Where did the Private Internal Moral Laws Arise from?

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's great for you. I'm also interested in the even worse forms of slavery that you're ignoring as if they didn't exist. And I know why: they don't fit your thesis, so you don't care about them.

Btw, I am very interested in...

I don't really care what you're interested in, honestly. As I see it, you morally fail to be "interested" in some very important things.

You're not interested in the child 'brides' of the Middle East, or the trans-Saharan slave trade, or forced labourers in Africa's mines, not in the sex slaves or Uighurs in China...

I guess you think they don't even have to enter your calculation. But personally, I think they all destroy your thesis. And I'll bet practically any moral person would agree.

There you go again, going more blind due to dogmatism.

I wrote this in my previous post;

Who say I am not concern about the other forms of Slavery,
note this OP,
Slavery [all forms] Much Mitigated since 10,000 years ago?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34546
I am researching more in depth - since there are more variables to deal with - to reinforce my thesis re chattel slavery and moral progress.

Since this is an ongoing resistance I am facing from many I will do more research and develop my argument to include other forms of slavery.

You're not interested in the child 'brides' of the Middle East, or the trans-Saharan slave trade, or forced labourers in Africa's mines, not in the sex slaves or Uighurs in China...

Perhaps the above are going on due to lack of enforcement due to various reasons of difficulties, but they surely cannot be legal in their respective countries?

[Sculptor]

I have not claimed to be competent in archaeology.

You have demonstrated that you are utterly incompetent.
Given this revelation I suggest you stop talking about things you know nothing about.

Noted the earliest recorded signs of slavery was 3500 BC as such my inference is not wrong since I mentioned 5000 - 10,000 years ago.
My inference of 10,000 years ago is based on the inherent 'tribalism' and tribal conflicts where some of the losers [women, children, vulnerable men] were captured and turned into slaves as evident in recorded history.

False inference. And where that true it would be a false interpretation.
Archaeology is often in the habit of comparing extant and recently (last 200 years) studied hunter/gatherer societies to flesh out the material culture finds from prehistory. What they found is that slavery is uncommon, a luxury of civilisation where sufficient infrastructure and hierarchical specialisations are required to maintain the institution of slavery. Individuals brought into the "tribe" from outside were integrated as it was too costly of time and effort to provide the security necessary to keep slaves, especially as H/g societies were constantly on the move and also required good stranger relationships, to avoid constant fighting and competition. The h/g groups of Europe commonly stayed separate for reasons of subsistence and gathered together in large groups seasonally for the exchange of goods and festivals. Such a system could not be sustained were people under the threat of being taken as slaves.
Not even h/g groups such as the Yanomani of the Brazilian rain forest (a tribe know exceptionally for extreme violence), and whose environment was so rich they have no need to be mobile not even they have slaves. What would be the point. Tribal members work harder and require no securing.

Nah you have over-read the various articles re slavery.

Note,

Hunter-gatherer culture was the way of life for early humans until around 11 to 12,000 years ago.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/ency ... r-culture/#

When the population is very small there is no room for "slavery" in a way.

But by 4000 years ago there was the Indus and other early civilizations which enable the opportunity for the enslavement of other humans. The population around the world then was about 27 million.
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time ... ldpop.html

Taking 4000 years ago is quite a stretch for my point.

I can reduce the timeline to since 2000, 1000, 500 or even 200 years ago, it is still effective for my point there is moral progress in terms of slavery since those time period to the present.

Btw, one cannot be that arrogant like you to depend on archaeology so dogmatically.
There is a high limitation with archaeology because much of the critical evidence then in 5000 years ago had deteriorated.

It is argued that the pyramids were not built by slaves due to evidence of housing for workers. But that does not exclude and confirm the non-existence of slavery because the slaves would not be have proper housing then.

I have not claimed to be competent in archaeology and I have not insisted I am absolutely right with any claims related to 5000 years ago.

As I had stated, you are too arrogant based on ignorance.

You you can fuck off idiot.
You are so shockingly stupid that you do not even know when you have shot yourself in the foot.
You are a waste of time

[Immanuel Can]

I am researching more in depth - since there are more variables to deal with - to reinforce my thesis re chattel slavery and moral progress.

That's not the problem.

The problem is that all you try to do is "reinforce" the same thesis, even though it's already evident it's wrong.

Since this is an ongoing resistance I am facing from many I will do more research and develop my argument to include other forms of slavery.

Better. But be open to the possibility your "argument" has had the wrong data pool from the start, and thus may be untrue.

You're not interested in the child 'brides' of the Middle East, or the trans-Saharan slave trade, or forced labourers in Africa's mines, not in the sex slaves or Uighurs in China...

Perhaps the above are going on due to lack of enforcement due to various reasons of difficulties, but they surely cannot be legal in their respective countries?

You seem to have a lot of trouble imagining that people can be as wicked about slavery as they are.

In the Middle East, "child brides" are not merely legal but positively approved by tribal authorities as well. The treatment of the Uighurs is not only legal in China, it's the government itself that's doing it, just as it's their one-child policy that's made "village women" a reality...

All that's more than merely "legal" as an option: it's actively advocated or even created by the authorities themselves.

[iambiguous]

...it's the government itself that's doing it, just as [China's] one-child policy...

Just for the record...

"China has announced that it will allow couples to have up to three children, after census data showed a steep decline in birth rates. China scrapped its decades-old one-child policy in 2016, replacing it with a two-child limit which has failed to lead to a sustained upsurge in births." May 31, 2021 BBC.

Of course, when you have thought yourself into believing that your own "Private Internal Moral Laws" are derived from, say, the Christian God, you are given a Scripture by which to judge all of the "Private Internal Moral Laws" of others.

That you merely take a more or less blind "leap of faith" to this Creator doesn't make the judgmental convictions of some any less adamant.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am researching more in depth - since there are more variables to deal with - to reinforce my thesis re chattel slavery and moral progress.

That's not the problem.

The problem is that all you try to do is "reinforce" the same thesis, even though it's already evident it's wrong.

Since this is an ongoing resistance I am facing from many I will do more research and develop my argument to include other forms of slavery.

Better. But be open to the possibility your "argument" has had the wrong data pool from the start, and thus may be untrue.

You're not interested in the child 'brides' of the Middle East, or the trans-Saharan slave trade, or forced labourers in Africa's mines, not in the sex slaves or Uighurs in China...

Perhaps the above are going on due to lack of enforcement due to various reasons of difficulties, but they surely cannot be legal in their respective countries?

You seem to have a lot of trouble imagining that people can be as wicked about slavery as they are.

In the Middle East, "child brides" are not merely legal but positively approved by tribal authorities as well. The treatment of the Uighurs is not only legal in China, it's the government itself that's doing it, just as it's their one-child policy that's made "village women" a reality...

All that's more than merely "legal" as an option: it's actively advocated or even created by the authorities themselves.

Strawman again, again and again.

My thesis is, all humans are 'programmed' with an inherent moral potential which has been gradually unfolding, activating and progressing along with the evolution of mankind since humans first emerged till the present, 2022.

In the last 100 years there had been a surge of activity within this moral potential, albeit not up to standard expectations.

This sudden surge is demonstrated by the increasing consciousness of sentiments against chattel slavery [as argued here] and other forms of slavery [hypothesized] over a long stretch of time.

Slavery has existed, in one form or another, throughout recorded human history – as have, in various periods, movements to free large or distinct groups of slaves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Abolitionism

Note this timeline on the abolishment of slavery especially chattel slavery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... nd_serfdom

The abolition of slavery occurred at different times in different countries. It frequently occurred sequentially in more than one stage – for example, as abolition of the trade in slaves in a specific country, and then as abolition of slavery throughout empires. Each step was usually the result of a separate law or action. This timeline shows abolition laws or actions listed chronologically. It also covers the abolition of serfdom.

You need to read the following;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Abolitionism
Abolitionism
5.1 In antiquity
5.2 Americas
5.3 Europe
5.4 Worldwide

I understand there are still pockets of slavery around the world but as I had argued their relative % to the world population at present is near and lower than that of the past given we have ~8 billion at present.

What is critical for my thesis is the progress in rising consciousness of anti-slavery and the rate of the release of the inherent moral potential is increasing at a greater and greater speed towards the future.
Can you refute this point?

As I had stated your resistance is due to your cognitive dissonance where if you agree [even with the slightest] with my convincing thesis, then your clinging to your God is shaky.
As I had written earlier,
There is no God [illusory]-given moral laws EVER! that is an impossibility because it is impossible for a God to exists as real.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...it's the government itself that's doing it, just as [China's] one-child policy...

Just for the record...

"China has announced that it will allow couples to have up to three children, after census data showed a steep decline in birth rates. China scrapped its decades-old one-child policy in 2016, replacing it with a two-child limit which has failed to lead to a sustained upsurge in births." May 31, 2021 BBC.

Of course, when you have thought yourself into believing that your own "Private Internal Moral Laws" are derived from, say, the Christian God, you are given a Scripture by which to judge all of the "Private Internal Moral Laws" of others.

That you merely take a more or less blind "leap of faith" to this Creator doesn't make the judgmental convictions of some any less adamant.

Thanks for the valid point.
Btw, I will not be engaging with you here since I have enough of that [you being stuck in that deep hole you have dug for yourself] in the other forum years ago.

So you are still stuck in it re your post here.

A philosophical "hole" I call it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am researching more in depth - since there are more variables to deal with - to reinforce my thesis re chattel slavery and moral progress.

That's not the problem.

The problem is that all you try to do is "reinforce" the same thesis, even though it's already evident it's wrong.

Since this is an ongoing resistance I am facing from many I will do more research and develop my argument to include other forms of slavery.

Better. But be open to the possibility your "argument" has had the wrong data pool from the start, and thus may be untrue.

You're not interested in the child 'brides' of the Middle East, or the trans-Saharan slave trade, or forced labourers in Africa's mines, not in the sex slaves or Uighurs in China...

Perhaps the above are going on due to lack of enforcement due to various reasons of difficulties, but they surely cannot be legal in their respective countries?

You seem to have a lot of trouble imagining that people can be as wicked about slavery as they are.

In the Middle East, "child brides" are not merely legal but positively approved by tribal authorities as well. The treatment of the Uighurs is not only legal in China, it's the government itself that's doing it, just as it's their one-child policy that's made "village women" a reality...

All that's more than merely "legal" as an option: it's actively advocated or even created by the authorities themselves.

Strawman again, again and again.

Analogically your claim is like,
There is NO improvements in the literacy rate since humans first emerged to the present 2022 because appx 10% [could be higher] of the world are still illiterate, i.e. 800 million .

That is the same as your refutation against my present thesis where you claims,
There is NO improvements in moral progress of slavery [chattel & others] since humans first emerged to the present 2022 because there are still slavery around the world, i.e. with "the child 'brides' of the Middle East, or the trans-Saharan slave trade, or forced labourers in Africa's mines, not in the sex slaves or Uighurs in China..." and blah, blah blah.

But note,

In 2019, approximately 40 million people, of whom 26 percent were children, were enslaved throughout the world despite its being illegal. In the modern world, more than 50 percent of enslaved people provide forced labour, usually in the factories and sweatshops of the private sector of a country's economy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

40 million is merely 0.5% of the world's population.

If you can see the obvious and undeniable trend of improvements in literacy [driven by the inherent potential 'to know'] around world [despite 800 million still illiterate] since humans first emerged till the present,
then there must be improvements in the moral progress of slavery [chattel and others] since human first emerged till the present.
How can you refute this!

The numbers [of miserable %] you are so desperate to throw in do not refute the rising and progressing trend in the unfoldment of the moral potential within humanity since humans first emerged till the present 2022.

[Immanuel Can]

My thesis is...

It's not a "thesis," but a mere wish.

A "thesis" has to be based on accurate premises, (and on a complete set of information, ideally) and has to be testable in some way. Your infinitely-revisable guess, which is based on untrue claims and is no more than what you would like to turn out to be true, and which you will rewrite endlessly to make seem true, is just a dream you have.

[RCSaunders]

My thesis is...

It's not a "thesis," but a mere wish.

A "thesis" has to be based on accurate premises, (and on a complete set of information, ideally) and has to be testable in some way. Your infinitely-revisable guess, which is based on untrue claims and is no more than what you would like to turn out to be true, and which you will rewrite endlessly to make seem true, is just a dream you have.

VA, IC, are either of you slaves? Do either of you own slaves? Are either of you afraid that you are likely to be enslaved or own them?

Whether you think slavery is terrible or just ducky, if it has no direct relationship to you, what are you discussing? If other's are slaves or own slaves, right or wrong, it's not really your business, is it? Suppose you think it's wrong for someone in some other country to have slaves, what do you think you should do about it?

[Immanuel Can]

VA, IC, are either of you slaves? Do either of you own slaves?

Well, that's about the goofiest question I've heard.

Are you a murderer? Well, then, murder has no direct relationship to you. Are you a pedophile? Well, then, how dare you discuss the evils of predation on children...

Well, RC, we're here on a philosphy board. One areas of philosophy is ethics. And in that, moral questions are open to everybody to discuss.

In any case, non-participation is a BETTER not worse reason to take somebody's opinion seriously, if the deed in question is evil. Would you think a person who is a drug addict is more reliable than somebody who's not, in their opinion on the advisability of taking drugs? Who would you expect to have moral clarity on wife abuse: somebody who's never abused a woman, or somebody who routinely slugs them around?

[henry quirk]

double post

here's a for the trouble

[henry quirk]

If other's are slaves or own slaves, right or wrong, it's not really your business, is it?

It is. Slavery is wrong, it ought never be abided. Really, if I became aware of, and confirmed, human trafficking was goin' on in my neighborhood, you believe I ought butt out? Turn a blind eye? Mind my own bee's wax? If my own kid were taken, I should shrug and say easy come, easy go? A few years back, on my street, I witnessed a man beatin' the hell out of a young woman. He was twice her size. She was unarmed, defenseless, he was goin' to town on her. My steppin' up with a tire knocker to put an end to the beatin', well, I was just a buttinsky and I shoulda minded my own business, right?

I can't believe you could witness such a thing and do nuthin', RC.

Suppose you think it's wrong for someone in some other country to have slaves, what do you think you should do about it?

Minimally, have no truck with that nation.

[Immanuel Can]

...it's the government itself that's doing it, just as [China's] one-child policy...

Just for the record...

"China has announced that it will allow couples to have up to three children...

Yeah, that move came far too late.

They already created an immense pool of poor Chinese men who have no reasonable prospect of any marriage at all...and hence, the problem of "village women."

This is a case of simply "nailing the barn door shut long after the horse has bolted."

[RCSaunders]

VA, IC, are either of you slaves? Do either of you own slaves?

Well, that's about the goofiest question I've heard.

Are you a murderer? Well, then, murder has no direct relationship to you. Are you a pedophile? Well, then, how dare you discuss the evils of predation on children...

Well I don't discuss murder or predation as some kind of issues that pertain to me, because neither does in any way. I'm not tempted to either, and would not do them if I were, and neither I or anyone directly related to me is likely to experience or perpetrate either. Just because I could never even think of doing either does not mean I must go around worrying about and making sure no one else does what for me would be wrong. I am not in this world to judge others or to make others behave as I might think they should, am I?

Well, RC, we're here on a philosphy board. One areas of philosophy is ethics. And in that, moral questions are open to everybody to discuss.

So you say, but I've been to every thread on this board that discusses of morality or ethics, and not one person on any of them will answer the simple question of what exactly, "ethics," or, "morality," is supposed to be about. Whenever I ask that question all I get for answers is one of three things: 1. Someone's own pet ethical views, like altruism, or obedience to some favorite laws or system, like, categorical imperatives, manifest destinies, or some nonsense like following one's conscience or right feelings, or 2. some view of intrinsic values: something that is just good or right or important or has meaning just because it does without any purpose or objective, or anything it is good, right, or important for to anyone, or 3. it is something dictated by some authority and necessitated by some agency like a god, or government, tradition, consensus, or anything else the supposedly mandates or demands it. But the one question, whatever one thinks an actual set of moral principles ought to be, of what the fundamental reason for moral princples are, if there were any, is never ever identified.

Why should anyone ever care if there are any moral principles or not. If they have a purpose, what is it, and how would such principles make it possible to achieve it. If they have no purpose, if nothing is at stake, what are you discussing?

Now, I do not really believe you are serious about the question of morality, but if you are here is how I put the question on another thread:

2 How does an 'ought' come from an 'is''? Is the connection causal? If so, please explain the causal mechanism.

You've put your finger on exactly what is wrong with all that is called morality. Every view of morality, from the religious to the philosophical, assumes some intrinsic view of values, the idea that something is just right, good, or important (because god, or society, or some mystical mandaate says so). In that sense, there cannot be any, "ought."

Real values are relationships, and do not exist sans some objective, goal, or purpose. Things only have a value, are only right, good, or important, if they will achieve, benefit, or are necessary to a chosen objective or goal. "Ought," only has meaning relative to an objective and identifies what one, "ought," to do to achieve their objective. The, "is," that determines the, "ought," is all of reality and what is possible or not possible and what must be done, or not done, to achieve or realize an objective.

The real question of morality is not, "how does what is determine an ought," (ala Hume), because every ought is determined by what is. It is reality that determines what one must do to achieve any objective, that is, "if you want to achieve this objective you not only, ought to do such'n'such, but absolutely must, or fail." The question of morality is, what is the objective?

Until you answer that question you can just get off your high horse about this being a philosophy site and your serious interest in ethics. You are not interested in ethics, only promoting some mystical ethical view of your own.

In any case, non-participation is a BETTER not worse reason to take somebody's opinion seriously, if the deed in question is evil. Would you think a person who is a drug addict is more reliable than somebody who's not, in their opinion on the advisability of taking drugs? Who would you expect to have moral clarity on wife abuse: somebody who's never abused a woman, or somebody who routinely slugs them around?

I don't make judgements about any propositions based on who said them. That is a fallacious way of thinking called ad hominem.

[RCSaunders]

If other's are slaves or own slaves, right or wrong, it's not really your business, is it?

It is. Slavery is wrong, it ought never be abided. ...
I can't believe you could witness such a thing and do nuthin', RC.

First of all, are you willing to base your views of values based on what I would or would not do in some situation?

So slavery is wrong. When I believe something is wrong, I mean it's something it would be wrong for me to do. In the case of slavery I know it would be wrong for me to either be a slave or own slaves. I do not know that about anyone else.

As far as I know, if someone has no objection to being a slave and there is not cruelty involved, however mistaken I think both the slave and master might be how is it my business to force my view down their throat.

Really, if I became aware of, and confirmed, human trafficking was goin' on in my neighborhood, you believe I ought butt out? Turn a blind eye? Mind my own bee's wax? If my own kid were taken, I should shrug and say easy come, easy go? A few years back, on my street, I witnessed a man beatin' the hell out of a young woman. He was twice her size. She was unarmed, defenseless, he was goin' to town on her. My steppin' up with a tire knocker to put an end to the beatin', well, I was just a buttinsky and I shoulda minded my own business, right?

I cannot tell you what is right for you to do, and I do not discuss hypothetical questions. I know actual cases where someone came to the rescue of women being beaten only to be beaten and robbed themselves by both the woman and the one supposedly beating her. I know you think murder is wrong. To illustrate what is wrong with hypotheticals, if you knew a young man in your neighborhood was preparing to be a murderer, would you be obliged to interfere? What do you think every young man who joins the military is doing? And what do you think those who are recruiting them are doing? What's the difference between military service and slavery? Why isn't recruiting for military a kind of trafficing?

If you think the way to prevent others from doing what you think is wrong for them to do is to interfere in what they do, I'm not telling you do otherwise. I was just asking what one would do and how they thought it would actually make anything better or correct a problem. No matter how much I dislike something or disapprove of (if I do) what anyone else does or how much harm I think their action causes, unless I can do something I'm certain will mitigate or prevent the harm without causing more harm, I will do nothing. Almost every terrible social and political program of action that harms and oppresses people is cause by those who just cannot resist doing something, without having any idea of the terrible consequences of their so-called remedies. In most cases I cannot know what is right or wrong for anyone else and would be wrong from me to interfere in anyone else's life. I do not believe two wrongs make a right.

Suppose you think it's wrong for someone in some other country to have slaves, what do you think you should do about it?

Minimally, have no truck with that nation.

Sorry. I have no idea what that means. Not sure it means much. Sounds off-the-cuff.