it's not moral code.
It's a tool of mental slavery.

...good to know!

Keep up the good work.

In the ancient world every known society had slaves. They didnt have our moral code,but it isnt fair to say they had no moral code.

If your moral code does not condemn what I condemn then you are not moral?

The God of the Bible enslaved, killed first borns, let prophets have their way with hand maidens or save the virgins from wars to become concubines. You saying God isn't moral?


Morality is just another chameleon that has fifty shades to choose from. The word moral has been rendered useless as it is perpetually adapted to justify a means, especially by religion.


What is the one true pizza topping? That is both impossible and easier to answer. Is pepperoni moral?

+100000000

According to American professor Kevin Bales, co-founder and former president of Free the Slaves, modern slavery occurs "when a person is under control of another person, who applies violence and force to maintain that control, and the goal of that control is exploitation".[5] According to this definition, research from the Walk Free Foundation based on its Global Slavery Index 2016 estimated that there were about 45.8 million slaves around the world in 2016, with 58% of them living in the top five countries—India, Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, and Uzbekistan.

Interesting how we in the US really haven't appeared to care!!!!

Also, interesting to note the UN indicated the US should make reparations to the blacks for slavery yet where is the strong condemnation of the many countries still practicing 'slavery'? Why should any openly 'slavery practicing' countries be in any 'trade agreements' or receive any aid?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2018 11:23AM by spiritist.

Yes. It's hilarious to watch people condemn historical slavery while acting like they would have opposed it at the time yet they do literally nothing about contemporary slavery proving their own hipocrisy.

Some sects of Islam still embrace rape and slavery as legitimate practices as well as economic and political tools.

While we in the west are pretty much in universal agreement about the evils of rape and slavery, we must avoid the arrogance of believing our morality is superior that found elsewhere. Without an embrace of some universal transcendent morality, there’s really no reason to consider one moral code superior to that of a different society. We have no right to inflict our morality on others.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While we in the west are pretty much in universal
> agreement about the evils of rape and slavery, we
> must avoid the arrogance of believing our morality
> is superior that found elsewhere. Without an
> embrace of some universal transcendent morality,
> there’s really no reason to consider one moral
> code superior to that of a different society. We
> have no right to inflict our morality on others.

I couldn't disagree more.

And no "universal transcendent morality" is required.

I don't want to be raped or enslaved.
As a human being with empathy, I understand that other human beings don't want to be raped or enslaved, either.
So prohibiting rape and slavery makes ME happy and more secure, and it makes everybody else more happy and more secure.

I have no problem whatsoever subjectively calling that "better." Because society is "better" when we're all more happy and more secure.

(yes, it's subjective, not objective. But I can make a damn good argument for why I subjectively consider it "better" than allowing rape and slavery).

And if you don't like it, it should be outlawed?

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.

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 code. 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.

You argue for an embrace of a universal from the deck of a drifting ship.

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
> code.

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.

At least WE have YOU to explain it for us. Thanks!

Morality is a mental construct designed to meme its way into exposing those humans most interested in getting their opinions adapted to the meme.

I think mental rape and mental slavery to other people's designation of morality immoral.