So, you're telling me that these innocent twelve-year old romanian girls experience not a shred of doubt, when they impaled themselves upon the holy phalli? That the communities in Gaza feel no guilt when they destroy the property of their communities?

I list slavery as a non-absolute, because it is a practice in which one can participate, and feel absiolutely no guilt whatsoever, depending on subjective values. Sex with a lovecraftian horror from some distant (percieved) dungeon dimension? Not so morally ambiguous.

I am not saying that these absolutes are not commited. I'm saying that they are done, with the inner knowledge that they are somehow wrong.

If you really think that a man, any culture, any time, can face the mother, or father who raised him, and coolly pull his trigger, slash his sword, or throw his pointy rock, fire his laser eyebeams, whatever, at them, without a shred of doubt or remorse, then you're laboring under a delusion.

"Inner knowledge that they are somehow wrong" makes no sense if you have the knowledge that something is morally right taught to you since birth. Where would you get this inner knowledge, if not from your parents and your culture? I don't see where you have any evidence at all of these peoples throughout history experiencing doubt or guilt or remorse.

Yes we are.

I believe it is germane to the debate, a debate that nighttimer started, because defining what morality really is lies at the heart of the question he posed and he hasn't even attempted to do this. All nighttimer has offered is his own opinion on slavery and since every one here already agrees that slavery is wrong then I don't see the relevence that has to the question of whether Thomas Jefferson was tarnished by his owning slaves. Without a thorough, impartial look at what constitutes morality, specifically the morality of the times in which he lived, and how that morality effected Thomas Jefferson then what is there to debate? Our opinons?


Yes, I agree. Instinct is a good place to start looking for something called 'Absolute evil'. Instinct is really the only thing that all human beings share, though I think we share it in different ways since not every body is averse to matricide. We define insane people as sick however because we prefer to suppose they have no way of preventing their actions. People who do unspeakable actions against innocent people today, serial rapists and murderers are often given an excuse: We say they can't help themselves.

Does that mean if a serial killer can't help himself, and murders fifteen people, then he is not evil, merely sick? Danish law says that if a psychiatrist says so then it is so, but who is to say that the psychiatrist is not also sick? Who is the ultimate authority on who is 'sick' or not? The fact is we relegate such decisions to our doctors because we have no faith in any other method of ascribing motive to such horrible crimes. Our instincts, more often than not would see us put serial killers to a swift and bloody end, so we ignore our instincts as we've learned not to trust them.

I note you are speaking in the past tense.Link (go to 21st century slavery)

I agree with you. If evil is found where our instincts forbid us to go, then slavery and murder aren't evil at all for both have been common aspects of humanity through out all history, right up to the present day. If however, evil is a subjective point of view (and can any one prove otherwise?) then this wourld is an evil place indeed and if as has been said earlier in this thread that we are responsible for the world as well as ourselves, then we bear the full responsibility for that evil when ever we buy a cheap garment made by a 21st century slave or a diamond ring dug out of Africa's soil by a child miner.

How many prostitutes have you driven by without a second glance? Those women are slaves in all but name.

The fact is, I agree with nighttimer that slavery is an absolute evil. Where I disagree is in the assumption that I have the moral right to judge Thomas Jefferson simply because I got lucky in where and when I was born. I'll wager Thomas Jefferson did more to help free slaves than any one on this board ever will.

This argument might have some merit, except for the fact that during Jefferson's time the abolitionist movement was already vocal and gaining momentum. Indeed, in one of quick's later posts he quotes from a letter that Jefferson wrote to an abolitionist. He was aware of this movement. As easy as it is to speak of subjective morals about past times, it should be noted that the institutions of the past do not imply that everyone who lived then bought into the ideologies behind those institutions.

Allow me to offer an example. Suppose that two years from now, the Congress or the Supreme Court finally decides to declare that things such as waterboarding are torture, and are illegal. Now, move 200 years into the future. A historian studying our era might raise the debate - did George Bush believe in torture? The defense of the man might entail this same argument. Because certain tortures are currently allowed, this hypothetical futureman might say that Bush was just a man of his time, that "back in his day" that stuff was considered ok. But such an argument ignores the vast numbers of people who even today denounce these methods. Likewise, to excuse Jefferson because that was the way people thought back then ignores Jefferson's contemporaries who were already so vocal about abolition.

Bingo Quarkhead... but worse... then even your analogy. For your analogy to be correct, George Bush will have to be famous, I mean idolized for his stance against violating human rights.. such isn't likely , but that is what would have to happen

Aevans
Your "trap" springs on yourself more than me. Combine what Quarkhead is saying with what I am saying...

Quick names a few things


Horticulturist???

We can list many of his accomplishments but this from the National archives summarizes it better than I can



Back to the Aevans trap... BAMMMM!! I'm in trouble now!!

In an atler universe, PETA still exists 200 years from now. You are not just an avid Dog Lover Aevans, you pioneer and author books that shape the way people treat their dogs. But the whole time you wrote these books that established all these rights for dogs.. you use to beat your dogs, leave them out in the cold all night, bet on them in dog fights, and put them down when they had so much as the wounded leg.

One can not deny your work and writings led to great rights for the canines, but what of your personnel accord of being doggy loving liberator?? Would, should that legacy be tarnished??

The Declaration is what makes Jefferson so famous, it is not the only thing, but it is the greatest thing. The words most quoted and celebrated are these:


Now, back to Quarkhead, to say Jefferson was a man of his day is simply a cop out for an apologist. In HIS day, not ours, not by our morality, but the morality of his day, Jefferson had a choice. Liberty or enslavery. He could have even been neutral. He not only tok no part and said "to each his own"... No!! He actually owned slaves!

So when he wrote those words... on that paper... "all men are created equal"... did he believe in them? Did an enslaver of fellow humans believe we were created equal?? Did an enslaver truly believe that all men were endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, chiefly life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

One can not deny the greatness of those words, and yes these political philosophies are by no means a creation of Jefferson. Yes they were poetic, yes they were a foundation to something great. But did.. no, could an enslaver, believe in those words. Jefferson was a great author, but so is Stephen King. Jefferson was a great politician, but so is Bill Clinton. First and foremost like most founders, Jefferson was a merchant who loved his wealth, and wanted to retain it from the taxes of the King.

He wrote the Declaration, not because he believed in life, or liberty,(that is evident to even the blind)... it was all about the pursuit of happiness and that almighty dollar he would soon have his face on.

If Jefferson was most noted for work in the garden as an Horticulturist, or if he was most noted for creating the microwave, as an inventor, or if his preeminence to fame was so high profiled murder case where he got two time murderer off.. well having a few slaves could never tarnish those accomplishments.

However, if his greatness or any other founders greatness is attributed to any principle that deals with liberty, freedom, or justice. Then that greatness, MUST be tarnished, because obviously, they did ot have such principles. To put this in perspective it's like saying Michael Vick believes in animal rights.

(first off droop... I don't know that you've really said anything counter to my points)

QH, I dig what you're saying, but maybe I don't know about his contemporaries being vocal, as no links or quotes were supplied.

During T J's time, who was vocal about it? Give some linking information and information that might corroborate this point please.

I believe the point I've attempted to make (and thought I did) was that during that time, people didn't see men of African decent as men at all, but moreover a sub human species. It's abhorrid, surely, but I think that's really the basis of racism, and even during contemporary history scientific studies have been made to attempt to prove a "less human" or "inferior" status of people from African decent.

I suppose if there were people of similar stature who were screaming dissenting voices, maybe there would be a case to say that he consciously chose to be a racist and knew better. I'm not sure that was the case.

Throw some contrary information pls.

Which point do you think I am not addressing??? I agree they thought of Blacks as inferior, but they thought all races inferior. However,even an inferior human, was still a human. And seeing that there were free slaves at the time of Jefferson who were articulate, seeing that jefferson knew that offspring could occur by mating, seeing they were biologically speaking virutally identical... I don't understand how you can both view Jefferson as highly intelligent and such a raging idiot to not know he was enslaving a human.


Aevans



link

You Happy???

You may also want to notice that the motherland, Britain, was coming down heavy on slavery and disbanding it. directly prior to our revolutionary war.

Here is a thought if the south had won the civil war would it have been called the second revolutionary war by the victor States??

Add to that a very simple, basic fact. They called them slaves. Slaves are people. We don't call animals that serve us, oxen, horses, dogs.. whatever, slaves. Whether there were a miilion , one , none, Jefferson still chose to enslave other humans. There was no law requiring he did so, was there??

Your examples of apparent local moral principles (which for the sake of argument I won't dispute) have no bearing on the existence of universal moral principles. Those acts simply show that some universal moral principles can be/are often violated. People don't always do right.

Relative morality is implicit in your cited definition of morality as a "shared belief...". The universal moral principles I speak of are distinct from that definition. Proving that absolute morality exists is beyond the scope of this thread (I reiterate, somebody should start that thread) but I would probably approach it with an abductio ad absurdum type proof showing that the absence of some universal moral principles leads to nihilism or something like that. In that end, it's probably not one of those things that can be proven. You either accept nihilism or you don't.





That isn't what I meant. I pointed out some universal morals to show that universal morals exist. I listed those morality sources only because they share the moral view that slavery is wrong. You claimed earlier that judging Jefferson from my moral standpoint that slavery is wrong gives a distorted, unfair picture because of our different realities. So I supplied you with people who lived in his era- including himself- who obviously viewed slavery as being wrong. The idea is that the point of view of people who lived in that time would not be distorted or unfair as you claim my view is.

I'm fairly certain that you wouldn't argue that his slaves or that Quakers considered slavery as being wrong. Additionally, here's a listing of British abolotionists who were all contemporaries of Jefferson.

I assume "my delusion" that you are referring to is when I say that that Jefferson himself considered slavery to be wrong. Let's consider this quote from his letter to Banneker,

He admits that slaves are existing in a degraded condition in America. Since they existed as slaves in America, it follows that he considered slavery to be a degraded condition, which implies that he thought slavery was wrong.




His stated feelings about slavery confirm that we share the moral point of view that slavery was wrong. His hypocrisy simply shows that his actions belie his stated beliefs. They don't disprove our shared moral view on slavery. One's moral view and one's actions are too completely different things. You are assuming that people only do what they think is morally expedient, and that isn't the case.





On the contrary, your argument is textbook moral relativism.


Also, the "golden rule" is not uniquely western or democratic. It's in every major religion. You don't have to take my word for it, either. That statement is very ethnocentric for someone espousing the views of moral relativism so tough. How do you measure the superiority of "western, democratic morality". It certainly can't be on the basis of the golden rule because that isn't uniquely western or democratic.


******edited to fix formatting

My apologies. I didn't provide links because this is not exactly obscure history. Indeed, I pointed out that Jefferson's letter quoted by quick was a response to a letter from a prominent abolitionist.

But links you want, links you get.

wiki

Let's see.

Benjamin Franklin, the first president of The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage.

Thomas Paine, wrote an article titled "African Slavery in America" in 1775, calling for emancipation.

John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and Aaron Burr, members of the New York Manumission Society.

Heck, even Susan B. Anthony was an abolitionist.

Do you contend that Jefferson was unaware of these people or their thoughts?

By 1804 all the northern states had abolished slavery. Surely Jefferson heard about these things. In fact, through his own writings, we know he was aware of them. Jefferson at one point even introduced a bill of manumission to the Virginia legislature. He was certainly conflicted in this area. And though he did believe slavery was probably "wrong," he hemmed and hawed about it, and certainly remained a slave owner his entire life.

Sorry about that, carlitoswhey. You're right. I'm wrong. Figures differ on how high the mortality rate was for Africans making The Middle Passage. I've seen conflicting figures as high as 10 (not 20) million to as low as one to two million. Obviously we will never know with full certainty what the correct number is, but my 20 million figure was incorrect. My bad.

At any rate if 10 million is way too high, one to two million dead Africans still means there were a lot of well-fed sharks.

Despite the captain's desire to keep as many slaves as possible alive, Middle Passage mortality rates were high. Although it's difficult to determine how many African died en route to the new world, it is now believed that between ten and twenty percent of those transported lost their lives. link 1


Africans were often treated like cattle during the crossing. On the slave ships, people were stuffed between decks in spaces too low for standing. The heat was often unbearable, and the air nearly unbreathable. Women were often used sexually. Men were often chained in pairs, shackled wrist to wrist or ankle to ankle. People were crowded together, usually forced to lie on their backs with their heads between the legs of others. This meant they often had to lie in each other's feces, urine, and, in the case of dysentery, even blood. In such cramped quarters, diseases such as smallpox and yellow fever spread like wildfire. The diseased were sometimes thrown overboard to prevent wholesale epidemics. Because a small crew had to control so many, cruel measures such as iron muzzles and whippings were used to control slaves.
slave ship

Over the centuries, between one and two million persons died in the crossing. This meant that the living were often chained to the dead until ship surgeons such as Alexander Falconbridge had the corpses thrown overboard. link 2

Heading for Jamaica in 1781, the ship Zong was nearing the end of its voyage. It had been twelve weeks since it had sailed from the west African coast with its cargo of 417 slaves. Water was running out. Then, compounding the problem, there was an outbreak of disease. The ship's captain, reasoning that the slaves were going to die anyway, made a decision. In order to reduce the owner's losses he would throw overboard the slaves thought to be too sick to recover. The voyage was insured, but the insurance would not pay for sick slaves or even those killed by illness. However, it would cover slaves lost through drowning.

The captain gave the order; 54 Africans were chained together, then thrown overboard. Another 78 were drowned over the next two days. By the time the ship had reached the Caribbean,132 persons had been murdered. link 3

I think it's helpful to remember that the way Africans made it over to the West wasn't exactly a sea cruise. It was closer to pure hell on earth.





Pardon me if I'm a bit confused as to whether you do or do not consider slavery an absolute evil. You seem to be saying that there isn't any such thing at 0141 pm and a few hours later you say slavery is an absolute evil. So since you seem to be asking me questions, allow me to ask you one: IS SLAVERY AN ABSOLUTE EVIL?



I thought we were debating Thomas Jefferson. What makes you think trying to flip the script and put the spotlight on me takes it off of Jefferson? This thread takes place in The History Forum. Casual Conversation is a different one.

I've profited from slavery and forced labor as has everyone else in the Western World? Wow. That's a pretty provocative statement, moif. Would you like to provide some specifics as to how exactly I've profited? I'm still looking for those 40 acres and a mule.



From my initial post on, I am quite satisfied I've offered far more than just my own opinion on slavery. Whether or not you agree that I have is your call to make. I also disagree that "everyone here already agrees that slavery is wrong." Quite the contrary, there have been several posters such as yourself that suggest slavery had an economic justification and that Jefferson had to "keep up with the Joneses" by holding slaves.

What constitutes a "thorough, impartial look," moif? How will we determine who is impartial? If none of us are qualified to judge the morality of Thomas Jefferson's actions regarding slavery, who does the task fall to? All of Jefferson's contemporaries have long since turned back to dust, so by default it is up to the generations that have followed Jefferson to make the call.

Whether Jefferson chose to be a slave owner due to the economic demands of the time (i.e. it was fiscally more advantageous to use slaves who worked for nothing rather than White workers who might reasonably expect to be compensated for their toil) or simply because Negroes were deemed by their inferior position on the food chain to be somewhat above dumb beasts, but certainly below White men, really is of no consequence. Jefferson's motivations don't interest me in the slightest.

At the end of the day, Jefferson, like others of his time, believed it was his inalienable right as a member of the dominant race and class, to control the bodies, minds and souls of Negroes. White men such as Jefferson saw no contradiction between their belief in freedom and the conviction that those of dark skin were undeserving of it.

If you don't believe I have the right to call Thomas Jefferson a bloody hypocrite, a blind bigot and a cultured rapist, I won't lose any sleep over it. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.



That statement is so banal and inane it's hard to believe you were serious when you wrote it. Since I've never owned or wanted to own another human being, I guess on the face of it that you are probably correct that Jefferson did more to free slaves than I ever have. Then again, when you're in the position as Jefferson was to play God with the lives of Negroes, if it suited him he could have freed his slaves on a mere whim.

Jefferson owned some 600 slaves during his lifetime. Before he died, he freed five. Sally Hemings was not one of them.

Yeah, I guess you got a point there moif. Own over 600 and free five of 'em. That's really doing a lot. Thanks Mr. Jefferson. We's free now, Massa Tom. You's a good massa.

The north's economy didn't depend on slavery. Made it much more easy to take that moral stand. Slavery ended when the economic conditions permitted it to be so. Name an abolitionist large plantation owner during this timeframe.

Slavery was and obviously is, an evil. So is war, and someday we might consider profit to be evil too. We all know it isn't fair that some people live in hovels while others don't, but we tell ourselves that the cost to gains for taking those people out of hovels isn't worth it....because we would personally all have less 'stuff'. We know war is evil, but we go to war anyway...sometimes war IS the best option (though often not) in the cost to gains equation. We have significant moral issues today, they had moral issues then. Context is everything, and the context of those times is not the same as today. Someday, if the human race survives, everyone might happily live in a one-room apartment and share all of their personal belongings, no one will go hungry in the world, and they'll look back on this time as evil in the new paradigm.

I see, so the existence of cannibalism, war, gladitorial games and thousands of years of accepted slavery are all irrelevent examples compared to your personal, subjective perspective on 'universal morality'.

So, are you actually God?


That is the definition in my dictionary. Perhaps if provided your own definition we could begin to better understand your divine opinion...


...except apparently you can't.

So in other words, you can't provide any example as to what you say is a universal or absolute morality, and all my examples of human beings through out history not sharing your subjective pespective on morality have no bearing on the existence of these 'universal moral principles' you claim exist. I see I'm just supposed to take your word on the matter.

Sorry, but I think your talking nonsense. If there is one fundamental lesson of history it is that human beings are capable of smiling and laughing and having a really good time whilst they commit any horror you care to mention.

That morality is a refuge from reality.


No you didn't. You wrote a short list of things we today consider horrible; 'rape, genocide or mutilating babies' and you ignored the fact that other peoples in history, even recent history have not shared that horror. Try watching an Islamic beheading video and tell me the jihadi's involved are filled with horror and shame for what they've done. They don't seem to be filled with any form of guilt that I can see and the fact that CD roms of mujahideen slaughtering people are openly on sale in most Middle Eastern countries, tells me that your notions of universal morality do not even extend into the presence.

And please spare me the 'golden rule is not uniquely western or democratic' argument as well. I never said it was. I wrote Western morality is based on the Golden Rule and Islamic morality is not. At no point did I use the word 'unique'. As for Islam also being based on the Golden Rule. Jeffrey Wattles (who ever he is) needs to check his head and stop dreaming. Islam is based on the notion of submission to God before all things. Ynsha Allah. The ethic of reciprocity doesn't come into it at all.


You assume to much. When I wrote 'Your welcome to your delusion, but you are gravely mistaken if you think that a common aversion to 'rape, genocide or mutilating babies' equates to a shared morality with all the people you listed', I meant exactly what I wrote.


Aye so it would seem. I misunderstood what was meant by 'relativism'. I should have looked it up.

Seems like a moot point though, unless moral relativism is considered a big no no and moral subjectivism isn't.






nighttimer

Obviously yes and no.

Yes, in my subjective opinion slavery is about as abhorrent as you can get.

No, there is no universal morality that describes absolute evil and my notion of evil is based on my perspective of reality.


Well the most obvious example pertaining to you is your nationality and all the advantages of being an American, instead of an African confers upon you. Then there is the fact that your country's economic kick start could not have happened without slavery (and ethnic cleansing). Then there is the wide spread and continued use of forced labour in the third world (known as 21st century slavery) to provide cheap goods for the domestic American market. As I said before, the chances are your shoes and clothing were made by forced labour in Asia.

If you have any doubt that there is a relationship between modern forced labour and slavery in the 1700's then I invite you to read this:Link.

The human cost in this modern slavery was recently high lighted by our very own Lesly on her blog when she linked to this article

Yes, we are debating (and passng judgement on) Thomas Jefferson and his perspective on slavery. In order to do that I don't think its OT to ask what gives us the right to claim we are qualified to do so when we also profit from slavery, even if we don't like to use the word slavery to describe modern slaves. You said yourself that we are also responsible for the world we live in. Well if thats true then you and I are responsible every time we buy anything labelled made in China.


There is a big difference in explaniing why Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and justifying that he did. Economics is the justification from the world contemporary to Thomas Jefferson, and it is the reason why slavery still exists. I don't like it any more than you do, but I have to acknowledge that not every one shares my point of view.


Thats a good question. I don't know that its possible to be wholly impartial, but I believe that when examining anything in history, be it a man or an event, its always best to keep an open mind because the facts can so easily be fantasy.

Thats fair enough, I don't blame you. I'm apt to agree with you except I would rather see things in a broader sense. For example, Thomas Jefferson and those other 'white men' to whom you refer lived in a world where slavery was not simply a case of 'blacks owned by whites'. Africans certainly bore the brunt of slavery as its commonly perceieved in the USA, but the condition of slavery is not exclusive to Africans, nor has owning slaves always been the sole prerogative of White men.

That might make scant difference to you, but I tend to see slavery as a human condition with women being the biggest victims overall. I can single Thomas Jefferson out for rebuke. He should have stood up for his beliefs and freed his slaves ...but if he had, would he then have been the fourth President of the USA? Who can tell? I've read a lot about him in the last week and I'm convinced that he believed all men were equal, but he lacked the courage to follow his convictions, no doubt because he knew what would follow if he did. Bottom line. He knew he was doing wrong.


Well actually I was thinking that he helped to write the constitution of the United States which despite everything is still the document which eventually put an end to slavery.

...except I then realised I was confusing the constitution with the decleration of independence. Sorry about that

What good is morality - religious or otherwise- if it fails to take human nature into account? In W. Somerset Maugham’s novel The Moon and Sixpence, the narrator asks Strickland about his views on Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative: Live your life as though your every act were to become a universal law. To which Strickland. replies, "I never heard it before, but it's rotten nonsense."

I'm not indifferent to slave labor and corporations turning a blind eye to how workers are treated in Third World countries as they work to satisfy the appetite of Americans for cheap goods, but I'd be lying if I said it was on my Top Ten list of pressing issues.

Nor do I agree there is an moral equivalence between Jefferson owning slaves and the indirect support Americans give to slave-like labor conditions. I think you are outraged by forced labor, but your linkage of these two events in not remotely similar. If you can demonstrate that millions of Chinese are being sold into slavery, forced to travel thousands of miles to work in a strange country destined never to see your homeland again maybe we can ponder that scenario. As it stands, you're comparing a secondary evil to a primary one.



True as it is, but nowhere was slavery as institutionalized and made part of the accepted way of life as it was in America and certainly no nation has struggled with the aftermath of slavery to the degree the United States has.



Actually neither The Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence did anything to end slavery. Not until Abraham Lincoln
issued The Emancipation Proclamation was slavery "ended." However, Lincoln's executive order did not end slavery. There was no way to enforce it until the Confederacy was defeated that the Proclamation had any teeth to it.

The Emancipation Proclamation consists of two executive orders issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. The first one, issued on September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America as did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863, and the second one, issued on January 1, 1863, enumerated the specific states where it applied.

The Emancipation Proclamation was widely attacked at the time as freeing only the slaves over which the Union had no power, but in practice, it committed the Union to ending slavery, which was controversial in the North. It was not a law passed by Congress, but a presidential order empowered, as Lincoln wrote, by his position as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution.

The proclamation did not free any slaves in the border states (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia), or any southern state already under Union control. It first directly affected only those slaves that had already escaped to the Union side, but as the Union armies conquered the Confederacy, thousands of slaves were freed each day until nearly all (an estimated 4 million) were freed by July of 1865.

After the war there was concern that the proclamation, as a war measure, had not made the elimination of slavery permanent. Several states had prohibited slavery; however, some slavery continued to exist in Kentucky and Delaware until the entire institution was finally wiped out by the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment on December 18, 1865. link

It would take another three years after Lincoln's order and a Constitutional amendment to end slavery.

I think Moif brings up a good point, it becomes very hard to retroactively judge the perceptions of a man when we find material advantage in consumer products. Finding areas of cheap labour to exploit is part of the industrial revolution whether one finds it palatable or not.

It is through this form of consumer driven hypocrisy that I cannot judge the man in your question.

Is the greatness of Thomas Jefferson tarnished by his positions on race or is it unfair to critique Jefferson by today's evolved standard?

No, because emancipation is dependant on democratic institutions for enforcement and these are corruptable. Should a new depression take hold, the idea of treating everyone equally is purely academic. IE the extent of the public pocketbook determines how equatable we are on any given day.

What also becomes clear is the economic circumstances must be possible before we can consider emancipation. This is the tool the north had to use to convince the south slavery was no longer in their best interests. To associate this as concerned consciences strikes me as altruistic. My point is if the economics change treating all people equally under egalitarian principles becomes unrealistic.

You can think it's nonsense all you want, but moral absolutism is not one of my crackpot rants. I'm not making this stuff up. here's the wiki entry on moral absolutism:


If that doesn't satisfy you, here's an excerpt from Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy definition of morality:

This is what I've been saying. So again, I reiterate, your examples of human behaviors and decisions have no bearing on the existence of absolute moral principles. Those groups you mentioned made immoral decisions. Is that so hard to believe?

But if you don't accept the existence of a universal moral principle that slavery is wrong, there's still the matter of Jefferson himself considering slavery to be wrong, the slaves thinking slavery to be wrong, and abolitionists thinking slavery to be wrong.

Maybe if you spend more time taking your own advice I should have looked it up. instead of trying to be so condescending and sarcastic then I wouldn't have to convince you of the existence of the concept of absolute morality.



No, you didn't use the word "unique", you used the word superior, which implies unique. You said
You said that western morality is superior to all others which implies that western morality is unique from all others per the definition of superiority. You can't be superior to something and not unique from it at the same time. That wouldn't make sense. Maybe you should take a little more time to consider the logical implications of what you are saying.




You're right if you accept that a person who does a wrong cannot judge that wrong. I don't agree with that point of view. For example, it is just as valid for a murderer to say that another murderer is wrong as it is for a non murderer to say that a murderer is wrong. Committing an act doesn't forfeit the right to criticize or judge someone else for that same act.

Also, the analogy between Jefferson and us doesn't hold up. Jefferson directly owned slaves and was directly responsible for their freedom and lack thereof. I on the otherhand am not directly responsible for anyone's freedom. I don't have nearly as much power and inlfuence as Jefferson had.

Before making my statement I looked around at all the items that could have been made either in China or the former British colonies with the American stamp on them. From computers to running shoes to cloths I had over a dozen items that were likely to come from sweat shop labour. I may not have a personal slave in the same way as Mr. Jefferson, but from my actions I encourage abusive behavior on a far larger group of people.

Does purchasing sweatshop labour from a group of people carry the same weight as abusing one person in your own home? I say it does. Why? I am providing the capital for those who orchastrate this to pay their bills, set up their factories, and provide an opportunity to rope even more people in at a future date. To affect many from a far is at least comparable in my view.

The larger question that Quarkhead so rightfully identified is to measure the extent and size of the abolitionist movement in Jefferson's time. If you can prove it was a healthy movement you can then show Jefferson was running contrary to popular opinion. If you can't, then one is spuriously applying social ideals in a retroactive manner.

I'm not accusing you of making up the concept of moral relativism, only in assuming that it is some kind of moral codex which applies to anything beyond the subjective. It doesn't. The fact that people have believed in this concept enough to give it a name, write books on it and create a page on Wikipedia about it, doesn't mean it exists beyond the subjective perspective of those people who believ ein it.

I reject utterly any argument that claims Ghengis Khan (for example) held the same fundamental moral beliefs that I do. morals are not 'inherent in the laws of the universe', nor 'the nature of humanity', and there is certainly no evidence any where in existance to even prove the will or character of 'God', such an entity is an article of faith.

Moral relativism by contrast takes into account all exterior factors, especially the most important factor, which is environment. Human beings adapt to their environment and form their morals accordingly. A Dane born in the 21st century has very different morals to a Dane born in the 8th century, so much so that one could argue that not even their 'fundamental morals', (what ever that actually means) do not correspond.


Its not hard, it is impossible to believe.

I'm sorry, but your confusion regarding the difference between modern philosophy and historical fact make no impact on me. I'm certainly not convinced of anything on the basis of a subjective perspective on a philosophical theory. There is no evidence, to suggest that Ghengis Khan (for example) made immoral decisions. All the evidence available points to the opposite. That Ghengis Khan (and the many other examples I have quoted previously) acted in accordance to their own understandings of morality.

It strikes me as perfectly absurd that some people today seek to impose a 'fundamental morality', based solely on what they personally regard as moral right and wrong, on people in the past or even in other, contemporary cultures. Take for example this quote from the late Ayatollah Khomeini of the Islamic Republic of Iran;

QUOTE(Khomeini)

"Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious."

You would suggest that this man, who believed in the rightness of his god to the degree where he became the modern epitome of the word 'fundamental', was somehow making deliberate immoral decisions in the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran?

No. I do not buy this argument. It is utter nonsense to suggest that all the kings and queens of history and all the empires, religions, political movements and colonial powers were founded on deliberate immoral decisions. To suggest there is an over all, over riding fundamental morality behind all humanity is to project your self onto all humanity.


Already dealt with numerous times in my other posts.


I said, in my personal opinon western morality is superior and that implies nothing further than that I believe western morality is superior. My opinion certainly doesn't mean anything is 'unique', meaning one of a kind, having no like or equal. My opinion is simply my personal, subjective perspective on any given subject.

I have to agree with MOIF that there are no universal morals or universal morality. If morality is subjetive, due to the very nature they depend on our beliefs, then they can NOT be universal. That being said, morals should be applied universally, not subjectively.

You can't say I won't judge Jefferson by my morality, but I will judge Saddam or Hitler, by my morals... That makes positively absolutely no sense.. Our morality is not just separated by time but also cultures and societies. If your argument is


Trouble


Trouble, you say "likely to coe from sweat shop labour". Why likely. Why not say which items are from sweat shop labor and which is not?? ahhh, because you don't know. You have no idea, and neither do I. And this is the depth people have to go to to justify Thomas Jefferson.

You have to do some wild looping hook of logic, that by buying clothes that may or may not have come from a sweat shop where people get paid very little for labour, is equivelant to owning slaves. you say it does.

Either you own a dang sweat shop where you force people to work under extreme duress for hours on end... or you don't.

I pay my taxes, my taxes pay for the salries of the soldiers, soldiers commit crimes... therefore i am "just as" responsible for the crime any military member makes because in some weird crazy way I employ him. It 's almost to the point in order to say Jefferson record should not be tarnished You have to throw logic completely out of the window.

As to your last paragraph. It depends on what you are judging him on, as I said before.

If we were judging him on his skills as a lawyer, or president, well I don't see how the fact that he had slaves plays a part. However if you are judging his merit as a man who believed strongly in freedom, or justice, or other redeeming qualities, his slave owning should come in to play.

There are several countries that do not have these "hovels" you talk about, why cant we do the same? What is so different with United States and New Zealand compared to Moifs Denmark, or Sweden? They live in as close as to an Utopia you can get. Why can thye do it, and we sit here on our EDIT talking silly?


As i assume you know, because of the Second World War, United States managed to take itself out of pvoerty. Because of WWII the United States can today feed itself. Is that taught in american school? Just curious? War is always a financial "pro" for the winning side, but War is bad Universally because of the suffering, which some countries simply ignore to. Are americans talking about how they destroyed the infrastructure in Iraq? Do they even know what infrastructure is? Are they talking about the more then half a million innocent lives killed because of them?

No, they talking about the few american lives lost. Is that not just insulting to the poor souls, the innocent men woman and children killed for american interest in Oil and gaining power in that region?


I am not an materialist. I have no problem sharing in a "communistic" sense as you mentioned. Thats how we should live today, why do not all drive a environmental friendly car (the ones that need to), and the rest use a advanced public network? I know examples here Mrs Pigpen, some you are not doubt aware of to as you travelled. Why are You different? And most importantly, why is Everyone not looking at everyone else? Why are americans not looking to the superior European nations? They have less problems, less violence, less religion and ignorance, I would look up to them, why not you?

And what about the Chinese, they have done nothing good? The fastest growing economy in the world? Will be number One quite soon. And what about the extremely impressive Japan, a nation that gives such a horrible amount of Aid to the world just as a single nation, its scary. But maybe you are not aware of it? You been told the world is evil, and only Your Nation is to be soon upon?



We still conduct war, and you claim its Evil. Slavery in the "old style" definition dos not exist anymore, but we have sweatshops, are they not similar? Unions work very well here in Oceania and Europe, how "good" are they in United States? The ones making sure you, as a worker, do not get harmed by the Corporations? You know, the ones running your country?


-JE

Well, all of the jet fuel used in your numerous travels could have fed many families for several days. But, you chose to travel with your spare change rather than give it to the needy. Tusk, tusk...

Do you happen to have anything topic related to say? Anything at all?

The post has some good points to it I think but the overall abrasive method of delivery I think will attract more attention in general. I always thought how you just typed is how American tourists acted really

When you say communist what do you mean, surely its not what Stallion had in mind so I just get lost when you through some big attachment word out like that with a follow up that less then entails any reason for the use of the word in the first place. Its rather odd really in placement is the reason why I draw it in for attention. I am not fan of everything capitalist and I live in America, I view environmental issues with a heavy heart overall as social side issues that deal with large scale governmental philosophies I see as less the best friends really.

A capitalist system has a quality of in large being cyclic in a healthy fashion. I think combined with democracy such a system makes acts like tyranny very difficult. I think the only reason we still give so much power to one person is because human ignorance can show just as much in different ways when dealing with qualities of mass. I don’t know exactly how you make such a call either really that would be the all time fit decision to make.

Back to the topic at hand I don’t really see how any particular governmental system can operate environmentally greener then any other really. Simply put our technology and behavior is not built around such a task, this even if rushed could not be replaced in any speedy fashion. The reality though is it can be and it will have to be eventually if not to save humanity at least for maintenance reasons


I mean I read a story today about a young girl who committed suicide related to an experience on the net. Do you think that such a reality existed in the minds of those that created it? How do you morally orientate overall to judge such when its existence lead to such? I personally adore the internet and see it as nothing short of positive for human capability to communicate primarily. So again I do not see how such issues with such complexity can so easily be related such as governmental systems and environmental understanding. To me that would simply only really evoke natural sciences, not the government in any shape or form.

WhaaaaT?

Context is not everything but it must be taken in consideration. If slavery was evil then, what do we do about our visionary founding figure Thomas Jefferson?

Slavery existed in Northern and Southern colonies and for a few years in Northern states too. But you are not suggesting that being immersed in Southern society kept Jefferson from becoming familiar with the arguments against slavery?



Thomas Jefferson link PBS Notes on Virginia (1784)

Jefferson was a man, and on slavery he has in the past been given credit for wishing slavery did not exist, but as a philosopher or a political leader or a planter he did not do anything to resolve the matter. The matter left unresolved nearly destroyed his noble republican experiment.



Thomas Jefferson (1820)
link


This not discredit the entirety of Jefferson's life work. He is an extremely important American, in many ways perhaps THE most important. This issue may be a significant part of his importance. But let's not give Jefferson, the man who penned "All Men are Created Equal", a pass on this issue.