There are no universally wrong things in human society

[pavelcherepan]

So I was watching a video on Youtube channel of lindybeige about historical perspective and it got me thinking. In the video linked below he talks about how in Medieval England if a villein woman was widowed and didn't find a new husband after a while her lord could go and arrange a mariage, selecting suitable husband for her himself. And from a modern point of view that sounds ridiculous. I mean, he selects a husband for a woman whom she might not even know and even if she knows, might not even like at all? How horrible.

 

He then goes and takes us to 200 years in the future (our future) and what would people then could potentially think of our society. Like the social workers, whom he used as an example, who go to families with children and if they find that children are mistreated they can be taken away from their parents. Which means, that our children are not really our children, but are in fact are a property of the state, and that if you don't take a good care of the property of the state, it will take it away. Even if it's your own child. That could sound rather horrible, depending on what society is like in that future time.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkhaneo25Mc

 

Anyway, enough with this long intro.

 

Then I went to think how in many politics and ethics discussions many people (including this forum) stand up and say things like "It's horrible! X is universally wrong!" and X here can be anything from slavery to racism and pedophilia. But is there really such thing as something universally wrong?

 

When you say such things you say it from your perspective, which in turn has been shaped by the current society and things it considers acceptable and not acceptable. But the fact that one particular form of society is more or less dominant in the world doesn't mean that it will be so forever. In fact, history tells us that it probably won't be so, as different societies come and go and all of them have their own list of "the goods" and "the bads".

 

I will go further on to argue that any world view, held by at least one living person, any thing one does and which doesn't make them feel remorse or shame is never a universally bad thing. Can anyone be 100% sure that this particular person's views won't become a dominant ideology in the future? Probably not. It can be very unlikely, but you can never be 100% sure. Weird things do happen.

 

Tl;dr: Even if one single person in the world currently considers that having slaves (replace slaves with almost any taboo topic) is a good thing, it's not a universally bad thing. You can say, that it's generally considered a bad thing in the society you're living and have been brought up in, but please don't speak for all people.

 

P.S. There are potentially, contrary to my point, some universal taboos in human societies worldwide, such as incest, as an example. But this taboo stems from purely biological and genetic reasons and observations over the course of millenia, that children of incest very often are sick or deformed in some way. Although in history still there have been societies where incest for one reason or another was an accepted practice, such as Ptolemeic dynasty in Egypt or (as wiki tells me) among Balinese and Inuit people.

[Prometheus]

Here's my take.

 

For sure what was considered normal at some point is now thought abhorrent. Take the example of a women being forced to marry at some lord's whim. It has changed only because certain women and men weaved a narrative (like explaining how horrible it is on the receiving end): it didn't just change in a vacuum. And now that narrative is part of our history and culture, one we should not forget. The narrative of womens' liberation is still being written today; something we are all participating in (to lesser or greater extents).

 

That our sense of ethics changes and develops is no bad thing.Things like justice and mercy are not things inherent to the universe but rather what humans bring to the universe. If we want justice in the world, we are the only ones who can create it. I'll paraphrase Inow: ethics is less an act of discovery and more an act of authorship.

[Phi for All]

It sounds like the OP is trying to justify behavior of any type based on the small probability that such behavior will one day become the norm. I think this is trying to nitpick the definition of "universal good/bad".

 

There are certainly situations that contradict the normal universal acceptance of just about any behavior. But just because one person thinks slavery is a good thing, that shouldn't affect its status as a universally bad thing.

 

What about serial killing? Are you saying that since there are those who do it, it's not considered universally bad?

 

What about feeding starving people? Are you saying that since there are those who may not like those people, it's not considered universally good?

[swansont]

 

He then goes and takes us to 200 years in the future (our future) and what would people then could potentially think of our society. Like the social workers, whom he used as an example, who go to families with children and if they find that children are mistreated they can be taken away from their parents. Which means, that our children are not really our children, but are in fact are a property of the state, and that if you don't take a good care of the property of the state, it will take it away. Even if it's your own child. That could sound rather horrible, depending on what society is like in that future time.

 

Property of the state? No, people are not property. The state taking custody of children is not an ownership issue.

 

Any conclusions based on this BS premise are not going to be valid.

[kisai]

I'm trying to think of a society which tolerates hacking up your neighbors with an axe, or burning the village to the ground, or going to the chief's house and taking a crap on the dinner table, but I'm going to fail.

Edited January 26, 2016 by kisai

[zapatos]

Hutu society in Rwanda in the mid 90s.

[Robittybob1]

Hutu society in Rwanda in the mid 90s.

IS are doing some pretty horrific things today. Syria is not that far behind.

[Ophiolite]

Good and bad are value judgements and therefore to declare something universally good or bad lies somewhere on the spectrum between silly and really dumb.

 

Those ethical positions that have evolved appear to address either maintenance of the power structure of the society, or fairer distribution of material and spiritual resources.

[pavelcherepan]

 

 

For sure what was considered normal at some point is now thought abhorrent. Take the example of a women being forced to marry at some lord's whim. It has changed only because certain women and men weaved a narrative (like explaining how horrible it is on the receiving end): it didn't just change in a vacuum. And now that narrative is part of our history and culture, one we should not forget. The narrative of womens' liberation is still being written today; something we are all participating in (to lesser or greater extents).

 

There are a plenty of communities even now where an arranged marriage is not considered abhorrent, but normal, whether person arranging the marriage would be woman's parents, tribal chief or someone else. Take India as an example. It's got a huge population and for a big chunk of it arranged marriage is still very much normal.

 

The other point in the video I linked was that it was in lord's best interest to arrange a good marriage, because he wouldn't want a conflict and he'd want his subjects to be relatively happy and produce plenty of offspings, which in turn would ensure that there's always someone to work his fields. Marriage by love is a relatively new invention, which only became widespread in the 20th century and for millenia people have been married often against their will, but in many cases had a relatively happy marriage.

 

 

It sounds like the OP is trying to justify behavior of any type based on the small probability that such behavior will one day become the norm. I think this is trying to nitpick the definition of "universal good/bad".

There are certainly situations that contradict the normal universal acceptance of just about any behavior. But just because one person thinks slavery is a good thing, that shouldn't affect its status as a universally bad thing.

What about serial killing? Are you saying that since there are those who do it, it's not considered universally bad?

What about feeding starving people? Are you saying that since there are those who may not like those people, it's not considered universally good?

 

I'm not trying to justify anything. Some things feel wrong to me, because of the way I've been brought up, but it still doesn't make it universally wrong.

 

Take your serial killers example. One thing is the other sk's who often seem to emulate killing patterns of serial killers they know of. The other point is that serial killers usually target a specific group. Most of the groups that have some sort of defining feature often have people who dislike said group. Say, a serial killer is murdering prostitutes, I can bet you money that there will be in most countries a whole bunch of puritans who'd say something like "This whores had it coming. I don't feel bad for them". And the same will happen for almost any group.

 

As far as feeding hungry people is concerned. Imagine your country is running a big food aid program for starving people in Africa. While most people will say it's a good thing, some members of underprivileged class would say something like "People are starving here too! Why don't you feed us first?!". And if economical situation in the country gets worse the number of supporters of this way of thinking will just grow.

 

 

Property of the state? No, people are not property. The state taking custody of children is not an ownership issue.

Any conclusions based on this BS premise are not going to be valid.

 

That's not a point I was making. People are not property, but if you view current situation out of context and from a perspective of a person who's not familiar with our ways it may seem horrible. State can take children from parents, when they grow up, government can (in some countries) take them to serve in the army, regardless of whether they want it or not. So if you take it out of context it seems quite horrible, but if you understand the background of the society really well, you'd find out that there are good reasons for doing so. Or maybe not "good" reasons, but at least "some" reasons.

EDIT: Some further thoughts on swansont's comment.

 

History and time tends to blur boundaries so that looking from far in the future things seem to blend together. Let's take slavery and serfdom as an example. Say, we have a slavery society that changed to more feudal ways with abundant serfdom. Is it a big change for them? I'd say it would be enormous from a point of view of a person living in that time.

 

You can't buy and sell people outright and relocate them to wherever you want. You can't make them do whatever you please and they do have some of their own fields that they can work and produce food and goods. But still, you can buy a chunk of land and automatically all the people who live off of it will become your subjects, they will have to work X amount of time on your fields and you will take some of their own produce to pay tax to your own lord. You are still the main authority who settles all disputes and often arranges marriages and such, As a result, from a modern day perspective slavery and serfdom look like two sides of the same coin, while at the same time it probably was a huge change for the people.

 

Now let's look at the modern western society.You can't buy or sell people. Oh, wait. Or can you? If my company is bought by one of its competitors, I would automatically become an employee of the buying company. Obviously, they would offer me term of contract, but it's very likely it would be pretty much the same, give or take a few bucks. And now I will "work fields" of another master. So when you buy a business, you also buy people who work there... in a way.

 

I also have to give over a third of my income to central government overlord, who also has power to settle my disputes with my employer and other random people, can decide whether I can or can't be wed with a person I want (for example, if I were gay, I couldn't get married in many countries), it can potentially take my children from me, when it decides that they are not treated well enough, it can take my son an enlist in army and send to war and do many other nasty things.

 

So, in essence, change from serfdom and slavery to modern market economy was a huge change for society, but from a perspective of a person living in a Utopian society of 24th century it might not seem so. They might even have a paragraph in their books on history and economy titled "Slavery, Serfdom and Market Economy", and for most people living then these might seem like almost the same thing.

 

Sorry for the wall of text.

Edited January 27, 2016 by pavelcherepan

[Prometheus]

 

There are a plenty of communities even now where an arranged marriage is not considered abhorrent, but normal, whether person arranging the marriage would be woman's parents, tribal chief or someone else. Take India as an example. It's got a huge population and for a big chunk of it arranged marriage is still very much normal.

 

The other point in the video I linked was that it was in lord's best interest to arrange a good marriage, because he wouldn't want a conflict and he'd want his subjects to be relatively happy and produce plenty of offspings, which in turn would ensure that there's always someone to work his fields. Marriage by love is a relatively new invention, which only became widespread in the 20th century and for millenia people have been married often against their will, but in many cases had a relatively happy marriage.

 

Yes, but none of it is static. India has been recoiling from some high profile rape cases and women are finding a voice. Attitudes are shifting.It takes time - sometime millennia apparently.

 

We are old enough as a species now to do away with 'because sky daddy told us' ethics. If we imagine there is a configuration of the world that maximises the sum of suffering among all beings then any other configuration is preferable. Morality can be the attempt to shift to a configuration with less suffering. Take this as your universal if you like, but it's something humans have created.

 

P.S. I wouldn't consider arranged marriage abhorrent myself: only certain incarnations of it. When done well it is essentially families playing match-maker, asking their sons and daughters whether this is good match or that one is a good match etc...

[swansont]

 

 

That's not a point I was making. People are not property, but if you view current situation out of context and from a perspective of a person who's not familiar with our ways it may seem horrible. State can take children from parents, when they grow up, government can (in some countries) take them to serve in the army, regardless of whether they want it or not. So if you take it out of context it seems quite horrible, but if you understand the background of the society really well, you'd find out that there are good reasons for doing so. Or maybe not "good" reasons, but at least "some" reasons.

EDIT: Some further thoughts on swansont's comment.

 

History and time tends to blur boundaries so that looking from far in the future things seem to blend together. Let's take slavery and serfdom as an example. Say, we have a slavery society that changed to more feudal ways with abundant serfdom. Is it a big change for them? I'd say it would be enormous from a point of view of a person living in that time.

 

You can't buy and sell people outright and relocate them to wherever you want. You can't make them do whatever you please and they do have some of their own fields that they can work and produce food and goods. But still, you can buy a chunk of land and automatically all the people who live off of it will become your subjects, they will have to work X amount of time on your fields and you will take some of their own produce to pay tax to your own lord. You are still the main authority who settles all disputes and often arranges marriages and such, As a result, from a modern day perspective slavery and serfdom look like two sides of the same coin, while at the same time it probably was a huge change for the people.

 

Now let's look at the modern western society.You can't buy or sell people. Oh, wait. Or can you? If my company is bought by one of its competitors, I would automatically become an employee of the buying company. Obviously, they would offer me term of contract, but it's very likely it would be pretty much the same, give or take a few bucks. And now I will "work fields" of another master. So when you buy a business, you also buy people who work there... in a way.

 

I also have to give over a third of my income to central government overlord, who also has power to settle my disputes with my employer and other random people, can decide whether I can or can't be wed with a person I want (for example, if I were gay, I couldn't get married in many countries), it can potentially take my children from me, when it decides that they are not treated well enough, it can take my son an enlist in army and send to war and do many other nasty things.

 

So, in essence, change from serfdom and slavery to modern market economy was a huge change for society, but from a perspective of a person living in a Utopian society of 24th century it might not seem so. They might even have a paragraph in their books on history and economy titled "Slavery, Serfdom and Market Economy", and for most people living then these might seem like almost the same thing.

 

Sorry for the wall of text.

 

If your company is bought out and you now work for a new company that is still not ownership. A requirement to pay taxes is not ownership. Having laws to follow is not ownership. Not having some right is unfortunate, but not ownership. Taking custody of children may elicit cries of a nanny state, but is not ownership.

 

To make that comparison IMO is an insult to the history of people who were actually treated as property.

[pavelcherepan]

Tom, is it going to be one of these discussions like the one we had about orbital propellant depots, where I repeatedly was pointing out that there are rather simple solutions to prevent fuel from freezing and you were time and time again ignoring my comments and pressing your idea? Because of its one of those than I won't even bother responding.

 

I hope that my argument is fairly logical and whole so you can't just take a part of it and criticize it in separation from other points. The thing that you're repeatedly ignoring is perspective.

 

Yes, I agree, you can't own people, at least legally, but from a certain perspective current situation is not so much different from serfdom. I repeat - From A Certain Perspective!

 

A feudal Lord buys a piece of land with people living on it. Can they refuse to work for him? Yes. They can run away and start anew in another place, but then they will lose their house and a lot of possessions.

 

My company is bought. Can I refuse to work for the new management? Well, sure, but I have a mortgage and if I don't find a new job very quickly, I also will lose my home. From some perspective this could look way too similar.

 

Say, you have a family of south American Indians living in jungles of Amazon. They are as free as pretty much possible. To them serfdom and market economy may very well look almost the same.

 

And don't give me this moralistic stuff. I don't have to feel sorry and repent. I've never owned a slave, never said that slavery is good and never done anything racist or inconsiderate to people of other races. It's been a long time ago. Time to move on, nay?

[Phi for All]

Time to move on, nay?

 

I'd say no. Your argument is NOT sound. No matter how similar you think slavery and your current working environment are, you have choices a slave rarely has, like finding a new job.

 

Let's be honest with our definitions here. Otherwise Tom is right, comparing "working for the man" to slavery is insulting. It makes no difference if you've never participated in slavery.

[pavelcherepan]

 

I'd say no. Your argument is NOT sound. No matter how similar you think slavery and your current working environment are, you have choices a slave rarely has, like finding a new job.

 

Let's be honest with our definitions here. Otherwise Tom is right, comparing "working for the man" to slavery is insulting. It makes no difference if you've never participated in slavery.

 

I appreciate your comment, while I never said that my argument was sound, I only said I hoped it was logical and whole. If it isn't please do let me know.

 

So by your logic, I should feel sorry for any group of people that's been mistreated throughout history. Well, in that case I'd have to do nothing else, but be sad all the time. There should be some time limit when you can finally say it's time to move on. Or not? Should I feel sorry, for example for some 1 million Gauls that were killed during Caesar's conquest? Or is it now just a historical fact?

 

This whole discussion is meant to be about looking at things from outside perspective. Can you say that there is not possible for such a point of view to exist, where SERFDOM (please stop dragging slavery in all the time) is very similar to market economy? If you think that it doesn't exist, please provide argumentation. I did provide some examples of points of view, from where it potentially can seem so and it will be fair if you argument your position as well.

Edited January 27, 2016 by pavelcherepan

[swansont]

Tom, is it going to be one of these discussions like the one we had about orbital propellant depots, where I repeatedly was pointing out that there are rather simple solutions to prevent fuel from freezing and you were time and time again ignoring my comments and pressing your idea? Because of its one of those than I won't even bother responding.

 

It's up to you. if you are going to present something which requires interpreting it through a specific narrative, then the answer is probably yes. It seems to me you've gone about this backward — reaching a conclusion and then assembling a narrative to support it, even though it requires some interpretational gymnastics. You must look at it from that "certain perspective" for it to make sense.

 

"I feel like I have no choice" (e.g. staying in your job) because the other options are less palatable to you is not the same thing as actually having no choice. It's a rationalization to make you feel a little better and accepting of the situation. You absolve yourself of responsibility for not making a decision, or of the impact of prior decisions. (e.g. you wouldn't feel squeezed if you had opted for a smaller house with a smaller mortgage, or if you had socked some money away instead of spending it). But you still have a choice.

 

 

 

 

[andrewcellini]

 

I appreciate your comment, while I never said that my argument was sound, I only said I hoped it was logical and whole.

This is kind of a silly hope; your argument being founded on premises which are not true means that the conclusions you've reached may not hold if reasoned from true premises.

 

So while you may have conformed to the rules of logic (I haven't read the entire thing as I do not agree with the OP's stretched definition of slavery) in your argument, your conclusion could be meaningless and useless to describing reality.

Edited January 27, 2016 by andrewcellini

[Phi for All]

I appreciate your comment, while I never said that my argument was sound, I only said I hoped it was logical and whole. If it isn't please do let me know.

You're looking for the word "valid". In order to be valid, your argument just needs to be constructed properly, but it doesn't need to be true. The argument that working for a company is like slavery isn't even valid, just using standard definitions of both terms.

 

So by your logic, I should feel sorry for any group of people that's been mistreated throughout history. Well, in that case I'd have to do nothing else, but be sad all the time. There should be some time limit when you can finally say it's time to move on. Or not? Should I feel sorry, for example for some 1 million Gauls that were killed during Caesar's conquest? Or is it now just a historical fact?

I made no argument of my own. I just pointed out that yours wasn't valid. You wasted a perfectly good strawman.

 

This whole discussion is meant to be about looking at things from outside perspective. Can you say that there is not possible for such a point of view to exist, where SERFDOM (please stop dragging slavery in all the time) is very similar to market economy? If you think that it doesn't exist, please provide argumentation. I did provide some examples of points of view, from where it potentially can seem so and it will be fair if you argument your position as well.

I responded to your comment that it was "time to move on" from the question of slavery vs working, so it's difficult to accede to your request to move the goalpost to "SERFDOM". That was really my only point, and I'm sorry you feel the need to drag the rest of your arguments into this specific reply. Most would just say something along the lines of "OK, maybe I was wrong about that particular part", instead of doubling down with fallacious reasoning.

[pavelcherepan]

With hindsight I think I shouldn't have brought up slavery altogether, but what's done is done. OK, no problem, I will retract my argument comparing myself to a serf, it's not so important for the great scheme of things. Although, I have to say that you guys haven't done an awfully good job at disproving it except just saying "Oh, it's wrong". But it's dragging the discusion somewher I don't want it to go.

 

Let's go back to the original point and can you say that slavery is universally considered wrong or can there be a society living now where it's considered normal?

[zapatos]

Let's go back to the original point and can you say that slavery is universally considered wrong or can there be a society living now where it's considered normal?

This is kind of a difficult question as "society" does not speak with one voice. However, there are currently somewhere in the neighborhood of 14,000,000 slaves in India, so I would suggest that slavery in India is considered 'normal'.

 

Modern slavery is a multi-billion dollar industry with estimates of up to $35 billion generated annually. The United Nations estimates that roughly 27 to 30 million individuals are currently caught in the slave trade industry.[6] The Global Slavery Index 2013 states that 10 nations account for 76 percent of the world's enslaved. India has the most slaves of any country, at 14 million (over 1% of the population). China has the second-largest number with 2.9 million slaves, followed by Pakistan with 2.1 million, Nigeria with 701,000, Ethiopia with 651,000, Russia with 516,000, Thailand with 473,000, Congo with 462,000, Myanmar with 384,000, and Bangladesh with 343,000.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery

[Ophiolite]

 

"I feel like I have no choice" (e.g. staying in your job) because the other options are less palatable to you is not the same thing as actually having no choice.

In fairness I concede that you actually believe that bullshit.

 

If your perception is that you have no choice then all of your subsequent actions are the actions you would take if you actually had no choice. If in two situations your behaviour does not differ between them then there is no practical difference between them. That is the very simple and wholly accurate point being made by pavel.

 

In my view treating slavery as a digital entity - Slave/Not Slave - is simplistic and dishonours many people on what is in reality a spectrum. Factory workers in Victorian England were not slaves, yet on practical grounds enjoyed fewer rights than slaves in ancient Greece. Correct me if I am wrong, but a Greek slave was a valuable commodity whose wellbeing was important to his owner. If may not be dignified to be thought of as a commodity, but neither is it dignified to perish as a ten year old in the bowels of a mill machine because that is more cost effective for the mill owner than having proper safety measures, working practices, training and adult workers.

[Delta1212]

Could we get a definition of "universally wrong" because without one, I'm not even sure what it is we're supposed to be discussing.

[swansont]

In fairness I concede that you actually believe that bullshit.

 

Seriously? Having to go find a new job if you quit means you have no choice but to stay in your current job? I submit that probably thousands of people do this very thing every month. Hell, I've done it. Have you ever left a job? Then you've done it, too.

[pavelcherepan]

Could we get a definition of "universally wrong" because without one, I'm not even sure what it is we're supposed to be discussing.

 

For the purpose of this discussion "universally wrong" is something that is perceived as being wrong by everyone. Alternatively, "universally wrong" can also be formulated as something that's not perceived as "right" by anyone.

[Ophiolite]

 

Seriously? Having to go find a new job if you quit means you have no choice but to stay in your current job? I submit that probably thousands of people do this very thing every month. Hell, I've done it. Have you ever left a job? Then you've done it, too.

Read what I wrote and don't patronise me by using personal anecdote as a substitute for logical argument!

[swansont]

Read what I wrote and don't patronise me by using personal anecdote as a substitute for logical argument!

 

I did. It was a bit of a strawman. You changed "I feel like I have no choice" (e.g. staying in your job) because the other options are less palatable into If your perception is that you have no choice so you were refuting something I never said (and then subsequently lectured me about strawmanning) I was supporting my claim. Not refuting your strawman.

 

But I do agree: If you've convinced yourself that you have no other choice, then you will act as if that's true. Just like you could convince yourself that working in a free market economy is just like slavery, and then you will act as if that's true. If you've convinced yourself that you have telekinetic powers, or that you're this close to building a perpetual motion machine, then you will act as if that's true. If you've convinced yourself that global warming is a hoax, then you will act as if that's true. If you've convinced yourself there's a god, you will act as if that's true.

 

But believing those things don't make them actually true.