Why do modern-day liberals (for example) generally consider it okay to say “I think everyone should be happy” without offering an explanation, but not okay to say “I think I should be free to keep slaves”, regardless of the explanation offered?
“I think everyone should be happy” is an expression of a terminal value. Slavery is not a typically positive terminal value, so if you terminally value slavery you would have to say something like “I like the idea of slavery itself”; if you just say “I like slavery” people will think you have some justification in terms of other terminal values (e.g. slavery → economics → happiness).
So, to say you like slavery implies you have some justification for it as an instrumental value. Such justifications are generally considered to be incorrect for typical terminal values and so, the “liberals” could legitimately consider you to be factually incorrect.
So, to say you like slavery implies you have some justification for it as an instrumental value.
Well, let’s ask some folks who actually did like slavery, and fought for it.
From the Texas Declaration of Secession, adopted February 2, 1861:
[T]he servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations [...]
So at least some people who strongly believed that slavery was moral, claimed to hold this belief on the basis of (what they believed to be) both consequential and divine-command morality.
As I side note, I’d like to say I’d imagine nearly all political beliefs throughout history have had people citing every imaginable form of ethics as justifications, and furthermore without even distinguishing between them. From what I understand the vast majority of people don’t even realize there’s a distinction (I myself didn’t know about non-consequentalist ideas until about 6 months ago, actually).
BTW, I would say that an argument about “the freedom to own slaves” is essentially an argument that slavery being allowed is a terminal value, although I’d doubt anyone would argue that owning of slaves is itself a terminal value.
“I think everyone should be happy” is an expression of a terminal value.
I think it’s gibberish.
“Should” expresses that a person has a moral obligation to perform an action. As you point out, I don’t think this person is trying to express that everyone has a moral obligation to be happy, he’s expressing a terminal value of his own.
Moral discourse is littered with such category errors. “It isn’t fair.” To what does “it” refer, and in what way is “it” not being fair?
I think I understood the intended meaning of the sentence; something along the lines of “I consider it morally preferable for everyone to be happy”, and I suspect most people did as well. Is there some particular reason you object to this use of should, which appears fairly standard to me?
I object because it is an extremely sloppy use of moral language, which in my experience inevitably leads to extremely sloppy moral thinking.
Case in point for sloppy moral thinking:
For example, social conservatives sometimes complain that liberals are pushing their morality on them, by requiring things such as not condemning homosexuality. To liberals, this is obviously absurd—nobody is saying that the conservatives should be gay, people are just saying that if somebody is gay, the conservatives shouldn’t kill or harass them. From the liberal point of view, it is the conservatives who are pushing their beliefs on others, not vice versa.
See “To liberals...”. Absolutely nothing in that sentence follows from anything, and it’s a complete distortion of the reality of the issue.
Later in the thread, I have another post criticizing the original post, which may have made my greatest downvote ever.
I saw that Kaj_Sotala is a popular guy with a zillion karma points, but the moral reasoning in the article is embarrassingly bad, and anyone who upvoted it should be embarrassed as well.
“I think everyone should be happy” is an expression of a terminal value. Slavery is not a typically positive terminal value, so if you terminally value slavery you would have to say something like “I like the idea of slavery itself”; if you just say “I like slavery” people will think you have some justification in terms of other terminal values (e.g. slavery → economics → happiness).
So, to say you like slavery implies you have some justification for it as an instrumental value. Such justifications are generally considered to be incorrect for typical terminal values and so, the “liberals” could legitimately consider you to be factually incorrect.
Well, let’s ask some folks who actually did like slavery, and fought for it.
From the Texas Declaration of Secession, adopted February 2, 1861:
So at least some people who strongly believed that slavery was moral, claimed to hold this belief on the basis of (what they believed to be) both consequential and divine-command morality.
It’s not at all obvious if they really believed it. People say stuff they don’t believe all the time.
As I side note, I’d like to say I’d imagine nearly all political beliefs throughout history have had people citing every imaginable form of ethics as justifications, and furthermore without even distinguishing between them. From what I understand the vast majority of people don’t even realize there’s a distinction (I myself didn’t know about non-consequentalist ideas until about 6 months ago, actually).
BTW, I would say that an argument about “the freedom to own slaves” is essentially an argument that slavery being allowed is a terminal value, although I’d doubt anyone would argue that owning of slaves is itself a terminal value.
That seems like a valid distinction, but what makes you think that it is actually the distinction that motivates the difference in reactions?
I think it’s gibberish.
“Should” expresses that a person has a moral obligation to perform an action. As you point out, I don’t think this person is trying to express that everyone has a moral obligation to be happy, he’s expressing a terminal value of his own.
Moral discourse is littered with such category errors. “It isn’t fair.” To what does “it” refer, and in what way is “it” not being fair?
I think I understood the intended meaning of the sentence; something along the lines of “I consider it morally preferable for everyone to be happy”, and I suspect most people did as well. Is there some particular reason you object to this use of should, which appears fairly standard to me?
I object because it is an extremely sloppy use of moral language, which in my experience inevitably leads to extremely sloppy moral thinking.
Case in point for sloppy moral thinking:
See “To liberals...”. Absolutely nothing in that sentence follows from anything, and it’s a complete distortion of the reality of the issue.
Later in the thread, I have another post criticizing the original post, which may have made my greatest downvote ever.
I saw that Kaj_Sotala is a popular guy with a zillion karma points, but the moral reasoning in the article is embarrassingly bad, and anyone who upvoted it should be embarrassed as well.