Morals -- relative or absolute.

Originally posted by Starrman
I wasn't asking about the 'no-one', I was asking about the 'them'.

Do you have to be such a confrontational ass all the time?

I have little patience for fools or for people acting like fools. The original post isn't Chinese algebra.

No one ever thought that it would be morally justified if other people made them a slave.

Better?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I have little patience for fools or for people acting like fools. The original post isn't Chinese algebra.

No one ever thought that it would be morally justified if other people made them a slave.

Better?

I was merely asking for clarification over whether you meant either:

1) That no-one thought it morally acceptable for the slaves themselves to be made slaves
2)That no-one thought it morally acceptable for anyone to be made a slave

I hardly think I was acting foolishly.

And yes, I agree with you, but that's not the same as the slave owners thinking it was morally acceptable to own slaves, even if they themselves would not wish to be made so.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I have little patience for fools or for people acting like fools. The original post isn't Chinese algebra.

No one ever thought that it would be morally justified if other people made them a slave.

Better?

The original post isn't Chinese algebra.
But leave it to a jackass such as yourself to turn any conversation into the equivalent of a Chinese fire drill.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]The original post isn't Chinese algebra.
But leave it to a jackass such as yourself to turn any conversation into the equivalent of a Chinese fire drill.[/b]

Get lost, jerk.

Originally posted by Starrman
I was merely asking for clarification over whether you meant either:

1) That no-one thought it morally acceptable for the slaves themselves to be made slaves
2)That no-one thought it morally acceptable for anyone to be made a slave

I hardly think I was acting foolishly.

And yes, I agree with you, but that's not the same as the slave owners thinkin ...[text shortened]... it was morally acceptable to own slaves, even if they themselves would not wish to be made so.

What is sooooooooooooo hard to understand? The fact that people didn't believe that slavery was justified IF they would be enslaved, means that they did not believe that slavery was morally justified in reality. There has been no change in morality regarding the issue.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What is sooooooooooooo hard to understand? The fact that people didn't believe that slavery was justified IF they would be enslaved, means that they did not believe that slavery was morally justified in reality. There has been no change in morality regarding the issue.

No - it just means that they did not believe it was morally justified for them to be enslaved. It does not necessarily imply that they held all slavery to be immoral.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No - it just means that they did not believe it was morally justified for them to be enslaved. It does not necessarily imply that they held all slavery to be immoral.

Agreed, the view that slaves were a lesser species of man, made it such that slave owners found it morally acceptable to enslave them, even though they would not themselves wish to be enslaved.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No - it just means that they did not believe it was morally justified for them to be enslaved. It does not necessarily imply that they held all slavery to be immoral.

Of course it does. The fact that they made exceptions to this rule does not render the rule itself invalid. Is killing immoral? Are there exceptions to this rule?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Of course it does. The fact that they made exceptions to this rule does not render the rule itself invalid. Is killing immoral? Are there exceptions to this rule?

So, your argument is that a person P considers X to be immoral if and only if P would not want to commit or be a victim of X?

EDIT: From a Catholic perspective, all killing is always objectively evil. Whether a particular act that results in a killing is immoral or not depends on double effect.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
So, your argument is that a person P considers X to be immoral if and only if P would not want to commit or be a victim of X?

EDIT: From a Catholic perspective, all killing is always objectively evil. Whether a particular act that results in a killing is immoral or not depends on double effect.

I'll do my own phrasing of arguments; you'll only screw them up as your thinking is muddled. There's no "if and only if" in my statement and what any one person considers to be immoral is irrelevant to what actually is immoral.

Originally posted by no1marauder
what any one person considers to be immoral is irrelevant to what actually is immoral.

Who decides this morality?

Originally posted by Starrman
I wasn't asking about the 'no-one', I was asking about the 'them'.

Do you have to be such a confrontational ass all the time?

The King of Quibbling thrives by it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Get lost, jerk.

Making friends again, marauder ?

Originally posted by whodey
Who decides this morality?

Why does it have to be an entity or entities that "decides" it? It's part of our makeup; how it got there is an open question. Read Halitose's posts on pages 2 and 3 and Ivanhoe's rather good first paragraph in his post on page 3.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Making friends again, marauder ?

Gee, I'm agreeing with you, Ivanhoe. I must be being persecuted by the WolfPack!