-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Heinz Dilemma
- Thread starter Epic Beard Man
- Start date
BSM1
What? Me worry?
About your insistence that the Civil War was totally not about abolishing slavery, of course.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Don't know where you studied US History but the Union could have used force to abolish slavery at any given time. The war was about Confederate states trying to flex their muscles concerning state's rights. Slavery, which of course was an abomination, was just the scapegoat/rallying cry of that war. The Northern states could insist on moral indignation over slavery because their more industrialized economy was not conducive to slave labor, so it wasn't in their financial best interest to start a war to free the slaves. If it were not for the misguided southern hard headedness slavery as an institution may have continued for some time.
I would steal the medicine to save my wife's life because regardless of whatever else I screwed up, I saved a life. I can't imagine a greater purpose for my life than to save someone I cared about.
I'm for stealing the drug and not going to prison.
Here's my admittedly off the cuff reasoning:
Here's my admittedly off the cuff reasoning:
- Normally, Heinz would have a moral obligation not to steal.
- But that obligation is arguably based on some kind of a social contract (i.e. I will treat you morally if you will treat me morally).
- The company has broken its social contract with Heinz through predatory pricing of its drug.
- Thus Heinz is morally free to break his end of the contract with them (i.e. he is free to steal).
- And since the company broke its contract first, Heinz should not be sent to prison for reciprocating.
You mean anarchy would result if everyone did what they felt was right?
The laws are generally what a majority feel is right in a democracy. What the majority feel is right may change over time but it'd still be something enacted by a majority of folks. So a majority of folks wouldn't be breaking the law and would likely be enforcing it on the rest.
Best thing to do would be to save your wife, then use the event as a platform to support, encourage universal health care.
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
Laws should not be circumstantial because laws would not be applied equally because in such case this would require an interpretation of value and what bis criminally punishable and what isn't. For example if I steal a can of tuna because I have ate in 5 days I'm sure a lot of people would think I shouldn't be arrested for something that cost less that 60 cent. However, if I'm a kleptomaniac and a pathological liar how can you distinguish between the reason someone stealing for necessity and someone stealing just to steal but lies about stealing out of necessity such as the pathological liar kleptomaniac? You can't, so you create a baseline.
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
Can you elaborate?
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
If you can share a link to Spiral Dynamics I'd be interested in reading some stuff on it.
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
I see..
If you have any questions or doubts about anything I've said here, you are welcomed to challenge them. The Wikipedia has an excellent article on the Emancipation Proclamation: Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia
I don't even know how your comment about the Proclamation is supposed to relate to what I said regarding the fact that abolitionists propounded moral arguments against slavery, obviously not arguments concerning “the preservation of the Union”:
[Abolitionist] publications argued against slavery as a social and moral evil and often used examples of African American writings and other achievements to demonstrate that Africans and their descendents were as capable of learning as were Europeans and their descendents in America, given the freedom to do so. To prove their case that one person owning another one was morally wrong, they first had to convince many, in all sections of the country, that Negroes, the term used for the race at the time, were human.
[. . . ]
Many [abolitionists] came to believe in “higher law,” that a moral commitment to ending slavery took precedent over observing those parts of the Constitution that protected slavery and, in particular, they refused to obey the Fugitive Slave Act.
[. . . ]
Many [abolitionists] came to believe in “higher law,” that a moral commitment to ending slavery took precedent over observing those parts of the Constitution that protected slavery and, in particular, they refused to obey the Fugitive Slave Act.
http://www.historynet.com/abolitionist-movement
Benjamin Lay, a Quaker who saw slavery as a “notorious sin,” addresses this 1737 volume to those who “pretend to lay claim to the pure and holy Christian religion.” Although some Quakers held slaves, no religious group was more outspoken against slavery from the seventeenth century until slavery's demise.
[. . . ]
Connecticut theologian Jonathan Edwards, born 1745, echoes Benezet's use of the Golden Rule as well as the natural rights arguments of the Revolutionary era to justify the abolition of slavery.
[. . . ]
The American Anti-slavery Society elected officers and adopted a constitution and declaration. Drafted by William Lloyd Garrison, the declaration pledged its members to work for emancipation through non-violent actions of “moral suasion,” or “the overthrow of prejudice by the power of love.”
[. . . ]
This abolitionist tract, distributed by the Sunday School Union, uses actual life stories about slave children separated from their parents or mistreated by their masters to excite the sympathy of free children. Vivid illustrations help to reinforce the message that black children should have the same rights as white children, and that holding humans as property is “a sin against God.”
[. . . ]
Connecticut theologian Jonathan Edwards, born 1745, echoes Benezet's use of the Golden Rule as well as the natural rights arguments of the Revolutionary era to justify the abolition of slavery.
[. . . ]
The American Anti-slavery Society elected officers and adopted a constitution and declaration. Drafted by William Lloyd Garrison, the declaration pledged its members to work for emancipation through non-violent actions of “moral suasion,” or “the overthrow of prejudice by the power of love.”
[. . . ]
This abolitionist tract, distributed by the Sunday School Union, uses actual life stories about slave children separated from their parents or mistreated by their masters to excite the sympathy of free children. Vivid illustrations help to reinforce the message that black children should have the same rights as white children, and that holding humans as property is “a sin against God.”
Abolition, Anti-Slavery Movements, and the Rise of the Sectional Controversy - The African American Odyssey: A Quest for Full Citizenship | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)
The moral arguments against slavery succinctly and acutely answer the title question of this thread. There seems to be no more glaring example of moral realist views motivating a change in laws, and, the converse, illustrating the social and political regressiveness of moral anti-realism: The Social and Political Regressiveness of Moral Anti-realism Obviously the moral anti-realist has no argument that slavery is wrong.
The only reason that you pontificate about what laws "should" or "should not" be is because you believe that moral or ethical principles "trump" laws that some legislature enact. If there are no objective moral or ethical facts that take precedence over enacted legal statutes, then there is no argument that slavery in the Confederate states was wrong.
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
Ok dude whatever you say
BSM1
What? Me worry?
What about slavery in some of the Union border states?
Hopefully you're not upset about someone merely stating facts.
What about it?
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Lincoln was inclined to allow it for the sake of the Union.
Why don't you try reading the Wikipedia article? You might understand more about the Proclamation. For instance, from the introductory section:
The Proclamation ordered the freedom of all slaves in ten states.[3] Because it was issued under the president's authority to suppress rebellion (war powers), it necessarily excluded areas not in rebellion, but still applied to more than 3 million of the 4 million slaves. The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces;[4] it was not a law passed by Congress.
[. . . ]
Around 25,000 to 75,000 slaves in regions where the US Army was active were immediately emancipated. It could not be enforced in areas still under rebellion, but, as the Union army took control of Confederate regions, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for freeing more than three million slaves in those regions. Prior to the Proclamation, in accordance with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, escaped slaves were either returned to their masters or held in camps as contraband for later return. The Proclamation applied only to slaves in Confederate-held lands; it did not apply to those in the four slave states that were not in rebellion (Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri, which were unnamed), nor to Tennessee (unnamed but occupied by Union troops since 1862) and lower Louisiana (also under occupation), and specifically excluded those counties of Virginia soon to form the state of West Virginia. Also specifically excluded (by name) were some regions already controlled by the Union army. Emancipation in those places would come after separate state actions or the December 1865 ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which made slavery and indentured servitude, except for those duly convicted of a crime, illegal everywhere subject to United States jurisdiction.[6]
[. . . ]
Around 25,000 to 75,000 slaves in regions where the US Army was active were immediately emancipated. It could not be enforced in areas still under rebellion, but, as the Union army took control of Confederate regions, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for freeing more than three million slaves in those regions. Prior to the Proclamation, in accordance with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, escaped slaves were either returned to their masters or held in camps as contraband for later return. The Proclamation applied only to slaves in Confederate-held lands; it did not apply to those in the four slave states that were not in rebellion (Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri, which were unnamed), nor to Tennessee (unnamed but occupied by Union troops since 1862) and lower Louisiana (also under occupation), and specifically excluded those counties of Virginia soon to form the state of West Virginia. Also specifically excluded (by name) were some regions already controlled by the Union army. Emancipation in those places would come after separate state actions or the December 1865 ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which made slavery and indentured servitude, except for those duly convicted of a crime, illegal everywhere subject to United States jurisdiction.[6]
Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia
Are you trying to say that something about the Emancipation Proclamation connects to the fact that abolitionists put forth moral arguments against slavery?