The author quotes: “There is no record in the seventeenth century of any preacher who, in any sermon, whether in the Cathedral of Saint-André in Bordeaux, or in a Presbyterian meeting house in Liverpool, condemned the trade in black slaves.”¹ Better research would have shown this to be inaccurate. But there are records of Quaker opposition in particular. In 1688 Dutch Quakers in Germantown, Pennsylvania, sent an antislavery petition to the Monthly Meeting of Quakers. Three Quaker abolitionists, Benjamin Lay, John Woolman, and Anthony Benezet, devoted their lives to the abolitionist effort from the 1730s to the 1760s. In 1787 the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was formed.
Slavery was present, for thousands of years. It was always morally wrong...and good riddance-tho there are still pockets of it around the world. My question is, why have Afro Americans clung onto its history as ‘the reason’...for every thing?
After 80 yrs. i've come to the conclusion that "right" and "wrong" simply do not exist. Rather, they are the words we use to describe GOOD outcomes and BAD outcomes. The lingering morality is a remnant of our religious heritage in which we condemn bad behaviors and embrace good behaviors. Morality also embodies a tone of negative judgement from biblical imagery. After a few 1000 yrs., humans have learned a few things. We're still learning.
This is another interesting example of “moral reasoning“ by Shermer. I hate slavery also. However, you cannot come to that conclusion simply with “facts” and “reason.” I noticed in the Lincoln quote, which precedes the essay, that Lincoln never uses the word “reason.” That alone should have given Shermer pause. Stephen Pinker defines reason as the application of knowledge to the attainment of goals or ends. This only tells us how to get what we want, not what we should want. Shermer consistently makes this mistake in his writing here and other places. He consistently assumes that whatever we want is also what we should want. He consistently makes the same error as John Stewart Mill, Shermer’s hero, that what is desired is also what is desirable. Also, the concept of “interchangeable prospectives,” is simply another version of the golden rule. It assumes, but does not argue for the absolute in total equality of human beings. There is no other species on the planet, at least no advanced mammalian species, that exhibits more inequality among the individuals of its species than Homo sapiens. If we take seriously this new version of the golden rule, which Schirmer advocates, how could we ever put anyone in jail for any crime? How could we not pay everybody the same income or salary? How could anybody ever have tenure? How could anyone be allowed to have more of anything than anyone else? The golden rule, and the “interchangeability of perspectives” simply breaks down over a wide variety of simple cases. It just doesn’t work. Logically, you are stuck with golden rule communism, which would be a disaster, or you must recognize that there are real and deep differences between persons and those differences are morally relevant. The concept of “interchangeable perspectives“ like the golden rule is purely formal and solve nothing.
The author quotes: “There is no record in the seventeenth century of any preacher who, in any sermon, whether in the Cathedral of Saint-André in Bordeaux, or in a Presbyterian meeting house in Liverpool, condemned the trade in black slaves.”¹ Better research would have shown this to be inaccurate. But there are records of Quaker opposition in particular. In 1688 Dutch Quakers in Germantown, Pennsylvania, sent an antislavery petition to the Monthly Meeting of Quakers. Three Quaker abolitionists, Benjamin Lay, John Woolman, and Anthony Benezet, devoted their lives to the abolitionist effort from the 1730s to the 1760s. In 1787 the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was formed.
It is tragic that some modern day thinkers, people exalted by others, question and even dismiss the Enlightenment and its values.
Slavery was present, for thousands of years. It was always morally wrong...and good riddance-tho there are still pockets of it around the world. My question is, why have Afro Americans clung onto its history as ‘the reason’...for every thing?
After 80 yrs. i've come to the conclusion that "right" and "wrong" simply do not exist. Rather, they are the words we use to describe GOOD outcomes and BAD outcomes. The lingering morality is a remnant of our religious heritage in which we condemn bad behaviors and embrace good behaviors. Morality also embodies a tone of negative judgement from biblical imagery. After a few 1000 yrs., humans have learned a few things. We're still learning.
This is another interesting example of “moral reasoning“ by Shermer. I hate slavery also. However, you cannot come to that conclusion simply with “facts” and “reason.” I noticed in the Lincoln quote, which precedes the essay, that Lincoln never uses the word “reason.” That alone should have given Shermer pause. Stephen Pinker defines reason as the application of knowledge to the attainment of goals or ends. This only tells us how to get what we want, not what we should want. Shermer consistently makes this mistake in his writing here and other places. He consistently assumes that whatever we want is also what we should want. He consistently makes the same error as John Stewart Mill, Shermer’s hero, that what is desired is also what is desirable. Also, the concept of “interchangeable prospectives,” is simply another version of the golden rule. It assumes, but does not argue for the absolute in total equality of human beings. There is no other species on the planet, at least no advanced mammalian species, that exhibits more inequality among the individuals of its species than Homo sapiens. If we take seriously this new version of the golden rule, which Schirmer advocates, how could we ever put anyone in jail for any crime? How could we not pay everybody the same income or salary? How could anybody ever have tenure? How could anyone be allowed to have more of anything than anyone else? The golden rule, and the “interchangeability of perspectives” simply breaks down over a wide variety of simple cases. It just doesn’t work. Logically, you are stuck with golden rule communism, which would be a disaster, or you must recognize that there are real and deep differences between persons and those differences are morally relevant. The concept of “interchangeable perspectives“ like the golden rule is purely formal and solve nothing.