Why haven't I heard about...

One of the reasons I’m here is to evolve my understanding of certain positions. This is one of the issues I haven’t figured out yet. But hey; feel free to give a reasoning why I should adopt your position - what is your position, by the way?

“Yes, we can’t judge the nice slave owners negatively. That would be uncouth!”

Again: I’m not talking about the ‘slave owner’ itself. I’m talking about the guy who used to be a slave and started ‘cooperating’ with the slave owner to soften the blow to him and other people. I’m not sure wether or I should morally detest that kind of person. (Nor am I sure wether or not that that is a good comparison for everyone who works at Cato, IHS and all. But let’s disregard that issue for the moment.)

Obviously it is. But saying that one ‘can’ be a moral agressor doesn’t solve the problem wether or not that this is a dichotomy or a range. Can one be ‘more’ of a moral aggressor than someone else. If so: if someone tries to make sure a moral aggressor is less of a moral aggressor; shouldn’t we applaud the guy?

If aggression is immoral, then how can one be a moral aggressor?

I believe that aggression is immoral. I think that killing one person is just as wrong as killing 100. I believe that stealing a little is just as bad as stealing a lot. From the perspective of justice, there are bigger consequences to acts of a larger scale, but the immorality of the act itself, isn’t one of magnitudes. It is not possible to enslave someone morally.

Liberty Student, I think we need to understand that codes of ethics have been specific to a place and time, whether it’s the medieval knight’s chivalry, the Tibetan monk’s hermitude, or otherwise. Do you know that in more destitute times, mere greed was equivalent to rape in magnitude of how wrong it was seen? And it was so, despite the fact that greed by itself is no harm, (although it can translate into an action that harms others).

Let’s be clear that there is absolutely no way - NO WAY - to universalise morality of everyday life. What you are saying is on the basis of the past three decades of humanity or the past three centuries.

We do know that there is a general body of morality of human life, and the very fact that the Ten Commandments say Thou Shalt Not Steal indicates an idea of respect for property, but that was still subject to many other considerations in daily life.

Consider that changes in marriage laws in some European countries happened, because earlier, marriage meant that a man and a woman were one legal entity or were one person. It only reflected the realities of those times that a man and woman always stayed and worked together. Later, people said that if they are one entity, it is a disguise for denying legal personhood to a woman and making a man own everything, thus making a woman a slave. Do we really believe wives of husbands for centuries have been “slaves”?

Even slavery is difficult to define. Do we mean slavery in an Arab sense, where your clothes are used to wipe foodstained hands, where you can be called to provide sexual pleasure to a man anytime he asks, where you can be beaten or killed with no consequence, and where you can be forced to load bricks under a 50 degree celsius heat? Do we mean slavery in the French sense, where some Haitians were still given some decency and upbringing by some masters and were basically working in exchange for food, shelter, and other benefits?

I don’t think it is actually possible to start out in a vacuum, set aside all facts, make pronouncements about what is moral or what is not, and universalise it.

I never claimed otherwise.

I never claimed that either.

Prateek, do you actually have a response to make to me or was addressing me an error on your part?