We call 'Slavery is wrong' a moral truth because there is a specific history of theoretical investigation of a particular kind of slavery. We discussed it for centuries in metaphysical, economic, biological, and philosophical terms; we listened to all the arguments pro and con, we read all the testimonies of slaves and witnesses, and we decided. Though this 'we" is not everybody on earth, or even most people, who've never thought about slavery much.
This is a short interpretation of the quote. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur nisl mi, vestibulum quis ligula vel, feugiat finibus risus. Integer quam ligula, consectetur eget ante et, posuere laoreet erat.
This is a more detailed analysis of the quote. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur nisl mi, vestibulum quis ligula vel, feugiat finibus risus. Integer quam ligula, consectetur eget ante et, posuere laoreet erat. Aenean sit amet erat sed elit consectetur tincidunt. Praesent sed quam placerat, egestas magna a, vestibulum nisi. Proin cursus elit lorem, in laoreet tellus tristique eu. Nunc vel tortor luctus, venenatis lectus sit amet, ultricies velit. Proin tincidunt hendrerit elit nec sagittis. Donec ut dictum risus.
Etiam sollicitudin magna vitae neque efficitur, in ullamcorper nibh tempus. Aenean laoreet facilisis ex sit amet vehicula. Vestibulum placerat velit in eleifend feugiat. Nullam vulputate sed odio vel vestibulum. Etiam pellentesque, arcu sed accumsan aliquet, risus neque interdum mauris, non vulputate nulla purus a est. Duis lacus metus, scelerisque ut justo vitae, dignissim ullamcorper massa. Duis tempor pharetra sagittis. Nam et aliquet metus.eet erat.
You can reasonably make the intellectual journey from thinking it's permissible to eat shrimp to thinking it's not permissible, or vice versa, whereas our slavery journey was uni-directional. We are as certain we are not going back to that old kind of slavery as we are that we aren't going back to the geocentric universe.
We call 'Slavery is wrong' a moral truth because there is a specific history of theoretical investigation of a particular kind of slavery. We discussed it for centuries in metaphysical, economic, biological, and philosophical terms; we listened to all the arguments pro and con, we read all the testimonies of slaves and witnesses, and we decided. Though this 'we" is not everybody on earth, or even most people, who've never thought about slavery much.
I think we do have a better understanding now of how moral thought and discourse function.
Aristotle saw nature as intelligent and purposive, whereas for the Epicureans, and the 17th century 'mechanical' philosophers, there is no intentionality in nature except where there are animal minds and bodies.
For seventeenth-century astronomers, the Epicurean doctrine of multiple worlds separated by void space was seen to fit with the new Copernican system in which every star was a sun, and the universe was a vast place with no centre.
For the chemists, who wanted to manufacture new medicines and elixirs and transform base substances into noble ones, the notion that there was no metaphysical barrier to doing so - it was just a matter of getting the particles into new arrangements - was encouraging. That was the Baconian programme.
Subscribe and get notification from us