window-dressing.
> You clearly don't understand the feelings
> of those who embrace slavery. They practice it
> without guilt and promote it as good. You and I
> certainly disagree with them, but we actually
> refuse to empathize.
Not so. I actually *do* understand their feelings. I'll bet you do, too. Think for a moment, and you can see the upside of having a human being at your beck and call, 24 hours a day, who will do whatever you tell them without question. I get why that might be desirable, and why some other humans might want that.
I also understand that, though there are many possible reasons for their feelings, that they themselves are disregarding empathy, and haven't thought the matter through. Pointing out to them that if they allow human beings to be slaves, that someday some other human being might enslave THEM, might get them thinking more. And realizing why it's in their best interest to outlaw slavery. Of course, if they lack empathy, that might be a lost cause. Or if they think their in-group will always be "in-power," so nobody will ever enslave them, same problem. That some humans will remain ignorant, uncaring, unfeeling, and selfish doesn't mean that empathy isn't a good basis for morality. It simply means it won't always work. But then, no other basis always works, either -- and empathy has the upside of not requiring irrational belief in imagined god-things :)
> You argue for an embrace of a universal from the
> deck of a drifting ship.
Not so (see above).
I argue for a reasonable basis, a starting point, that has a good chance of being effective with the majority of humans (who are empathetic). We can deal with the outliers in other ways.