[Vampyr]

You cannot evaluate someone based on whether they are true to their own morals or beliefs. Slave owners, those who commit honour killings, terrorists, (I don't dare ay Hitler) were /are all true to themselves.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2015-January-19, 05:44, said:

You cannot evaluate someone based on whether they are true to their own morals or beliefs. Slave owners, those who commit honour killings, terrorists, (I don't dare ay Hitler) were /are all true to themselves.

Ì was slightly inaccurate, and you refuse to understand. It is not about Mother Theresa's morals. It is about Mother Theresa's morals, that were (and still are) shared by a large part of the population of this planet. These morals are widely accepted, whether you like it or not.

To take your slave owner example:
You are entirely correct if you are talking about slave owners today. There is nobody nowadays (give or take a few loony's and perhaps some exotic tribes that I don't know of) who considers slavery morally acceptable. So, we can and should condemn anybody who owns slaves in 2015.
You are utterly wrong if you are talking about the slave owners in the 17th century or the slave owners in the Roman Empire. In those days, it was considered morally good to own slaves in the societies that these slave owners belonged to. The idea that all people were created equal had not been invented yet. (And one might wonder whether they considered there slaves "people".) So, it is anachronistic to condemn those slave owners based on today's morals. (Note that this does not mean that I am saying that the slaves weren't severely wronged. They were, without a doubt.)

And for the sake of completeness: the morals of today's terrorists are not shared by a large part of the world's population. And Hitler's morals were not shared by a large part of the world's population when the Holocaust was going on.

Rik

[billw55]

Trinidad, on 2015-January-19, 07:17, said:

...

And for the sake of completeness: the morals of today's terrorists are not shared by a large part of the world's population. And Hitler's morals were not shared by a large part of the world's population when the Holocaust was going on.

But if they were ... then ok?

What would you say constitutes "a large part of the world's population"? 80%, 90, 99, or ... ?

[Winstonm]

Trinidad, on 2015-January-19, 07:17, said:

Ì was slightly inaccurate, and you refuse to understand. It is not about Mother Theresa's morals. It is about Mother Theresa's morals, that were (and still are) shared by a large part of the population of this planet. These morals are widely accepted, whether you like it or not.

To take your slave owner example:
You are entirely correct if you are talking about slave owners today. There is nobody nowadays (give or take a few loony's and perhaps some exotic tribes that I don't know of) who considers slavery morally acceptable. So, we can and should condemn anybody who owns slaves in 2015.
You are utterly wrong if you are talking about the slave owners in the 17th century or the slave owners in the Roman Empire. In those days, it was considered morally good to own slaves in the societies that these slave owners belonged to. The idea that all people were created equal had not been invented yet. (And one might wonder whether they considered there slaves "people".) So, it is anachronistic to condemn those slave owners based on today's morals. (Note that this does not mean that I am saying that the slaves weren't severely wronged. They were, without a doubt.)

And for the sake of completeness: the morals of today's terrorists are not shared by a large part of the world's population. And Hitler's morals were not shared by a large part of the world's population when the Holocaust was going on.

Rik

Claiming a moral argument is, IMO, a method of blinding oneself to evidence. At one time a high percentage of the world's population believed the world to be flat. Evidence showed that belief incorrect.

Evidence now shows that all humans are of the same species, with small variations. Anyone who thinks themselves superior is simply incorrect. Slavery was wrong, even when considered neutral, not because of any moral reasoning but due to a lack of evidence that all men were part of the same species, and thus, equal.

[Trinidad]

billw55, on 2015-January-19, 07:36, said:

But if they were ... then ok?

What would you say constitutes "a large part of the world's population"? 80%, 90, 99, or ... ?

What are you aiming at? Are you going to condemn the ancient South American civilizations for the bloody human sacrifices?

They were normal over there at the time, no matter how repulsive we might find them today.

If everybody would think that terrorism is okay, than that would be the moral, the norm, the standard of the time and place. How on Earth could you condemn a terrorist for doing what everybody thinks is okay?

Morals are subject to change. I cannot emphasize that enough. Today, we think that the slave owners were terribly wrong. In the 17th century, they (at least the society that the slave owners were part of) had an entirely different view.

And the important lesson to learn is: In 300 years people will know what all we are doing terribly wrong and immoral, right now. I don't know what it is, you don't know what it is, but they will know. (I now have this image in my mind of Sandra Bullock saying to Silvester Stallone: "You mean, like, exchanging fluids?!?" in Demolition Man. Who knows, sex might be a thing of the past by then.) I don't think it is fair to condemn us for something that right now, right here is perfectly normal, whether that is because we currently prefer these views or because our current knowledge is insufficient to know better.

Rik

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on 2015-January-19, 07:17, said:

It is about Mother Theresa's morals, that were (and still are) shared by a large part of the population of this planet. These morals are widely accepted, whether you like it or not.

I don't believe that. The fact that she chose to hide her practices and pretend to help her clients in their earthly life and not only in the afterlife shows that she expected donors, volunteers and potential clients to disaprove of her practices if they knew what was going on.

But even if you were right about this I would still agree with Stephanie. FGM, for example, is approved by millions but it is still morally reprehensible. In my houmble opinion.

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2015-January-19, 09:34, said:

But even if you were right about this I would still agree with Stephanie. FGM, for example, is approved by millions but it is still morally reprehensible. In my houmble opinion.

This is the age-old problem of moral relativism. Philosophers have been debating this for centuries. I'm not sure we're going to resolve it here.

What distinguishes MT is that her value system was consistent with those of the majority religion in the west, so she's less likely to be viewed as deviant. And even those who don't share those specific religious beliefs can recognize that "her heart was in the right place". She may have been misguided by her religious beliefs, but there didn't seem to be any evil, hateful, or even selfish intent. They donations that weren't going to help the suffering weren't going into her pockets, either.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2015-January-19, 09:34, said:

But even if you were right about this I would still agree with Stephanie. FGM, for example, is approved by millions but it is still morally reprehensible. In my houmble opinion.

barmar, on 2015-January-19, 10:10, said:

This is the age-old problem of moral relativism. Philosophers have been debating this for centuries. I'm not sure we're going to resolve it here.

I was going to post soon and mention both FGM and moral relativism.

When I first heard about FGM I was horrified and wished that something was being done about it. But that was about 30 years ago, and it was very fashionable to say "but it's their culture". Now, though, everyone cares and their are campaigns and activism etc. So I have been thinking that moral relativism is, thankfully, going out of fashion.

Anyway I don't know that very many people feel the same way or would react the same way to suffering as MT did.

And about her being evil, hateful, selfish, there is a lot wrong with the enjoyment she got from watching people in mortal pain.

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on 2015-January-19, 09:34, said:

But even if you were right about this I would still agree with Stephanie. FGM, for example, is approved by millions but it is still morally reprehensible. In my houmble opinion.

I share your opinion... and will add that I have the same opinion about MGM. But, just like you, I don't share the views of the Catholic Church on anticonception either.

But that is an entirely different discussion. We will need to work to reduce FGM, and MGM, and the lack of anticonception. We can do that by educating people and a whole lot of other measures, and we should certainly do so.

I have never argued that we shouldn't do anything. The argument is about whether you can judge someone. That is an entirely different discussion.

Mother Theresa lived from 1910-1997. That is pretty much the same time frame my grandparents lived in. My grandparents were not religious fanatics at all. They were mainstream, perhaps even somewhat liberal protestant city people. But their believe in God and Heaven, and everything that comes with it was absolute. Anticonception was a sin and got you to hell, suffering was purification for the soul and got you closer to God. Subjects that we are currently debating in society or have already okayed (e.g. divorce, abortion, euthanasia, same sex marriages) were so horrible that you would go to hell just for bringing up the subject.

Mother Theresa got the Nobel price in 1979. My mother's parents divorced just a few years earlier, I guess in 1973. They were condemned by: My father's parents and his entire family, as well as by 4 of their own 6 children. (Fortunately, my mother was in the set of 2, but it meant I have never seen the other 4 of my mother's siblings or nieces and nephews since 1973.) They broke all contacts to the divorcees and anyone who would be willing to be in contact with them, since otherwise you would go to hell. That was the culture Mother Theresa lived her life in. Those were the morals she was taught, and they were normal at the time.

That is why it makes me so angry when someone yells that "These moslims are living in the Middle Ages" when they condemn homosexuality. Those people completely forget that their grandparents (you know, those nice old guys that brought toys and candy) did exactly the same. That doesn't mean that I agree with the moslim view on homosexuality or my grandparents' view. It just means that I realize that in a different time, or a different place, people have different morals.

And the aim is to change these morals, not to condemn them or the people who live by them in a place and time where they are mainstream.

Rik

[Winstonm]

Vampyr, on 2015-January-19, 10:57, said:

When I first heard about FGM I was horrified and wished that something was being done about it. But that was about 30 years ago, and it was very fashionable to say "but it's their culture". Now, though, everyone cares and their are campaigns and activism etc. So I have been thinking that moral relativism is, thankfully, going out of fashion.

The very fact that over 30 years there has been a change in how these activities are viewed from a moral consideration confirms rather than denies moral relativism.

[Vampyr]

Well, whatever. I think that the above was a lot of nonsense, but in any case if being against family planning were MT's worst sin there would be less of an issue. A lot less, especially as she was not involved in denying contraception or abortion to anyone.

[Vampyr]

Winstonm, on 2015-January-19, 18:20, said:

The very fact that over 30 years there has been a change in how these activities are viewed from a moral consideration confirms rather than denies moral relativism.

I am not sure. I think that people knew 30 years ago that it was abhorrent, but that it was really cool and liberal to say that it was OK for them to have different values and morals from us. Then maybe later it dawned on people that "they" are humans too. And that you could say that we are right and they are wrong. Because there really is a right and a wrong, no matter who you are.

[nige1]

Trinidad, on 2015-January-19, 07:17, said:

To take your slave owner example: You are entirely correct if you are talking about slave owners today. There is nobody nowadays (give or take a few loony's and perhaps some exotic tribes that I don't know of) who considers slavery morally acceptable. So, we can and should condemn anybody who owns slaves in 2015. You are utterly wrong if you are talking about the slave owners in the 17th century or the slave owners in the Roman Empire. In those days, it was considered morally good to own slaves in the societies that these slave owners belonged to. The idea that all people were created equal had not been invented yet. (And one might wonder whether they considered there slaves "people".) So, it is anachronistic to condemn those slave owners based on today's morals. (Note that this does not mean that I am saying that the slaves weren't severely wronged. They were, without a doubt.)

When I was a teenager, my hair was cut at home by a man, who traveled village to village and house to house. He had been a slave but now he made a reasonable income as a barber. He was an intelligent man and was nostalgic about the relative advantages of his former settled life with a kind owner.

[mikeh]

nige1, on 2015-January-19, 19:07, said:

When I was a teenager, my hair was cut at home by a man, who traveled village to village and house to house. He had been a slave but now he made a reasonable income as a barber. He was an intelligent man and was nostalgic about the relative advantages of his former settled life with a kind owner.

Incredible....one reads about people like you, usually members of the right wing of the US Republican Party....but here we have a real, live, breathing apologist for the institution of slavery. I feel ill.

Please don't try to wiggle out of this by denying the implications of your post. Why else did you mention this?

Humans can adapt to almost anything. Witness the phenomenum of instiitutionalization, where long- term prisoners sometimes commit crimes after release, just to get back to prison. So this poor man looked back to being a slave? To ask us to infer that therefore slavery had its good points disgusts me.

Of course, the bible strongly endorses slavery, just as it does genocide, prostituting one's daughters, and not eating pork!

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on 2015-January-19, 18:20, said:

The very fact that over 30 years there has been a change in how these activities are viewed from a moral consideration confirms rather than denies moral relativism.

It confirms the trivial fact that prevailing moral views vary with time and place. If that's moral relativism then we are all moral relativists. But that's not how I understand the term.

[nige1]

mikeh, on 2015-January-19, 21:18, said:

Incredible....one reads about people like you, usually members of the right wing of the US Republican Party....but here we have a real, live, breathing apologist for the institution of slavery. I feel ill. Please don't try to wiggle out of this by denying the implications of your post. Why else did you mention this?

Humans can adapt to almost anything. Witness the phenomenum of instiitutionalization, where long- term prisoners sometimes commit crimes after release, just to get back to prison. So this poor man looked back to being a slave? To ask us to infer that therefore slavery had its good points disgusts me. Of course, the bible strongly endorses slavery, just as it does genocide, prostituting one's daughters, and not eating pork!

As usual, Mikeh is wrong about my motives and attacks me for opinions that I didn't express and don't hold.

[nige1]

Trinidad, on 2015-January-19, 07:17, said:

Ì was slightly inaccurate, and you refuse to understand. It is not about Mother Theresa's morals. It is about Mother Theresa's morals, that were (and still are) shared by a large part of the population of this planet. These morals are widely accepted, whether you like it or not.

To take your slave owner example:
You are entirely correct if you are talking about slave owners today. There is nobody nowadays (give or take a few loony's and perhaps some exotic tribes that I don't know of) who considers slavery morally acceptable. So, we can and should condemn anybody who owns slaves in 2015.
You are utterly wrong if you are talking about the slave owners in the 17th century or the slave owners in the Roman Empire. In those days, it was considered morally good to own slaves in the societies that these slave owners belonged to. The idea that all people were created equal had not been invented yet. (And one might wonder whether they considered there slaves "people".) So, it is anachronistic to condemn those slave owners based on today's morals. (Note that this does not mean that I am saying that the slaves weren't severely wronged. They were, without a doubt.)

And for the sake of completeness: the morals of today's terrorists are not shared by a large part of the world's population. And Hitler's morals were not shared by a large part of the world's population when the Holocaust was going on.

Rights and morals usually accord with our instincts, feelings, and current scientific theories but, IMO, they rely on beliefs not facts. As Trinidad says, they vary with time and place.

Some mores and taboos (e.g. against murder) seem common sense to me and are more persistent and widespread.

For other beliefs (e.g slavery, homophobia), I guess that people had to cling to flimsy justifications.

IMO, morals similar to Hitler's were and are shared by a large part of the world's population, although sometimes there's a convenient local substitute for Jews (e.g. Kurds, Lower castes, Muslims, indigenous peoples like Aborigines, Palestinians, and Incas).

A council-worker, trying to stop FGM, explained to me that, paradoxically, the most vociferous defenders of the practice were women, who had suffered it .

Nevertheless, in all these latter cases (slavery onwards), then and now, I guess that the more intelligent proponents suppress awareness of their rationalization and hypocrisy.

[hrothgar]

nige1, on 2015-January-19, 19:07, said:

When I was a teenager, my hair was cut at home by a man, who traveled village to village and house to house. He had been a slave but now he made a reasonable income as a barber. He was an intelligent man and was nostalgic about the relative advantages of his former settled life with a kind owner.

I seem to recall that Britain banned slavery back in the 1830's...

Story really doesn't sound at all plausible.

[PhilKing]

Back to the original question:

No = 10 points, other = 7 points, Yes = 1 point.

[nige1]

hrothgar, on 2015-January-20, 06:14, said:

I seem to recall that Britain banned slavery back in the 1830's...
Story really doesn't sound at all plausible.

I rarely lie, Hrothgar. (Family motto "sto pro veritate"). Recent documentaries confirm that there's still plenty of Slavery in Britain. I was born in Zambia, however, and spent some of my youth in Africa. The barber worked in Northern Nigeria, when we lived in Kaduna.