06-29-2022, 10:31 AM
(06-29-2022, 09:20 AM)Dill Wrote: Posing ethical questions in an unethical manner?
I'll put forward my own answer to these interesting questions.
1. From a viewpoint based upon deontological ethics and the liberal concept of universal individual human rights, yes, being a slave owner does automatically make one a horrible person. To contest that, while retaining the concept of universal human rights, one would have to adopt some form of situational ethics, perhaps combined with a CRT approach which roots racist behavior in institutions rather than random individuals who just choose to behave badly. Embracing some form of illiberal ethics, one might conclude slave-owning isn't bad, so people practicing it aren't "horrible persons." I don't think there are other options. Which of these would you choose?
2. Whether being a slave owner invalidates "all [one's] beliefs and ideals" depends on which and what kind beliefs/ideals we are talking about, and for whom. If Pythagoras owned slaves that would not invalidate the Pythagorean theorem. Hitler was a "horrible person" according to most Americans, but if he invented peanut butter that wouldn't make peanut butter a bad idea.
3. Apparently, slave owning can "taint" at least SOME things "you do in your life time." E.g., if one claims universal human rights as an ideal, and founds a government based upon that ideal, but one's investment in slavery leads one to prevent realization of that ideal to retain one's human "property," there is some "taint" there. Also, one can be ok with slave-owning without actually owning slaves, and that can similarly "taint" one's behavior, especially voting behavior. I guess the answer is "no, it might not 'taint everything'" but it certainly can taint somethings, especially if pro-slavers construct law. So the question is whether and which might be tainted.
Thank you for actually having the courage to reply. Now how does all that relate to Muhammed?
