@Rgal
@Rgal I think you're once again misunderstanding something here. I'm telling you that things the things they did were bad. They aren't excused of the bad things they did. I'm simply trying to tell you, that the reason they became like that, isn't necessarily because they were born like that, or because they one day decided to become like that, but because people in that time and age repeated the same social norms as everyone else. As soon as people started pointing out that the things they were doing were bad, society started changing (for example, slavery no longer being accepted in the modern world).
Nah, you were telling me that the things they did weren't bad. That's what the words you said mean when arranged in the order you said them. And now you are trying to gaslight me into thinking that I argued not about them being people who do bad things, but about the reasons they became such people. Nice try, but this is a web forum and I can re-read things that I said whenever I want and, spoiler alert, I didn't argue that.
Re-read what I said then, because I said that the things they did were bad,
just not considered bad in the era and place in which they happened:
The society back then accepted slaves as a commodity, not as humans. Like you wouldn't care too much about your pencil or something breaking, the people back then wouldn't have cared about a slave dying from being overworked (maybe loss of profit or manpower, but that's probably it). Now is that wrong? Yes, and it's a good thing all of us here realize this (I really hope nobody will argue this). However, was what they were doing considered wrong in their era? No.
Whoah there, that's a bit of a stretch there. Sure, you can say they were a part of society, but when that society does not listen to your wishes, forces you into doing things (the reason why you became a slave being irrelevant), and treats you as a commodity, can you really call them a part of society? The society back then actively tried to stop them from participating in it.
I totally can and there's nothing you can do to stop me. Here, watch me do it again: "They were part of the society". See?
On a less pedantic note, being exploited by the society counts as unwiling participation in it.
Alright, but I'll still disagree that you're a part of a society, when that very same society actively tries to stop you from participating in it.
Like being in a circle of people that hate you. You're there, but then again, are you really there?
The society back then accepted slaves as a commodity, not as humans. Like you wouldn't care too much about your pencil or something breaking, the people back then wouldn't have cared about a slave dying from being overworked (maybe loss of profit or manpower, but that's probably it). Now is that wrong? Yes, and it's a good thing all of us here realize this (I really hope nobody will argue this). However, was what they were doing considered wrong in their era? No.
This interpretation only makes sense for people who still, right now, believe that slaves were a commodity as opposed to, you know, part of the society with their own opinions on the matter. Unless you subscribe to "personhood relativism" in addition to moral relativism? In which case, I'm sorry, but in this day and age society would be justified in calling you evil even by your own definition of "evil".
What you're trying to say with this goes above my head, explain it again please.
That you don't get to decide who isn't a person regardless of when and where they exist. They were people; therefore, they were part of the society; therefore, their opinions on the matter matter, and trying to dismiss what have been done to them with "morals of the time and place" is insincere.
I don't know where I gave the impression of dismissing what was done to them, because that wasn't my intention. What the people of the time did was bad, and what happened to the victims was horrible. With that said, I now fail to see what you're trying to point out here. If your point was about them being a part of society, I gave you my view on that above. Though, I do think I know what you were trying to get at: The slaves had their own lives, had friends, had loved ones, and trying to dismiss that that didn't exist is stupid, I agree with that. However, I'd consider that to be a part of the community within which they were enslaved in (like a group of people, which were enslaved becoming friends. They'd eventually form their own set of values and things they do. I think you know what I mean), rather than a part of society. The things that community did, the values they held, basically anything and everything, would go overlooked by society (because they're not considered part of it).
But now, let's once again return to the main point that I (and that other guy possibly) am trying to make. To do this, I'll ask you to do a little thought experiment:
Let's say slavery was never abolished, and it was still something widely accepted. Given such a society, you'd be taught by your parents and those around you (who were taught the same things as you're being taught by them) about what slaves are. Your view about slaves would be formed by them, and in all likelihood, you'd come to think of slaves the same way they do, as a commodity (or someone lesser, if you don't agree with them being labeled a commodity). In such a society, you would either, actively participate in slavery, think of it in a positive light (because of the things you were taught), hold no opinion on the matter, or be the minority that opposes it. Since this society accepts slavery, it means the vast majority of people fall into the first 2 categories, and in such a society, they're the ones who determine if slavery is bad/evil or not.
The only reason everyone in the modern world recognizes slavery as being bad, is because we as a society managed to recognize that slaves aren't a commodity, but that they're people too. If we lived in the above thought experiment society, the two of us probably wouldn't be calling slavery bad.
I think our whole discussion right now comes down to the following:
We both agree that the things people did back then was bad, and the things that happened to the victims was horrible.
However, we disagree on:
Everyone who did so, was inherently evil.
I disagree with this because I recognize someone being evil when, they do something that is morally bad, even though they know it's bad.
I do not see someone as evil, if they manage to recognize that the things they were doing were bad (if they're made aware of it). The things they did were bad, yes, but they're not inherently evil.
