I think moif is right: We don't have the "moral authority" to judge him. Thomas Jefferson has survived the judgment of history rather well; and yet we would presume to judge him based upon our so-called “modern” moral standards when we ourselves cannot even agree on what those standards are today. Was Jefferson immoral? No. His was a secular ethics typified by the Deists of the Age of Enlightenment; and he lived in accordance with the laws of his day. In this, it is important to note that there is a distinction between morals and ethics, for while there are different moral codes, ethics refers to an applied moral system. It is like the distinction between science and technology: there are different branches of scientific discipline, but technology refers to applied science; and, not to put too fine a point on it, it is a distinction that makes a difference.

We have just as much "moral authority" to judge him as to judge anyone else, past or present. He doesn't get any special immunity just because he lived in the past.


There's no such disembodied entity as "history" that's capable of rendering judgment. When one says that "history" has made some kind of judgment, what's really happening is that people make the judgment. And people are liable to groupthink, which can be very unreliable.


The fact that we can't agree on everything doesn't mean we can't agree on some things. And I don't think there are many civilized human beings today who wouldn't agree that owning another human being is immoral.


Lots of people live in accordance with the laws of their particular time and place. That in itself doesn't justify their behavior.

Totally advocating invasion of countries and cultures involved in slavery and completely, totally dismantling them. Through violence.

Look you can be a jazz fusion guitaris if you like all I'm saying is when you compare the power of the President of the US and the power of an intern I think you've got the fullest swing possible. As close as master & slave as we're like to get in current times. And TJ was a fine looking man. Again there's absolutely no evidence at all that Jefferson raped anyone OR fathered any slave children.


I have no idea what this means.

Hmmm, I was not accusing Jefforson of pedophillia- though I could see how my point was misunderstood- I believe he only committed one of those immoral behaviors- not both,

my point is that there are only a couple true "moral absolutes"- such as killing is not always wrong,

but pedophilian and ownership of another human, in the manner that you could buy and sell the human being, is always wrong.

I would agree with Mrs P that women and children were nearly always chattel of the male as well, in the course of human history- but not always, and I believe this view to be wrong, no matter what age either.

In no way can the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings be considered a "love affair." Love is a mutually agreed upon emotion. Love is not one party exercising power and total control over another as Jefferson did with his slave. As a slave, Hemings did not possess the ability to consent or refuse a relationship with Jefferson. She could not have initiated nor terminated a relationship with Jefferson. This was not a pairing of equals. Jefferson occupied the superior position and Hemings the inferior. She was Jefferson's property to use as he pleased and her wants, wishes and desires were totally immaterial and subservient to his own.

When free will is absent, love does not exist. Rape does.

Your revisionism asserting Jefferson was not the baby daddy of the slave children of Sally Hemings is totally absurd (got any credible source to back it up besides your own opinion, BA?). From the TIME panel of experts I linked to in my original post, I quote Dr. Judith Jackson Fossett, Associate Professor, Department of English Program in American Studies & Ethnicity and Director, African-American Studies, University of Southern California:

Thomas Jefferson as private citizen and public intellectual embodied a wide spectrum of contradictions in his opinions and behavior. He drafted the Declaration of Independence, served as an foreign Ambassador, was elected President of the United States, founded a major university among many other luminous achievements even as he inherited, owned, bought and sold slaves, wrote and spoke in contradictory ways about the "problem" of slavery, solutions to it, and the irrefutable inferiority of blacks, was constantly in debt, likely maintained a decades-long concubinage with his slave Sally Hemings, fathered several illegitimate children with her who consequently became his property, and ultimately failed in his promise to free the vast majority of his slaves.

He, along with his elite generation, imagines "freedom" and "liberty" against the backdrop of various forms of bondage in the New World: indigenous genocide, indentured servitude and, most compelling, chattel slavery. He also imagines "freedom" and "liberty" from within a white gentry and elite whose family lives were cushioned by the invisible labors of nameless slaves. Just consider his incredible anecdote, recounting his earliest childhood memory, of being carried as an infant on a pillow by a slave from his father's house.

Having just visited Monticello again in the last few months, I am reminded of slavery's intricate but invisible tentacles upholding and fostering Jefferson's life particularly and in representations of early and antebellum America generally. His "little mountain" would not have been built or maintained without slave labor, and especially the prodigious skills and imagination of trusted and beloved slaves who toiled to execute Jefferson's quirky architectural innovations even while Jefferson would be absent from Monticello for months or even years at a time. As he gazed out of his bedroom/study/laboratory, he decided that he did not want his picturesque views disturbed by the requisite slave quarters and work buildings. But his likely relationship with Sally Hemings would have also taken place in that same series of rooms. Jefferson was both completely dependent upon the system of slavery, but also simultaneously able to disavow it.

While in print, that's an opinion. The key word is likely. So since that word works for you as fact:

So where does this moral authority you say we have stem from?

Are we so morally superior that we can pass judgement on other people? Nighttimer says we are responsible for the world we live in. If thats true then it makes us responsible for all the women sex slaves in our midst. Have you tried to help a sex slave recently or is enough for you to wash your hands of the matter under the notion that sex slaves are illegal so its none of your concern?


Sure there is. History is composed of the literate people who lived in the mean time.


By that argument every one in history is guilty, and so are we. Thats fine by me, but as 'wrong doers' we have no moral authority at all.

Thats the whole case in a nutshell. Who are we to pass judgement on some one for owning slaves when that some one did much to abolish slavery? What have we done that equals or surpasses the acheivements of Thomas Jefferson that grants us the moral right to pass judgement on him? We largely ignore slavery in our world we gladly wear clothing made by people forced into labour conditions that resemble the worst Victorian England had to offer and we act upon our own morality (western or otherwise) as if it were the definitive morality of all humanity.

Now, we can ignore all the above and pass judgement anyway, but that makes us hypocrites.

The operative word in your post is "opinion" and that's all you have offered in rebuttal to scholars who have probably forgotten more about Jefferson than you've ever known.

If you don't want to even attempt to provide something more substantial than your own unsubstaniated conjecture BA, that's certainly your choice. Of course, since ALL it is your opinion, I suppose I can give it all the weight it deserves---none.

Proving yet again the accuracy of the late Daniel Moynihan when he said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

Then again, since you're rewriting history to fit your own version I guess it's possible Moynihan never said it at all.




Hypocrisy? Moif, you're soaking in it. You've taken one question and turned it into a catch-all for every problem in the world that bugs you. You've thrown in driving cars, sex slaves, clothing made in sweat shops and your taste for naked women. When you get to how much The Colorado Rockies sucked in the World Series will that be enough?

"Moral superiority" has nothing to do with this topic. History is subject to debate, discussion and in this case--dissent. If you don't believe it is fair to consider the actions and contradictions of Thomas Jefferson's life, that's fine. I disagree that you have to equal or surpass the achievements of Jefferson or anyone else before considering did they maintain the high standards they personally proclaim.

Logically taken to your absurd lengths Jews shouldn't pass judgment on Adolf Hitler trying to eradicate them from the face of the planet and those who lost a loved one on 9/11 should really try to look at it from Osama bin Laden's point of view and not take it so personally.

I sincerely hope the next time some radical Islamic fundamentalist does something terrible you will be as forgiving and reticent to condemn any atrocity they may commit. I would hate to think you'd be so hypocritical as to defend a long-dead
American president but condemn some murderous terrorist.

Scholarly opinion is no more and no less credible than a man yelling at the TV. It's not up to me to prove TJ didn't have a sexual relationship with Sally Hemmings. It's your burden to prove he did since you're calling him a rapist. Let me help you out. You're never going to prove it either way. Just more of the man holding you down.

You're taking Moif's posts literally. He's batting around ideas. Hint: so have I by bringing up modern day sex slaves. I don't need to even ask myself if I'm not in a position to pass judgment on the past. I know enough to know I'm right. If being right means passing judgment, so be it.

This thread seems so obvious the debate questions are beside the point. Why can't racists be visionaries? Enter sex slaves, porn and sweat shops in the discussion. I just think BA's comparison of bubbly Monica to slave Hemings to downplay 18^th century reality is the kind of reach he should reserve for The Onion. But your response, being absolutely certain of your morality, taking a black and white position, etc., sounds decidedly conservative. Maybe my temperance will lead me to committing moral wrongs, but that possibility is better than being wrong once and wrong forever.

Well, if you think the opinions of learned scholars who have throughly researched Thomas Jefferson is no more credible than Joe Six-pack yelling obscenities at the TV because they lost the feed to yesterday's Colts-Patriots game, I certainly can't argue with logic like that. I wouldn't even presume to try. It does explain though where a lot of your opinions come from.

Thanks for the kind offer to "help me out," but anyone who's as fast and loose with the facts as you are isn't going to be of much help to me. Since you seem to be having so much trouble trying to prove YOUR point that Jefferson wasn't a rapist, let me help you out. This is a debate board (I know...surprise, surprise!). I presented a hypothesis and have providing supporting material to bolster my point that Thomas Jefferson was a slave-holding hypocrite who used his power over the life of Sally Hemings to make her his sex toy.

I have further elaborated upon my belief that this was a relationship of power, not consensual sex, and as Jefferson held all the power and Hemings could not have rebuffed his lecherous advances, Jefferson raped her, impregnated her, and she gave birth to his children whom he very kindly enslaved as he already had their mother. Nice guy, your pal, "T.J."

Now you don't have to buy that line of thought and obviously you don't. That's cool. What you DON'T get to do is make up your "facts" and since you haven't provided a single one to rebut mine, it seems the only possible conclusion is you don't HAVE any counter-argument to make.

Well, you do have one: "I don't got to prove nuthin' to you. You got to prove it to me. And you can't. Nanny-nanny-boo-boo." That must really terrify 'em on the playground, BA. I'd love to debate this with you, but since you can't even go as far as quick did in attempting to debunk Jefferson's baby daddy status, I can't say that I expect you to man up at this point.

As far as "just more of the man holding you down" goes, aren't you afraid of stepping on Aevans176's copyright of that line? I can see that original thought isn't the blue plate special on your menu, BA, but if you're going to try and play the "Angry White Man" role vacated by lordhelmet you could at least look like you're trying.

I haven't defended any body nighttimer.

I'm sorry, but you've consistently missed the point I've been making, which is, Thomas Jefferson existed in the past. Adolf Hitler, Muslim terrorists and all the other evils mentioned in this debate, exist today, that is to say within living memory. Subject to the same existing moral reality's that we do and thus in the same historical context that we do.

There is such a thing as context you know! You can't just look back at history and ignore all extenuating circumstances because you identify with a particular victim and expect every one else to just agree with you. We can pass all the judgement we wish, and we do, but we should understand that moral authority does not come from moral opinions.

Jews can pass judgement on whom so ever they wish, but in return they must then expect to be held to account for their own perceived misdeeds. This is true for us all. If you want to judge Thomas Jefferson, then please go right ahead, but know then that you also must stand to account for what you have and have not done in your life.

That includes actions and opinions that you yourself might not even consider immoral, such as looking at porn, driving a car, eating meat &tc, &tc...

One: Jefferson's daughter Martha Jefferson Randolph privately denied the published reports. Two of her children, Ellen Randolph Coolidge and Thomas Jefferson Randolph, maintained many years later that such a liaison was not possible, on both moral and practical grounds. They also stated that Jefferson's nephews Peter and Samuel Carr were the fathers of the light-skinned Monticello slaves some thought to be Jefferson's children because of their resemblance to him.

Two: The 1998 DNA study indicates that Thomas C. Woodson was not Thomas Jefferson's son. Madison Hemings's statement and the absence of any information linking Woodson to Monticello make it unlikely that he was the son of Sally Hemings. Based on all the information available to us at this time, the committee cannot establish that Thomas C. Woodson was the child of Sally Hemings -- despite a compelling oral tradition that almost certainly dates to Woodson's lifetime.

Three: I concur in the Scholars Commission's conclusion that the allegation that Thomas Jefferson fathered one or more children by his slave Sally Hemings is "by no means proven." My own view is that the allegation is not at all plausible.

Four: Truscott, Dao, and Staples all left out of their tales, that there is no evidence that Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings ever were lovers, that based on genetic evidence, any one of at least 25 men on Jefferson’s side of the family may have fathered one or more of Hemings’ children (Jefferson family historian Herbert Barger argues persuasively that Jefferson’s brother, Randolph, was Hemings’ lover.)

The list is bogglingly long... I've done enough research for you today.

Adolf Hitler lived today.... ...get me a calendar. Living memory.. of a handful of people?? MOIF you're trying to make loopholes. So tell me when the last holocaust survivor dies.. does hitler move beyond moral judgement.

Morality is individually based. It can only be individually based. We can share some of the same morals, but in the end it exists in our personal beliefs.

On to Thomas Jefferson...
Scum/idiot, and visionary like many of the founders. If someone has to tell you that the person speaking to you who can have a baby with you is a human being... you're an idiot.

So it's either or. He was scum for participating in the grand farce of calling all men equal... blah, blah, blah.. while enslaving humans. Or he was an idiot of grandoise proportion who actually thought this "being" in front who he could have a conversation with, mate with, procreate with was actually a beast of labor.

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

The answer to this is both. the reason why is it, depends on the person. Some people will view the legend not the man, others may see the villian and not the man. The founders of this country is given way too much credit and I think history shows that. Their primary battle was that of retaining wealth. They didn't want to give to Britain any more. Now their struggle was about freedom and justice... and ... blah blah blah. \

Thomas is in the same boat. He was by no means a visionary, in fact many of his ideas had already been placed forward by other european revolutionaries. Why would a man devoted to freedom have slave.

Occman razor would state... he wouldn't.

But his reputation, like reagans, or clintons, or whoever is only tarnished as so far as each and every individual so deems it.

Unless, he advocated freedom, AND prosperity. In which case, his own prosperity, ranking much higher than individual freedom on his list of priorities, would come first.

We do what we need to to survive, Droop. Jefferson was no different; he was perfectly willing to build his fortune on the back of hundreds of sweating, suffering blacks.

Its the case of all succesful countries; trace back their histories, and you will, invariably find a slave-race that was used to build their foundations.

Moif is right, to an extent. We cannot apply modern morality to Mr. Jefferson. (I'd like to add, that it is a fallacy to apply morality of any kind to mr. Jefferson. ) This is because, in the early stages of any country, morality is totally forfeit. Conscience, morality, this all comes AFTER the initial bouts of cruelty that allow a country to be built in the first place.

Ummm that would make him scum, correct??



Survival was not at stake... prosperity was, did you not just elude to this.



Like, MOIF, I believe you are making a loophole. There no reason why morality can be applied to a time 50 years ago, but not 150 or 250 years ago. All it is a bias that makes you want to give some a pass an not others. You have a desire to give these White founders a pass on the crimes because they are what you believe to be the root of the tree we now reside under. To call them vile is like calling that tree vile, thus you wish to give them a pass.

Yet you still need evils in the world, to profess what is good. So you will apply your morality to a toatally different societies and groups of today and yesterday.

Like sheep we have been directed to where we may apply our morality and we follow.

Was the actions of Thomas Jefferson Good or Evil
Was the actions of Adolf Hitler good or evil
Are the actions of terrorist good or evil
Are the actions of our invading forces good or evil.

There are very strict social guideline that tell us what we can call good and what we can call evil, and it is based on many things, but none of them are the actual actions of whatever subject we are talking about.

Because thomas Jefferson's country succeeded, he has been beatified by its people.

If adolf Hitler had won his war, he would be a saint.

To those who look at america, and see their future as mercantile slaves to its industry, the terrorists are freedom fighters.

To some of us, our soldiers can do no wrong, to others, they are monsters.

DO you see the problem?

I am not saying that Jeffersons morals were outdated, I'm saying that they were nonexistent. In the early stages of country-building, settlers and founders cannot afford to think of "right" and "wrong." It was despicable, yes, but do not forget that this country, with the jobs that we work in, and the food that we eat, was built by slavery, first by blacks, then by mexicans, and on, and on, and on...

Agree with most outside the last paragraph.

The founders spoke or tyranny, oppression, freedom, rights, good and evil. The made document with preambles that served as nothing but a moral barometer or compass. It told us of truthe that were self-evident.

There was religion abundant, in which morality was preached. To say morality did not exist seems a little far fetched. The founders preached right and wrong, how else did they convince the populace to rebel? They thought it, preached it it, used it.

I don't see what superiority has to do with it. But if you're taking a general position that we can't pass judgment on anyone, past or present, then I won't argue about that, since that's a much deeper matter of personal philosophy that I won't get into here. Suffice it to say, I disagree with that general position. My more specific point is that the passage of time does not make a person any more immune to moral criticism.


I suppose that would follow from his premise. I don't know why you're taking it up with me, though.


Like I said, it's just a handy synonym for people making judgment, and being liable to groupthink.


That doesn't follow.


I'm perfectly willing to judge both the good and the bad in the man.


I didn't say our culture's morality was the definitive morality for all humanity. I am saying that I know some things are just plain wrong and perverse - owning human beings as chattel being one of them - and do not have a problem saying so.

No, they only used it.

Just because they preached morality doesn't believe they could afford to believe in it. Notice how the parts of the bible that ordered them to "love their neighbours", and "not to kill" were conveniently forgotten when they were driving off the Indians. And the Spanish. And the British.

During that early period, they were not unaware of morality. THey simply did not utilize it. Or rather; they believed that they served a higher morality; to elevate their country above all others, into a realm of self-sufficiency, and strength. Whatever their motives, the means that they used were all the same; no morals, no mercy, not until the safety of themselves, and the state was ensured.

(and back then, safety invariably meant wealth. ANd wealth meant slaves. do the math.)

I agree but only partially. Morality is conforming to a common perception so whats individual about it, is the perception of a common belief. Its the word perception that is important here. There is no such thing as an 'individual moral' (that would be a belief). Morality is a shared belief in what is right and proper.

With regards to Adolf Hitler, we don't need to have lived within the exact time frame with him personally, only to have been personally affected by his cimes. No matter which way you cut it, no one today is affected by anything adverse Thomas Jefferson did. Not even any offspring he may have fathered on his unfortunate slave. What ever crimes Jefferson may have committed have long since paled into insignifance, especially considering what his participation in the founding of the United States was to ultimately acheive.

If this bothers you, consider how annoying it is to be beholden to Josef Stalin for ones freedom! The greatest mass murderer in memory and without him I wouldn't even have been born.

Further more, the attempt to align Jefferson with Hitler is patently absurd. Jefferson was simply one man, a man who was a product of his times, in a moral contradiction whose life betrays an apparent hypocrisy. How many people did he murder? We have the accusation of owning slaves and a possible, unproven rape in a time when owning slaves was not illegal.

Hitler by comparison was a monster of gargantuan proportions who brought about massive destruction and pain, also on people who are still alive (my great uncle for example) and whose impact on the world carries no extenuating of redeeming circumstances what so ever.

Having said that Droop, I have repeatedly stated that any one is free to pass judgement on any one. They must simply understand that in passing moral judgement on some one who lived in the past you are yourself open to moral judgement and since there is no known way for a person in the future to come back and tell you what your crime is, you must consider for yourself how free from sin you are.

Are you? If you are so free of sin that you can pass judgement on Thomas Jefferson, then go right ahead...


Maybe because he was afraid of bringing about his own destruction and that of his family?

Consider the fate of poor people, even poor white people in the 1700's and apply Occams razor to what would become of a man who threw away his wealth... Its not impossible to conceive of Jefferson as a man who was afraid of 'going it alone'. His writings seem to indicate that he wanted every one to give up slavery, not just himself.

Hypocritical perhaps, but how was he to know what way the wind would blow? Are you going to throw away your car, and thus reduce your mobility and ability to carry out a job, solely on the possible moral conviction that you may be held responsible for what happens when the oil runs out?

edited to add:

I repeat again;

One can certainly examine, or even judge, a man like Thomas Jefferson by todays standards. Morality is not beholden to any time frame. If you believe slavery is wrong then it is wrong, regardless of its legal status in seveteen twenty when ever.


edited a second time:

Nor I.

I agree 100%. This should indeed be done.

If people reflected the reasons of actions, we would not have as much problems as we have today. Look at the 9/11 incident. Americans have been killing innocent men woman and children in the middle east for decades, yet, it seems that in american eyes, these 2500 people (mixed nationalities) are worth more (defined as 'americans') then the innocent lives of children, killed NOW.... and NOW....and NOW in Iraq.


Maybe its worth questioning yourself once and awhile? I know I do. I guess your "moral" is above mine, and you simple know better, and your actions are good.



Or did i miss something?

You missed a lot. I mean huge piles of missed. When were Americans killing innocent women and children in the Middle East? Gulf War 1?

And as a New Yorker let me assure you have absolutely no moral authority to speak about what happened on 9/11. When you can still SMELL 9/11 you can talk to me about it. Until then, New Zealander, you can just remember it as the TV event of 2001.

So once again, you are trivializing muslim children dying in the middle east because of U.S bombings, and try to make a few deaths in the U.S 6 years ago something worth more? Please explain how the ones dying in the 9/11 attack (which indeed i saw on TV) are more worth then children dying because U.S raids in Iraq (also on TV).

Its insulting how you see yourself as superior. Tell me, is it because they are muslims, or another nationality? Or maybe its just hypocrisy showing its ugly face? The deaths in the U.S 2001, of September the 11th is nothing compared to the deaths in Iraq during the last 5+ years. I am waiting eager to hear how you conclude the opposite in your mind.

Indeed, i do apologize for my part as we clearly strayed away there. But its clear that some people consider their "moral" and "conduct" pretty flexible as seen above.


We where talking about contemporary 'moral' against our preceding 'moral'. As most here should know, the 'moral standard' during this time was set by Christianity (in the western world). And according to the Church, during black people where inferior, and was to be used as tools if so wanted.

Racism, is, once again, simple the fact of considering your 'race' superior. You do not need any "power" or somesuch to be, or claim racism, you simple are one if you consider yourself above a certain type of group. By my own claim, i would say the black population in the U.S are far more racist against whites, then whites are against blacks (admit it could be more of a systematical "racism" in laws and regulations). But this is just my experience of it, and could be a very singular event.


I see nothing wrong with what Jefferson did, and can understand the ones here accepting it as OK for "does days". Personally I have nothing against voluntary "slavery" (example; a man sells himself to a farmer for one year, where he gets food and lodging for work, this contract can not be broken), and however "evil" i may seem, i see little fault in the past slavery. I would have treated them better, and not done the same way, but for this time and the circumstances, I do not shame.


But I do consider it "wrong", depending on how we define "slavery". Poor people are doing mucky jobs for Rich people today, whats the real difference? They are also, metaphorically, chained to their master.

Metaphor and reality are, of course, worlds apart. Poor people can, and do BECOME rich people. Poor people are not OWNED by rich people. Poor people aren't slaves. Poor people aren't taken from their homes by rich people and sold to other rich people and forced to work forever.

However, none of that has any bearing on the fact that Thomas Jefferson while a slave owner wasn't a rapist.

Are you just going to sit there and create restrictions?? How bold... We all have our individual morals. Every moral is a belief, however every belief is not a moral.


You know let someone who knows you better explain this to you... Nighttimer you looking you are going to love this:



That's right, your own words... that's sweet.You can't have your cake and eat it too. And time is not the only hing that separates our perspective realities. My realities as a citizen in a first world country with relative peace, and abundance does not compare to the reality of some third world country, with poverty, war, famine, and scarcity.



ah-ha. you think to protect youself with some sort of psyche shield.... MOIF, whether i pass judgement or not does not make me impervious or open. Those who will pass judgement will do so regardless of whther or not I pass judgement. Just as I pass judgement on Jefferson.

You think by not passing judgemet, no one is capable of passing judgement on you for the evils and wrongs you support. Do you think you can hide behind the catch all, "i did what I thought was necessary" if you let Jefferson do the same... It makes sense in a crazy, searching for absolution, way.

I have no need for such things thus I will pass judgment. He was enslaver and thus a tarnished man.His wrong was to Humans, not animals, not to environments, but to his fellow man. He did not just kill them but stripped them of freedom and dignity. A vile visionary. And the best excuse was.... "well he had to keep up with the Jones's"

I do not want to disturb you in your bickering here, but may i be bold enough to ask you something here?

You toss around the word "evils" here, seeming to forget that "good" and "bad" are subjective. There is no truth to it. Adolf Hitler was not evil when he executed the holocaust, Your opinion is that he is 'evil' when executing the holocaust. See the difference?


If you want a historical setting, sure, i shall supply:

1. Today history tells us about how 'evil' Adolf Hitler and the German Empitre was, killing (according to figures) something around ~7 million jews (innocent).

2. During the same time, United States of America dropped two Nuclear Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. At the same time (a bit earlier) there was American Concentration camps in the U.S, holding Japanese citizens of the United States captive.


Tell me, what is the difference of these two points, other then your own, subjective biased opinion?

OR

Are both evil?



Well, not to pick and complain, especially as my own grammar is tawdry, but humans are animals.


But what is your contemporary opinion/'moral' based on? The society you live in today? Or one you saw on a show? Or perhaps following your parents creed?

And forthe final, of course, Why is your moral judgement the right one?

Yes I do.

If you want a historical setting, sure, i shall supply:



If evil is subjective good must also be subjective... then both your examples are neither good or evil, they merely are things that happened.



Actually we are not. We are biologically mammals, but animals are a classification created by humans to separate ourselves from wild life.



Too many things to name.



Why my dear Noomskee, because they are mine.


....rookie!!

If?

Eh, no, it is a fact. It issubjective, as all opinions are.


Possible if you are religious and believe in gods, you might claim to have a set of 'morals', but that would put you in the cacky as you would need to prove your specific god, as well as show where his moral is 'written down' etcetera. Way off-topic, so lets avoid thus.




Yes, indeed, first we say that "good" and "evil" are not subjective, and are absolute (without any reference to what "good" and "bad" actually is in this absolute world of yours), and then you say that Homo Sapien Sapien are not animals. Greeeeeeaaaaaattttttjt.







Name ONE to start with. This is a debate, dont just toss in the towel as soon as you get questioned.



You did not answer the question. We (atleast not I) are not 5 yearolds. There is no "because" answer here. Please give detail to why your view is the right one, and others are 'wrong', so everyone on the board knows this.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand where you get the idea of a restriction from. How is defining morality 'creating a restriction'?

As I usually do when debating the meaning of a word, I took the time to look up the word to make sure I was not making simply stuff up as I went along. I am satisfied I have not strayed into la la land and as far as I can see my point is clear and does not contradict itself. Morals are shared beleifs. Morality is a system of shared beliefs.


I don't understand this point either. Who is the third world person to whom you refer?


Wrong. I also pass judgement, I merely reach a more forgiving conclusion than you because I appreciate the difference between the world I live in and the world Thomas Jefferson lived in.

A psychic shield? Not quite. Nice try though.


Yes. He was a hypocrite, and so are you and I. The only difference is how we are.

You really should look into starting your own thread. None of this has to do with Thomas Jefferson.

Besides killing 6 million people with the intent of exterminating a race systematically is definitely more evil than dropping bombs (which while less than good isn't putting people in ovens) and rounding up people with no intent of killing them.

Maybe you shouldn't start a thread your relative ideas don't stand up to questioning.

James Earl


If as in... an If/then statement... you know what those are?? I was neither agreeing or disagreeing with you. You asked me a question of "Are both evil?" after already mking the statement that nothing is evil

If nothing is evil why are you asking a question if both are evil. Do you think yourself some Jedi-master, teaching his Padawan.. oh guide us Master Yoda...


Who said good and evil are not subjective? Who is this we... do you have a mouse in your pocket?? To be a true master Jedi try not to assume... and admit when you are wrong. Humans aren't animals. Or should I say, whether we are or aren't animals is subjective, due to the fact that when looking at the definition of the word... it's all over the place.

One such definition specifically states...




***choke*** ***laughter*** "toss in the towel"?!?! You named three why do i need to name one. A person morality is based on their experience and the lessons they learned from them. Thus I don't even know all the things that have played into shaping my morals. And i don't know of the experience yet to come that will continue to shape them.



Your refusal to see that I gave you as the most honest and correct answer to your question is your flaw, not mine. If good and evil are subjective, subsequently, what is right and what is wrong(on a moral level) is also subjective. If right and wrong is subjective, meaning based on my perception as you pointed out. Then the only truthful answer to give one who preaches moral relativism, as you seem to be doing, is... "because they are mine!!"

There is no other reason that can suffice.

MOIF



Agreed what youu stated was a definition of the word morality. I would not argue with you on this point. However you took it one step further. You ignored other definitions of the word morality and then restricted it to ONLY shared beliefs, when you stated



You can not retreive one definition of a word with multiple meanings to say there is no such thing as an individual moral.

moral .n;


Just because you found a definition that said a shared belief does not mean that it excludes the ability for a moral to be an individual belief. The fact that a belief is shared is not what makes it moral.




I refer to no one... now I misuderstand. the point is if we should understand the difference in "time" why not societies. Me and some palestinian, 30 year old male, live in the same "time" But we don't live in the same reality. You seem to argue, that while we may do as we like, we should not Judge Jefferson due to the fact he lived at a different time and thus a different set of norms, rules of behavior, a different reality.

But "time" is not the only thing separates social realities. My question then.. should we, though we may do as we like, judge people say the one we call "terrorists" or "savages" in tribal villiages if they too live in different realities, by the morals of our perspective realities.??



We agree

I agree, but truly what is right?

Is speeding ok? Is drinking a beer while driving somewhere ok? Is spanking your kids ok?

Racism is obviously never ok, but I think things that I've mentioned changed over time. Speed limits used to be 55, now in places they are 70.

Open container laws used to not exist.

Spanking kids used to be fine, but now is frowned upon.

What I'm saying is that collectively, as a society, we generally evolve. The end result isn't always better, but often times humanity's respect for human life becomes "better".

I personally think that, particularly growing up in the south, that racism is an institution taught similar to any other science or understanding. People, over time, learned that anti-biotics killed infection. Over time, we've also learned that people of different colors are exactly the same as we are. It wasn't taught to anyone like that, even two generations ago.

Get it? Was Thomas Jefferson a biologist? Did he inspect the minds and bodies of slaves to learn that they were as intelligent and capable? Of course not.

I don't condone it, but believe that TJ was simply a function of what people percieved to be true. What if 200 years from now we learn that dogs have feelings and nutritional needs similar to humans? Are we going to give them beds, send them to school, and feed them 3 square meals?
Understand?

I think that our views of people, animals, and science have all changed even in my generation. Even when I was young care of domestic animals wasn't so complex, including yearly shots, high "protein" foods, etc.

I'm by no means saying black people are animals, but more or less, in the 1600's and 1700's that was the view. I think there are people in the world that still think that. Consider our overall global care of Africa as a barometer.

I've enjoyed catching up on my reading.

NT, even though the War of Northern Aggression was fought for a number of reasons, there is no doubt slavery was one of, if not the principal, reason. "So this is the little lady who made this big war,” was Abraham Lincoln’s famous comment upon first meeting Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. I wrote a thesis on this issue some years ago. The northern abolition movement was a significant motivating factor-indeed, without it, the North may well have quit fighting in early 1863, as the war as a means only to preserve the Union was very unpopular at that time.

As a Southerner, I would argue the biggest reason for the war was the tariffs enacted by the Northern dominated House on imported items from Europe in an effort to force Southern planters to sell to Yank manufacturers rather than European ones. This was especially problematic because next years crop was pledged by factor for this years seed and manufactures. But the war indeed freed the slaves, and it was by far the bloodiest war in US history. To say the war was not fought in part for this reason is to ignore the truth.


I want to phrase another series of questions:

Are the Great Pyramids any less significant becuase they were built using slave labor?

Is the Taj Mahal any less beautiful because the prince who built it blinded the architect who designed it so he could not design anything more beautiful?

Is Athenian democracy any less significant because Athenians also owned slaves?

Are black Africans any less "brothers" because (i) they entered the jungle, caught blacks from other tribes, and then sold them to the Europeans in trade?; or (ii) they still practice slavery in a number of African nations right now?

Are the Romans any less magnificient because they enslaved many people from many nations?

Are Ghengis and Kublah Kan any less magnficient as military leaders because they killed and enslaved people from China almost to modern day Israel?

Was Martin Luther King not a great leader because, even though an ordained minister, he also had a dramatic propensity for having adulterous affairs, as his friend Ralph David Abernathy noted in his book, and plagiarized his thesis?

Jefferson was surely troubled by slavery, even if he owned slaves; are we to condemn him more than those at the time who were not troubled at all? Is it not possible, even though a slaveowner, he was a reasonably merciful one? Does it matter?

Anyone giving a fair reading of Jefferson's life will have to acknowledge his greatness. Jefferson was indeed a visionary, even if the nation went away from his vision for it and followed Hamilton's vision. If you feel better calling him a hypocrite, fine; this is not inaccurate. But, anyone with any high moral standards is a hypocrite, as we all fall short. If we can look ourselves in the eye and say we live up to our entire moral code, then our moral code is beneath contempt.









Actually, he was as close to a biologist as it got in his era. His scientific knowledge was prodigious. Some of the things he treasured most were samples of plant and animal life brough back by Lewis and Clark from the "West".

Well, the meaning of a word cannot contradict itself. if the dictionary says morality is a shared belief in what is right and wrong then thats what it is. A shared belief.

One person cannot hold a moral all to himself. If Mr Hypothetical believes all custard is evil, then that is not a morality, it is a belief. If however, Mr Hypothetical meets Mr & Mrs Example, and they shares his belief, then it becomes a 'morality'. That is how I understand the meaning of the word morality as defined by the dictionary. One person = belief. Several people = morality. If there is another way to understand it then clearly I'm wrong, but I don't see how 'morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct' contradicts what I wrote.


Here you are repeating a point I made in my first post.

I'm not saying you can't judge Jefferson. Only that in doing so you must understand that hindsight brings its own distortions. That our reality is not his reality and by judging him by our standards, you are being both biased and unfair. There is no way you can say that Thomas Jefferson should have lived up to our morality because he had no way of knowing what that would be.

Some people have offered the idea that one can judge Thomas Jefferson simply because slavery is wrong. Yes I believe slavery is wrong too, but slavery was legal in Jeffersons day. If we start down that path then what does it say about us and our laws and practices? We tolerate a lot of dubious practices, none as horrble as slavery sure, but still pretty contentious. I've offered a few examples of these already, but my examples have not been fully understood as examples.




...but for how long?

Aevans and Quick

Let's not conflate greatness and goodness for a second. Osama is a great man, in fact so great tthat he should have been the man of the year for 2001 on a TIME magazine. Does this make him a good man.

Now as we have all come to agree we are all hypocritical, we will never get around this fact. but what makes a difference is when we are hypocritical to that which made us great. That tarnishes the greatness.

(for whoever mentioned MLK) If i asked you what was it that Martin Luther King stood for that contributed to his greatness. Many things would come up his fidelity to his wife wold be very low on the list

However If I were to ask you what made Thomas Jefferson, and other founders as well so great.

Where would fighting for freedom and liberty be on that list? Where would opposing tyranny be on that list?? Where would fighting for equality be on that list??



hmm... actually I don', not sure if any one else get's it either. Are you suggesting that Jefferson the architect of our country was a moron?? Slavery was not new when Jeffereson practiced it. He undoubtedly knew they were human because they were called "slaves". We don't refer to animals as slaves. Was Jefferson capable of mating, breeding and having a CONVERSATION with all the animals so that he could not tell the difference between another human and a sheep, or ox, or horse?? Please elaborate on the message you are trying to convey.



Dogs do have feelings similar. Have you never seen a dog jump up with a wagging tail or cringe in fear, or growl when pestered. It shouldn't wait for some one to "prove" something so evident. Same with TJ. How could he be of any greatness if he wasn't even intelligent enough to observe that his slaves were human. Yes he may well believed a different race of Humans, but still human.


Would it matter to you??

Again I am asking you whta made Jefferson great?? And does slavery oppose that which he spoke of and believed in that made him great.

Ahhh... we're getting somewhere. I set that trap... WHAM! You jumped in!

I am an avid dog lover. I believe that, aside from my wife they are my family. They do have feelings, do feel rejection, jealousy, anger, etc. Maybe not the same as a child, but similar at times.

Ok- however, in American society, no one would bat an eye if I kept my dog outside in a dog run. Is it ok in my eyes? Not really, but for millions of Americans it's just fine.

Are there people in PETA campaigning to let your dogs sleep in your bed? Do they ever have "take your dogs to the dog park" campaign?????

Does someone say "well, 50 years ago, people never even gave their dogs medical care!!!!!". Of course not.

Thomas Jefferson was on the "dog run" side of slavery. Like it or not, some people don't care to extend the courtesy of "love and caring" to things inhuman. As repulsive as it was, slavery was inhumane. The African (Black) slave traders that sold them, the people that brought them here, and those who had them had to have thought of them as less than people to be in the industry.

I disagree with it, but it wasn't that big of a deal back then. It was most likely how he was taught...

Let me ask you something... did you ever believe in something that was illogical? Santa Claus? The Tooth Fairy? The Big Bang Theory?



Umm... Droop, he may have seen them as people, but not equal. That's how racism is an institution. It allows people to see other skin colors as "less than people" or "less OF a person".

I know you've been around racists. Don't give me that "black people aren't racist" crud. It's bologna. I've heard a million "chinese people or Indian people" comments from black people. Are their arguments logical? Do racists see people as equal?

Are the people really not equal? Of course they are. Racism springs from the notion that someone is "better" or "more human". It's really that simple.

Slavery, and even racism as an insititution stems 100% from this ideology.

Let's see--Jefferson was a seminal political philosopher, educator, lawyer, statesmen, horticulturist, biologist, musician, inventor, author, president, architect and engineer. He died 50 years to the day after the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, on July 4, 1826, as did his nemesis and friend John Adams. Accident?

Perhaps this will illuminate everyone: