Slavery in Ancient Greece was ubiquitous. Let's assume every citizen of Athens, for example, accepted the legitimacy of slavery. Would that mean there were no morally good Athenians?
-
-
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
That depends. If there were good anti-slave arguments in existence, then those who chose to discount those arguments were morally bad. If there were no good arguments, then they could have been simply ignorant.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @christianjbdev
Hmmmm. Not sure - seems to suggest it is only morally bad to hold slaves if you know it's wrong (not quite what you claimed, but I think that's where your position would lead).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
It *is* morally bad to hold slaves, of course, but if a slave-holder has never actually encountered the reasons why it's morally bad, then can he be said to be a bad person?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev @PhilosophyExp
It seems self-evident to us of course, but maybe it wasn't. Maybe people had to sit down and puzzle out why it was wrong, and it just never occurred to people before that that there might be a problem. They could have just assumed 'it's natural' or whatever.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev
To say something is morally bad normally entails that a person is culpable for it, but you're arguing they are not culpable... I think that's a tricky position to hold.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
Am I morally bad for boiling lobsters today if in 5 years time scientists discover that they are actually in agony, and have a surprisingly advanced reflective consciousness?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev
No. But not all not knowing is equal. That's the point. Not knowing isn't a sufficient condition for absolution, though it might in certain circumstances - such as your lobster example - be necessary to get you off the hook.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
OK, so my position is that X is morally right or wrong irrespective of whether you know or not, but you can't be held morally culpable for X if you've never encountered any reason for why it's wrong.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @christianjbdev @PhilosophyExp
I chose the first option. Almost everyone in the past was awful, but half were better than average.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
So presumably the least 10% awful are in some sense praiseworthy - and it that sense good?
-
-
Replying to @PhilosophyExp @christianjbdev
If they all thought slavery was legitimate to the same degree, then I think they'd all be bad, but if some thought it was less justifiable than others, they'd be less bad, and praiseworthy in some sense as well.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm not sure, I guess many would consider the average person of a certain time to be neutral, and people who were more moral than average to be good; but I tend to think of historical figures relative to today's standards, so the vast majority would probably be bad.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.