Yes, but not the exact same morality.

Because they have all made up their own.

Or not in some cases.

Obviously morality is a mental phenomena within the brain and not within the big toe.


Of course.

So you concede that morality is not objective, and its personal/subjective/relative to each individual.

But wont concede its made up.

Seriously?

but they have't made up their own. You and I might make up which football team to support but we haven't made up that we think slavery is wrong.

They are different sorts of things.

Indeed

YES YOU HAVE! As evidenced by the millions of people throughout history (and to this very day) who didn't think slavery was wrong.

No I haven't and nor have you.


Sorry I mean. NO I HAVEN'T!

What about the billions of humans that have existed through time who saw slavery as perfectly fine?

We have constructed a morality in which slavery is wrong, we have made it up, others have not, they made something else up, a slavery is fine and normal morality.

Your morality is a function of time and place.

You could take the exact same Chezlaw, insert him into a certain historical data point and he would grow up to think slavery is fine and normal.

Its not in your nature to hate slavery.

its a potential of it maybe, one of many.

That's one hell of a claim which I don't agree with at all. In a previous version of the forum you would now get huge amounts of grief for apologising for slave owners. Including from Tom I suspect.

There was a thread on this very topic many years ago.

Tom would have to be a massive hypocrite then because he is making the exact same claim.

The previous versions of the forum, the one in which you were widely viewed as a racist?

Slavery being abhorent does not change the fact that during the course of human history most humans have been fine with it.

Its purely magical thinking to say If I was born in another time period I would have the morality of my present one.

I'm arguing against the points made by posters in this thread. If your issue is that they are not making very good points, you should be telling them to make better points, not telling me to argue against points that weren't made.

I still don't understand your second paragraph. I mean, I understand the individual words, I just don't understand what they mean when you put them in that order.

Not quite sure what the issue is. Can you more specific. You are ok with the concept of entering into a contract which specifies a dispute resolution process that includes enforcement?

@oaf. I shall make up that you've realised why you are wrong as you've now resorted to silliness.

I think your comment does not properly capture the issue.

When it comes to your piece of property 'x', if I or another assert that it is in fact not your property, it is my (our) property, how does that issue get decided?

How do disputes get settled?

Force is overwhelming the answer.

True that force (or running away with it) is answers that question

But the vast majority of the time, that question doesn't arise because we understand who's property it is and prefer to respect it. When we do resort to courts then most of the time there's no serious dispute about whether it's theft, because again, we understand who's property it is. Sometimes it's a technical legal issue but that's rare and occasionally it's very hard with a genuine dispute - such is life.

I knew you would do this.

You are arguing against several objective realities.

I cant be wrong.

So of course here come the chezlaw handwaves.

I'll give a hypothetical example.




Assume you are transported back in time to the early settlement days of some countries. There is an indigenous people who already live there who do not believe in property rights as most today understand them.

They believe the land is owned by all, including the animals who require it to properly traverse it and propagate it thus sustaining their herds and lives.

Settlers appear who believe any land not 'staked' or 'claimed' is thus unowned and free to claim and make into 'Private property'. These settlers have little concern for what staked land does to the animals or the livelihood of those that were there first.


How does this tension get settled without force?

What 'objective' morality would you apply to determine 'right'?

And please define 'objective' morality as i find that a very troubling term for these discussions.

Good. I've no interest in indulging the silly kiddie stuff.

What objective morality?

Spent enough time on morality here, I suggest SMP where we discuss this stuff on a fairly regular basis. Plus I have some important cricket to listen to.

Servus non habet personam.

A slave has no persona.

This was the moral attitude of the Roman Empire, an empire amongst many that saw slavery as perfectly normal.

If seeing slavery as abhorent was somehow part of human nature, its absolute dominance in social systems for thousands of years could never happen.

I understand what it means for two counterparties to enter into a contract which specifies a dispute resolution mechanism. I don't understand how it relates to an individual living within a society. Are you suggesting that there should somehow be an "opt-out clause" (or opt-in?) of the standard "societal contract" we are all bound by (to pay taxes and obey laws etc.), and if so, how does that clause operate in practice? Or are you suggesting something else? Maybe an example would be illustrative here.

Yes, off you trot, you have no more to contribute on this issue, I think anyone reading this thread can see through the flimsy tissues of your arguments.

I'm pointing out that that's a different form of consent then the democratic consent we discussed earlier.

Some want far more of this direct form of consent and far less of the democratic sort - some even want this whenever it's possible. A few may even want it when it's impossible.

Do you agree that different people growing up in different societies, especially in different periods of time, can have very differing morality?

One group may grow up pacifist (Buddhism) while another in a very different place may grow up expansionist and war like (Mongolian).

What happens if two such groups meet and what determines whose moral code prevails?

So you seem to be arguing 'things generally work out without force and by mutual consent'. Great

But disputes are such a huge part of human existence and the potential damage from disputes can be severe. So much so that society necessarily needs to be more concerned with situation when things do not work out more than when they do.

So your comment that 'property enforced by force is large part nonsense' makes no sense.

it is when things are contested that you need to look at how things are settled. Not when they are not contested.


It would be like you saying Countries borders are not enforced with force because at most periods of time countries do not contest such borders.


But the fact is the borders initial imposition and any such challenge to it, is established with the threat of force, even if never applied. Just as anyone's initial claim of a piece of personal property is.