pop morality

[Drich]

For anyone still wanting to be apart of this conversation I feel we have gotten a little side track, so here is a summary of everything i have said so far:

O...K.... let me try this another way...

If Slavery is immoral, then why do you support it with your purchases of slave made/produced goods?

Likely because capitalism has placed the means of production in the hands of a relative few so Evie can't build his own vehicle, or computer, or weave his own clothes.  Just like you can't.

Exactly!!!

As I have already said, I don't believe slavery is either moral or immoral, it is how that slaves are treated. That is why so many of you call me 'immoral.' That is also why I said in the quoted post above "IF you think slavery is immoral then why..."

 The difference between him and you is that he doesn't see being trapped in that kind of economic reality as being good by virtue of being trapped in it.  Because he's not an idiot, you see.

Again Mr. Not so smart, I am not judging it good or bad That would be your peers. My position is neutral and has been since my very first post. It is the self righteous who assigns a moral value on all slavery with out weighing the factors.

The grand idea being the 'morality' the self righteous use to judge all slavery bad, is corrupt. that it is not a true measure of right and wrong. That it reflects sentiment rather than anything that resembles a true standard. Why? because of the hypocrisy found in the example i provided here with my slavery arguement. On one hand the self righteous use this "popular morality" to say all slavery is bad, yet the same self righteous seem to want to ignore the fact that every aspect of their lives has been provided for them by slaves.

When confronted with the fact that slavery still exists in modern culture, the self righteous move to the definition of chattel slavery as being the only definition of slave, and want to pretend that I am the one who endorses chattel slavery because I say as you did, 'that slavery is not all immoral that it is a neutral act.' then the next move of the self righteous is to pretend that if they are not involved in chattel slavery then they have no role in slavery what so ever.

To which I point out that the true definition of slavery goes far beyond the definition pop culture assigns that word. and because they ignore what modern slavery looks like, modern slavery goes for the most part unregulated, allowing companies who use slaves, Do so in such a way as to mirror the work conditions and hardships (the immoral aspects of slavery) onto the very people we owe a debt that provides us with the lives we live. My argument is to acknowledge our dependence on slavery and demand better work conditions! Rather than take the morally self righteous road and pretend I have or do not depend on slavery, and to continue to allow such work conditions to deteriorate.

Again all of this is allowed to happen, because modern 'morality' is not the standard of right and wrong most of you think it is. Morality is nothing more than compromise. It is a continuation of ever devolving compromise that allows this society to go deeper and deeper into evil than any evil civilization in our past ever has.

My examples of slavery and abortion a prime examples of this. because at it's core the self righteous think they have over come these evils (chattel slavery, and infanticide) but in reality all we have done to accept slavery and infanticide into our current culture is to relabel and redefine the evil to a more technical or clinical term. Then we no longer see slavery and the slaughter of babies. we see migrant workers and abortions.

This is EXACTLY What the Nazis did in Germany. That is why none of them thought "just following orders" was a bad thing. None of them saw themselves as being evil people. They were doing the moral thing by purifying the human race.

So the question then becomes how do we know that 'we' (the western world) haven't already stepped into Nazi level evil? Without an absolute standard we could never know because like the nazis we would simply believe whatever society says is right. In the beginning of this conversation everyone pointed to 'feelings'/empathy as their 'moral guide.' But, again as the Nazis shown us empathy can be manipulated and controlled by propaganda. So again, popular society on it's own has nothing to keep it's morals from ever declining.

Then I pointed to the Bible and God's perfect standard. a Standard which none of us were ever meant to keep as we think we are to keep morals. I explain that the acts in God's righteousness (as a Christian) no longer contain a moral value, and that the Law of God is only to push us to the point where we are to seek atonement/freedom from the law of God to define our righteousness.

Now with this standard we are not to justify our sins (make them moral) we are to simply repent and do our best to move on. Meaning we are no longer judged by God as being 'immoral/sinful' if we can not stop sinning (like if one of us were gay) that our actions did not define our right or wrong-ness before God. Yet we would be able to maintain and know where our limits should be if we indeed wanted to honor God, because we could still have the standard of the law to point us in the right direction.