I want to be a little careful here, i’m not saying that this or that thing is “Right” or “Wrong” that’s what morality does, I’m trying to describe what “Morality” is. So yes, I suppose a slave would get a lower moral weight than a doctor, shall we say 0.8 of your average society member for the slave and 1.2 for the doctor? This is certainly what we observe in history, where skilled helpful professionals are more valued than the less skilled and not very willing.
A slave’s willingness is a lot more important a factor in their utility than that of a shrimp. I would give a shrimp a moral weight of 0.0.
In the American context slavery is also wrapped up with racism, which I think is wrong from both my personal morality and also from my half-baked “recognition of usefulness helps everyone get along and makes for greater prosperity” standard.
I think that modern wage / economic slavery (doing a job) is much more efficient / effective, in part because the human is recognised and applauded for their usefulness and works much harder because of it.
That sounds like you believe that morality is something that exists in some platonic sense. And that you know what the platonic entity is in a way where you can be confident that slaves have a lower moral weight.
Otherwise you are simply choosing to use your own definition for morality that’s quite different from what other people mean with the term
Yes, quite right (first paragraph). Am I wrong to be confident in my own beliefs? Happy to change my beliefs if your argument is convincing enough.
I think that platonic morality is a social technology with both mechanism and purpose. My definition of platonic morality is “a socially enforced set of informal rules that solve coordination problems for the benefit of the group”. I would judge any particular moral rule set by how well it benefits the group. Slaves benefit their society less than doctors, even if only because resources must be spent to control them, and so they would have a lower moral weight.
Other interesting social technologies include:
Money: Coordinates exchange and stores value through shared belief
Laws: Structure behaviour through formalized rules and consequences
Limited liability companies: Enables pooling capital while limiting risk
Voting: Aggregates preferences into collective decisions
Google says that morality is “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.” I think that’s consistent with my definition. I suppose i have added a utilitarian aspect by giving morality a purpose. I do find that things have purposes generally, am I wrong in that or in the specific purpose I have given it?
By that reasoning unwilling human slaves shouldn’t get moral consideration either. Is that what you actually believe?
I want to be a little careful here, i’m not saying that this or that thing is “Right” or “Wrong” that’s what morality does, I’m trying to describe what “Morality” is. So yes, I suppose a slave would get a lower moral weight than a doctor, shall we say 0.8 of your average society member for the slave and 1.2 for the doctor? This is certainly what we observe in history, where skilled helpful professionals are more valued than the less skilled and not very willing.
A slave’s willingness is a lot more important a factor in their utility than that of a shrimp. I would give a shrimp a moral weight of 0.0.
In the American context slavery is also wrapped up with racism, which I think is wrong from both my personal morality and also from my half-baked “recognition of usefulness helps everyone get along and makes for greater prosperity” standard.
I think that modern wage / economic slavery (doing a job) is much more efficient / effective, in part because the human is recognised and applauded for their usefulness and works much harder because of it.
That sounds like you believe that morality is something that exists in some platonic sense. And that you know what the platonic entity is in a way where you can be confident that slaves have a lower moral weight.
Otherwise you are simply choosing to use your own definition for morality that’s quite different from what other people mean with the term
Yes, quite right (first paragraph). Am I wrong to be confident in my own beliefs? Happy to change my beliefs if your argument is convincing enough.
I think that platonic morality is a social technology with both mechanism and purpose. My definition of platonic morality is “a socially enforced set of informal rules that solve coordination problems for the benefit of the group”. I would judge any particular moral rule set by how well it benefits the group. Slaves benefit their society less than doctors, even if only because resources must be spent to control them, and so they would have a lower moral weight.
Other interesting social technologies include:
Money: Coordinates exchange and stores value through shared belief
Laws: Structure behaviour through formalized rules and consequences
Limited liability companies: Enables pooling capital while limiting risk
Voting: Aggregates preferences into collective decisions
Google says that morality is “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.” I think that’s consistent with my definition. I suppose i have added a utilitarian aspect by giving morality a purpose. I do find that things have purposes generally, am I wrong in that or in the specific purpose I have given it?