Submitted by Ma3Ke4Li3 t3_y5iu41 in philosophy
Reply to comment by Daotar in Philip Kitcher argues that morality is a social technology designed to solve problems emerging from the fragility of human altruism. Morality can be evaluated objectively, but without assuming moral truths. The view makes sense against a Darwinian view of life, but it is not social Darwinism. by Ma3Ke4Li3
Not impossible but very difficult. Like the old saying goes no one has ever liberated themselves by appealing to the moral character of their oppressors
Isn’t that exactly how slavery ended in many places, with those in power banning it?
Uh no, most slavery ended because it was too costly to continue. Due to wars, slave revolts and widespread abolition movements
Who do you think led the abolition movements? You can try to split it up but ultimately many people in power who could have been oppressors rejected slavery and actively fought to end it. There were also numerous stories of slaveholders freeing their slaves although obviously this was an extreme minority.
Former slaves, current slaves and sympathetic communities like Quakers lead abolition movements. Slaves typically lead slave uprisings. Most rich people were content to sit idly by
My understanding of the history of the civil war is very different than “some quakers and slaves revolted”.
"It wasn't people convincing their oppressors to let them go on moral standing. It was abolitionist movements!". "And who lead abolitionist movements?". "Slaves and ex slaves, trying to convince oppressors to free people on moral standing".
Good lord this guys logic and reasoning is through the floor.
History is not spurred by power but by the demands of people. People in power do not move until they are moved
“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”
-Abe Lincoln
Free labor was too costly to continue?
Slave rebellions were too costly too let continue. And y’know… the war
Not owning slaves yourself and pushing for legislation making it where nobody can are two drastically different things... And you mean the war that came about largely as a dispute over half the country already wanting to get rid of slavery?
What you are saying just doesn't make any sense. That is an extremely obvious case of a moral shift.
How is it a moral shift? The war was only to maintain the union. I’ve used the quote three times already but here ya go
“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”
-Abe Lincoln
And further even if one half of the country wanted to end slavery, which is a generous estimate because most northern whites were ambivalent and freedom by no means meant equality, the entire other half of the country was fighting FOR slavery. By the time of the civil war England had already abolished slavery so America was LATE and STILL hesitant to give up the practice
What do you think was the catalyst for the union needing saving? A moral shift taking place in half the country but not the other half... And you think England doing the exact same thing even sooner is somehow evidence against there being a moral shift?...
I can't tell if you're just being purposefully dense to argue or not, but what you are saying is literally nonsensical.
I’m totally confused at what is your argument here, not even trying to be rude. My original point was that you cannot secure freedom by appealing to the moral sense of your oppressors. To which I used the example of American slavery. My evidence is slaves revolted, rebelled and committed suicide for centuries before there was ever and inkling of a changing “moral compass”. Slaves routinely escaped only to be branded with “drapetomania”. They cried screamed and pleaded for release for centuries to no avail
The ruling class only thought it was important to free them when the security of the union of the democracy was also on the line. Otherwise nothing would’ve happened. Slavery existed in America for 400 years before anyone in government thought “freeing slaves is too important to let it continue we should free them right now and not a moment later”
My point is that the abolitionist movement, which did a whole lot more to change the law than slave revolts did, was literally lead by and made up of slaves and ex slaves appealing to the moral sense of their oppressors...
And, again, the ruling class very obviously though that it was important to free them before the security of the union was on the line. Because them freeing them was literally the very reason that the security of the union was on the line... And I don't have the first clue what slavery existing for 400 years is supposed to have to do with anything, since the entire point is things changing...
It's genuinely kind of blowing my mind how backwards your logic is on all this.
I feel like you are saying exactly what I am saying and then telling me I’m saying it wrong. I’m a bit baffled as to how I’m somehow bastardizing history.
My original point was that the oppressed cannot alleviate the yoke of their bondage by appealing to the morals of their oppressors. Which is completely true, no slave or indigenous person ever “convinced” a slave owner of the wrong of slavery or indigenous land theft that I can guarantee. Slaves themselves had to fight for it themselves and when the truth of this fact threatened to upend the union, a war happened. Were there sympathetic northerners like abolitionists and sympathizers to the plight of black peoples? Absolutely. But freed and escaped slaves like Fredrick Douglas had to speak truth to power and ONLY when the security of the union was in danger did the president free the slaves. Period. At no point before that did any legislation pass to free slaves because…
The oppressed (slaves) cannot appeal to the moral virtues their oppressors (United States government in general and the confederacy in particular) to free themselves
They had to fight, plead and advocate for themselves
Even AFTER empancipation there was STILL sharecropping, vagrancy laws, sundown towns, lynchings, redlining, segregation, Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegenation etc etc.
Which spawned the civil rights movement to improve the living conditions of African Americans in the centuries after emancipation, and who lead the civil rights movement? African Americans
Emancipation was not a “gift”, slaves fought and died for it for themselves.
Freedom is not a gift of patience, but the reward of determination and sacrifice, it must be taken.
[removed]
[removed]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[removed]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Free labor’s cost is massive. Without a paid workforce you have very few consumers for your economy to serve so almost everyone stays poor along with slaves.
I'm not really sure that that would have been true in that time period. It's not like people were buying iPhones and gadgets, and it's not like laborers were buying gold jewelry, and carriages, and books, etc... They would have pretty much just been buying food and shelter, which were still necessary for slaves.
Living in a way that is anywhere near to that of slaves is a state of poverty. From clothes to cutlery to tools or drugs there were plenty of things to have in the 19th century. In the South with no one to buy the stuff, there was no need for people there to make or sell the stuff either. That is a big part of why that region was a lot poorer than the North.
“Free” other than feeding, housing, and imprisoning them, sure
As opposed to the paid workers for your fields that evidently don't need food or shelter?
You only have to pay for them to afford food and living quarters— and as many people complain on the internet you barely have to do that and can just get a replacement without an increase in expenditure.
And you somehow think thats cheaper?
The biggest slavery policy was communism. Look how it ended.
Huh? Slavery was communism?… care to show how you reached that wild conclusion?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments