Where did the Private Internal Moral Laws Arise from?

[popeye1945]

{"I have read Schopenhauer's 2 volumes and is reasonable well versed with Hindu Philosophy, esp. Vedanta.
My point is, if one has cosmic realization of the "I AM" [developed over a long time] one would a high degree of wisdom, equanimity and rationality and will not be impulsive. Even when one has a sudden realization of the "I AM" it would not come at the time when one is faced a situation of having to save someone. In your example above, policemen are often well trained to encounter critical situations like the above.
If that policemen was only able to grab the man's jumper by his finger tips, if he is rational we will have to let go.
[/quote]

Veritas,

Ok, I do think Schopenhauer was not speaking of a profoundly disciplined individual but speaking of the generality of the human condition. To have such a realization I really don't think one needs be a person who has devoted a lifetime to introspection. You and I are discussing that said realization that states that the essence of all life is one and the same. Perhaps your are right perhaps an individual who has devoted a lifetime to introspection would not just be grabbed by this realization but again I think he is referring to the human condition under given circumstances, I admit that there may be exceptions to this generalization.

[Sculptor]

Related to this post,
viewtopic.php?p=556914#p556914
here is the question re 'Chattel Slavery"
Where did 'your own Private Internal Moral Laws [which happen to to be same as others] that detested and refrained oneself from chattel slavery within you arise from?

• Slavery is a loose term and I deliberately specified my point related to slavery is confined to 'chattel' slavery only in this case.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
  In the long term, all forms of slavery must be abolished legally by all sovereign nations, but what is most critical is, subsequently in the future, slavery must be spontaneously taken as morally wrong by each individual voluntarily -as their private personal law internally- and as such any external laws of on slavery will lose their significance.
  
  I am sure you [& many] understand that from personal experience, i.e. one do not need to rely on external laws to tell or deter them that slavery is wrong.
  In this case, you (& the many] has their own private internal laws that reflect chattel slavery [& other forms of slavery] is wrong, i.e. morally, despite your God not condemning slavery explicitly.
  
  So you need to ask, where did this private internal Moral laws [not from your God] and similar with others that detested chattel slavery within you/them arise from?

There are no private internal moral laws.
In fact it is tantamount to a contradiction in terms since moral laws are definitively given by the community, else they are not laws at all.
Personal ethical behaviour is always a negotiation between personal opinion, moral teachings from one's culture and personal interests.
These are modified by how close or remote the moral actors are in the given situations and whom they might concern.
They say a friend will help you move; but a good friend will help you move a body.
Moral law has no semantic meaning in the context of the individual.

Additionally people do not jus "know" that slavery is wrong. You simply cannot delete the cultural indoctrination from an innate sense of justice. Slavery is a constant in human history and emancipation and manumission are rather recent ideas given the long duration of human history.

There are various meanings to the term 'law', it is not restricted only to 'community' laws.

Note this meaning of 'law', as in natural laws, e.g. Physics, etc. thus akin to 'principles'.

• a general rule that states what always happens when the same conditions exist:
  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/law

It is a natural law that all living humans must have oxygen [via breathing naturally or artificially] else they die.
I am arguing, all humans are "programmed" with a moral potential which has been slowly unfolding since humans emerged and the rate of unfoldment is greater at present which had resulted in the average moral progress since 10,000 years ago.

Since the moral landscape of 10kbp is unknown and unknowable you cannot pretend "progress".
One thing we can be sure of it that there is more human misery now, and more slaves now, than there were then.
Again. Are you trying to make a point here?

[RCSaunders]

One thing we can be sure of it that there is more human misery now ,,,

Exactly how do you measure, "misery?" What is the unit of measure, and how to you measure it? If this misery is strictly metaphorical, what actual thing does the metaphor represent?

[Sculptor]

One thing we can be sure of it that there is more human misery now ,,,

Exactly how do you measure, "misery?" What is the unit of measure, and how to you measure it? If this misery is strictly metaphorical, what actual thing does the metaphor represent?

More people means more misery. More people is not "progress". More slaves alive now than the population 10kbp.

Why don't you ask Veritas to justify "progress"?

[Immanuel Can]

What I had been discussing had been laid out right from the beginning, i.e. the topic of chattel slavery. You are forcing your way to change the subject.

Not at all.

Rather, I'm insisting on the right definition for the thing you talked about, "slavery." If you want to eliminate from your consideration many of the types of slavery there are, and pretend that the only real form of slavery is something like transporting people from Africa to North America, then your conclusions are going to be based on a false premise. Slavery is much more than you are prepared to admit, and much worse than you are prepared to acknowledge, and much more prevalent today than it ever was before.

That's a basic fact you have to keep in your calculation, if you want to be able to make any remotely true statement about what the present condition of worldwide slavery indicates about "the internal moral law."

On that definition, there are more slaves in the world now than at any time in previous history. So no, the human race is not getting better on that score. They're getting worse. And since much of today's slavery is outright human trafficking, sexual exploitation, and child labour, it's even worse than what you are trying to narrow the definition to cover. What traditional slave would not prefer to work in a field rather than to be serially raped to death instead?

Now we are dealing with a different 'kettle of fish', i.e. taking into all forms of slavery per your definition above [which I agree].

Well, there never was a reason for excluding them. So I was correct all along.

You just cannot based on merely quantum at present but must compare the relative % of the world's population.

That's not sensible.

That would only be true if you assume that slavery is an impulse equally distributed across all historical cultures and populations, which is evidently untrue, even now. For there are only certain kinds of slaves in, for instance, the modern West, but what you are calling "chattel slaves" still in North Africa and other places, and so on. So taking the world population and using it to divide the number of world slaves tells us nothing accurate...especially if you exclude most actual slaves from your calculation, by redefining "slavery" to exclude things like child slavery, those held in forced, unpaid labour arrangments like captive migrants and prison slaves, rape slaves, and child "brides."

Another point which I had mentioned is in the past all the above types of slavery were not restricted by laws but at the present all the above slavery are illegal.

https://theconversation.com/slavery-is- ... rch-115596

But let's take that claim, and test it.

In the US, for example, slavery is totally illegal. It has been, since the Emancipation Proclamation. Is it then your claim that there have been no slaves in the US?
https://theexodusroad.com/does-slavery- ... ica-today/

So since slavery still exists in the US, does the mere having of laws against it prove that slavery is being rejected? Apparently not: for people can disobey laws, even where such exist.

Apparently, you're mistaking the public morality of legislators for the actual morality of the people. They're two very different things.

I am not going into more details here.

I just did.

[Immanuel Can]

What evidence do you have that past chattel and other forms of slaves are not raped, raped to death, beaten violently and subject to psychological and all forms of abuses.

I did not say that did not happen. But if it did, it only hurts your case, not mine. It would show that people are even worse than you were prepared to admit to yourself.

What I was speaking of is what IS happening in North Korea and China. And I wondered how you could possibly be calling that not-slavery, when it's clearly the worst sort of slavery.

Slavery [all forms] Much Mitigated since 10,000 years ago?

Still false.

Putting it in bold doesn't make it true.

[RCSaunders]

One thing we can be sure of it that there is more human misery now ,,,

Exactly how do you measure, "misery?" What is the unit of measure, and how to you measure it? If this misery is strictly metaphorical, what actual thing does the metaphor represent?

More people means more misery. More people is not "progress". More slaves alive now than the population 10kbp.

Why don't you ask Veritas to justify "progress"?

I was only interested in the idea of, "measuring," subjective experience (which your statement implied.) I'm not questioning your conclusion. I have the same kind of question about assertions like. "there is more poverty," or, "there is more disease," etc. just because there are more people to be poor or sick, while on a per capita basis individuals might all be less poor or less sick. I'm not claiming either, just asking how one makes such assessments.

I'm not likely to ask Veritas anything because I have no interest whatsoever in his absurd views. That's why I ask you, because you are always reasonable no matter how much we disagree.

[Sculptor]

Exactly how do you measure, "misery?" What is the unit of measure, and how to you measure it? If this misery is strictly metaphorical, what actual thing does the metaphor represent?

More people means more misery. More people is not "progress". More slaves alive now than the population 10kbp.

Why don't you ask Veritas to justify "progress"?

I was only interested in the idea of, "measuring," subjective experience (which your statement implied.) I'm not questioning your conclusion. I have the same kind of question about assertions like. "there is more poverty," or, "there is more disease," etc. just because there are more people to be poor or sick, while on a per capita basis individuals might all be less poor or less sick. I'm not claiming either, just asking how one makes such assessments.

I'm not likely to ask Veritas anything because I have no interest whatsoever in his absurd views. That's why I ask you, because you are always reasonable no matter how much we disagree.

I do not think you can measure subjective experiences except your own. There are objective criteria you can impose on experience if you are interested in statistics, but I was not interested in the finite quantification.
Veritas was making a false claim that is easily refuted without the need for precise measurement.
So he says that there is moral progress from 10kbp.. Which is absurd, since in 1800 throughout the entire world slavery was perfectly legal. I've studied archaeology long enough to know that what can be said about the world in 10kbp in morality is limited and wholly speculative. What we can say is that there were no societal mechanisms for the sort of institutionalised suffering that we have today.

[RCSaunders]

More people means more misery. More people is not "progress". More slaves alive now than the population 10kbp.

Why don't you ask Veritas to justify "progress"?

I was only interested in the idea of, "measuring," subjective experience (which your statement implied.) I'm not questioning your conclusion. I have the same kind of question about assertions like. "there is more poverty," or, "there is more disease," etc. just because there are more people to be poor or sick, while on a per capita basis individuals might all be less poor or less sick. I'm not claiming either, just asking how one makes such assessments.

I'm not likely to ask Veritas anything because I have no interest whatsoever in his absurd views. That's why I ask you, because you are always reasonable no matter how much we disagree.

I do not think you can measure subjective experiences except your own. There are objective criteria you can impose on experience if you are interested in statistics, but I was not interested in the finite quantification.

Well that's my thinking as well, though I see statements about the increase or decrease of just such subjective experiences, like happiness, or compassion, or hatred all the time.

Veritas was making a false claim that is easily refuted without the need for precise measurement.

When he makes one that isn't false, that will be news.

So he says that there is moral progress from 10kbp.. Which is absurd, since in 1800 throughout the entire world slavery was perfectly legal. I've studied archaeology long enough to know that what can be said about the world in 10kbp in morality is limited and wholly speculative. What we can say is that there were no societal mechanisms for the sort of institutionalised suffering that we have today.

He says a lot of things about pre-history for which there is no evidence at all. It's a safe way to make stuff up. Nobody can check it.

[Sculptor]

More people means more misery. More people is not "progress". More slaves alive now than the population 10kbp.

Why don't you ask Veritas to justify "progress"?

I was only interested in the idea of, "measuring," subjective experience (which your statement implied.) I'm not questioning your conclusion. I have the same kind of question about assertions like. "there is more poverty," or, "there is more disease," etc. just because there are more people to be poor or sick, while on a per capita basis individuals might all be less poor or less sick. I'm not claiming either, just asking how one makes such assessments.

I'm not likely to ask Veritas anything because I have no interest whatsoever in his absurd views. That's why I ask you, because you are always reasonable no matter how much we disagree.

I do not think you can measure subjective experiences except your own. There are objective criteria you can impose on experience if you are interested in statistics, but I was not interested in the finite quantification.

Well that's my thinking as well, though I see statements about the increase or decrease of just such subjective experiences, like happiness, or compassion, or hatred all the time.

Veritas was making a false claim that is easily refuted without the need for precise measurement.

When he makes one that isn't false, that will be news.

So he says that there is moral progress from 10kbp.. Which is absurd, since in 1800 throughout the entire world slavery was perfectly legal. I've studied archaeology long enough to know that what can be said about the world in 10kbp in morality is limited and wholly speculative. What we can say is that there were no societal mechanisms for the sort of institutionalised suffering that we have today.

He says a lot of things about pre-history for which there is no evidence at all. It's a safe way to make stuff up. Nobody can check it.

True and since I've actually spend a proportion of my life in the formal study of prehistory he ain't pulling the wool over my eyes

[henry quirk]

From elsewhere...

How can you be so ignorant even when I have highlighted the difference between 'chattel' slavery and other forms of slavery? Note you are the one who implied all forms of slavery are the same.

All slavery is the same. The pampered concubine is as violated as child gang-raped. The kidnapped Cleveland women hidden and held in a house against her will for ten years is as violated as the black man who was openly auctioned in a town square.

If you force me to one or the other

False choice: reject both, fight.

-----

people do not jus(t) "know" that slavery is wrong

Yeah, they do. Every person, no matter where, no matter when, knows he belongs to himself and no other. And every person, includin' the slaver, is outraged when the leash is applied to him. The work around is for the slaver to frame the slave as not bein' a person or not bein' (fully) human or bein' sub-normal or deservin' of bein' treated as property. He's not like, or is less than, me, so it's okay to leash him.

So, yeah, people do just know, and some of them rationalize ways around that knowing...cuz they're bad people.

[henry quirk]

Veritas was making a false claim that is easily refuted without the need for precise measurement.

When he makes one that isn't false, that will be news.

So he says that there is moral progress from 10kbp.. Which is absurd, since in 1800 throughout the entire world slavery was perfectly legal. I've studied archaeology long enough to know that what can be said about the world in 10kbp in morality is limited and wholly speculative. What we can say is that there were no societal mechanisms for the sort of institutionalised suffering that we have today.

He says a lot of things about pre-history for which there is no evidence at all. It's a safe way to make stuff up. Nobody can check it.

These quotes aren't mine.

[RCSaunders]

Veritas was making a false claim that is easily refuted without the need for precise measurement.

When he makes one that isn't false, that will be news.

So he says that there is moral progress from 10kbp.. Which is absurd, since in 1800 throughout the entire world slavery was perfectly legal. I've studied archaeology long enough to know that what can be said about the world in 10kbp in morality is limited and wholly speculative. What we can say is that there were no societal mechanisms for the sort of institutionalised suffering that we have today.

He says a lot of things about pre-history for which there is no evidence at all. It's a safe way to make stuff up. Nobody can check it.

These quotes aren't mine.

I know. I just copied Sculpters post and have no idea how your name got in it. I've fixed in the original, but can't change other people's posts. Sorry!

[henry quirk]

I know. I just copied Sculpters post and have no idea how your name got in it. I've fixed in the original, but can't change other people's posts. Sorry!

No worries. I just noted it for readers. No change was necessary. And, yeah, the error popped in sculptors post, not yours...apologies.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What I had been discussing had been laid out right from the beginning, i.e. the topic of chattel slavery. You are forcing your way to change the subject.

Not at all.

Rather, I'm insisting on the right definition for the thing you talked about, "slavery." If you want to eliminate from your consideration many of the types of slavery there are, and pretend that the only real form of slavery is something like transporting people from Africa to North America, then your conclusions are going to be based on a false premise. Slavery is much more than you are prepared to admit, and much worse than you are prepared to acknowledge, and much more prevalent today than it ever was before.

There you go again,
Where did I,
"pretend that the only real form of slavery is something like transporting people from Africa to North America, "
As had insisted I had only intended to discuss one type of slavery i.e. 'chattel slavery' that is differentiated for example in the Wiki article, i.e.
1.1 Chattel slavery
1.2 Bonded labour
1.3 Dependents
1.4 Forced labour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

Btw, have you ever done an academic thesis, either graduate, masters or PhD level.
If you ever try to "swallow" the whole lot of slavery in one go and make a point, your supervisor will surely have to tell you off.

In my case I have attempted to find the correlation between chattel slavery [sufficiently specific] and moral progress via the internal "programmed" moral potential.

Since you want to discuss slavery-in-general that cover all types of slavery I have raised the following OP which you are running away from.
Slavery [all forms] Much Mitigated since 10,000 years ago?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34546
When the variable is too general it is much difficult to draw conclusions and the analysis would have to be more extensive and complex.

The approach in any problem or issue is to breakdown the whole problem into manageable smaller units. As such to be effective you still need to analyze each category of slavery [no conflation] and do a summary of all the variables involved.

Given my conclusion with 'chattel slavery' which is the type with the greatest weightages, I can extrapolate the moral progress to the other types of slavery despite the larger numbers at present [note my argument on relative % to the related population].

That's a basic fact you have to keep in your calculation, if you want to be able to make any remotely true statement about what the present condition of worldwide slavery indicates about "the internal moral law."

Given my conclusion with 'chattel slavery' which is the type with the greatest weightages, I can extrapolate the moral progress to the other types of slavery despite the larger numbers at present [note my argument on relative % to the related population].

On that definition, there are more slaves in the world now than at any time in previous history. So no, the human race is not getting better on that score. They're getting worse. And since much of today's slavery is outright human trafficking, sexual exploitation, and child labour, it's even worse than what you are trying to narrow the definition to cover. What traditional slave would not prefer to work in a field rather than to be serially raped to death instead?

Now we are dealing with a different 'kettle of fish', i.e. taking into all forms of slavery per your definition above [which I agree].

Well, there never was a reason for excluding them. So I was correct all along.

You just cannot based on merely quantum at present but must compare the relative % of the world's population.

That's not sensible.

That would only be true if you assume that slavery is an impulse equally distributed across all historical cultures and populations, which is evidently untrue, even now.

Just like the impulse for an illusory God to deal with cognitive dissonance, psychopathy, etc. the impulse to enslave other humans is a resultant of being human, so it is all over the world, i.e. China, India, Africa, other parts of Asia, the Americas, etc.
Btw, China and India's population represent almost half the world's population and all types of slavery were very prevalent in these two countries.

For there are only certain kinds of slaves in, for instance, the modern West, but what you are calling "chattel slaves" still in North Africa and other places, and so on. So taking the world population and using it to divide the number of world slaves tells us nothing accurate...especially if you exclude most actual slaves from your calculation, by redefining "slavery" to exclude things like child slavery, those held in forced, unpaid labour arrangments like captive migrants and prison slaves, rape slaves, and child "brides."

I believe dividing the number of slaves by world population do give us an idea some idea of the moral progress.

One has to be more analytical in one's deliberation.

What I have presented is;

Total slavery <200 years ago = [high % of chattel slavery + lower % modern slavery] =X
Total slavery >200 years ago = [lower % of chattel slaver + higher % modern slavery] = Y

Point is chattel slavery is more severe than modern slavery.

I note the % of X over total population is higher than % of Y over total population.
As such there is moral progress.

And when we factor in the legality factor, there is greater moral progress.

Another point which I had mentioned is in the past all the above types of slavery were not restricted by laws but at the present all the above slavery are illegal.

https://theconversation.com/slavery-is- ... rch-115596
But let's take that claim, and test it.

In the US, for example, slavery is totally illegal. It has been, since the Emancipation Proclamation. Is it then your claim that there have been no slaves in the US?
https://theexodusroad.com/does-slavery- ... ica-today/

So since slavery still exists in the US, does the mere having of laws against it prove that slavery is being rejected? Apparently not: for people can disobey laws, even where such exist.[/quote]
No, I have not claimed slavery is totally illegal is equated with no slaves at all, that would be stupid of me.
It is common knowledge, even with capital punishment or death penalty there will still be people committing the related crimes.

My point is the legal deterrence is an indication of progress over having no laws at all against slavery, i.e. a free for all re slavery.
It is very evident there are lesser chattel slaves around the world as compared to the time when there were no laws to deter it. This is a mark of progress. You deny this?

Due to the inherent impulse in a percentile of people to enslave others, there will be slavers but that they have to do it 'underground' the numbers will be lesser than before there were laws to deter it.

Apparently, you're mistaking the public morality of legislators for the actual morality of the people. They're two very different things.

Each legislator will have his personal attitude and preferences.
But in order to win votes most the legislators will act on the pulse on will of the majority.

Dictatorships are lesser in modern history, even dictators has to flow with the will of the people to avoid being overthrown. Passing laws to deter slavery is not a significant issue for dictators.

Therefore the passing of laws against slavery reflect the pulse and will of the majority which is driven by the gradual unfoldment of the inherent moral potential within ALL humans which has nothing to do with an ILLUSORY GOD!