Not sure why this got removed from 196lemmy…blahaj.zone but it would be real nice if moderation on Lemmy gave you some sort of notification of what you did wrong. Like an automatic DM or something

    • Jay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would have used a lot more words, but that’s exactly what I wanted to say.

    • benni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honest question: if a person living in the west in the 21st century thinks they should have the right to take people of a different race as their own personal slaves, do you think there is no basis to call this person immoral? The best we can do is say that this person is incompatible with the time and place they are in?

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We in the west have a basis to call this person immoral.

        The places where slavery is legal do not have that basis.

        • HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ask the slaves that lol. That argument is moot because it relies on legitimizing the oppression committed by slavers by not seeing enslaved people as part of the population/group. Their history was not recorded the same way the slaver’s history was, yet they were still humans that thought about, talked about, and theorized about morality too. You don’t get to claim to know the group consensus of a past society just because slavers used oppression to erase the viewpoints of those who disagreed.

      • mommykink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        a person living in the west in the 21st century

        This qualifier alone shows that “objective” moral truth is defined only by where/when you live. You’re also showing your own modern western bias here.

    • balderdash@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you really think chattel slavery was morally acceptable for the slave owners just because there was a group consensus that the slaves were inferior… then I’m willing to let you go on thinking that

      edit: Thankfully, like truths in metaphysics, moral truths are not determined by group consensus. So your downvotes mean nothing lol