you can't compete against free labor.
Yet unions today support open borders which shows the same kind of ignorance. Cesar Chavez was smart and didn't.
By the way, Eli Yale was a slaver, so you should talk to your admins about a name change.
So you're not a "10" in every which way. But you're probably pretty spectacular in some way, and definitely good enough in most areas of life. If ever there were a time to stop beating yourself up for being human, it is now.
Verified by Psychology Today
When Robert George posed this question to his students at Princeton, all claimed that they would have been abolitionists. However, before crediting their claims to moral courage, he challenged them to point to a single instance in which they supported an unpopular cause at great personal cost. When they could not, he rejected their claims as nonsense, predicting that “only the tiniest fraction would have spoken up against slavery or lifted a finger to free the slaves.”
His question deserves both scrutiny and elaboration. Am I supposed to imagine myself being transmogrified or merely teleported? I might interpret this question as a history quiz: What was the typical position on slavery among people living in the South at that time? In that case, “I” presumably would have supported slavery because most people did.
Of course, as the quotes around the second “I” signify, my identity does not survive this trip; my brain would be emptied and then refilled with whatever beliefs and attitudes were common then. Most of his students [1] appear instead to construe the trip as teleportation, in which they retain their current beliefs and attitudes, and perhaps even their knowledge of all that will later transpire (the Civil War, the Civil Rights Act, etc.). [2]
Though I share his skepticism that his time-traveling philosophy students would swell the ranks of Southern abolitionists, I can imagine being emboldened by the certainty that I’m on the right side of history. [3] Thus, I presume that some would, which raises the question of who would? [4]
The most straightforward conjecture is that those who are currently most outspoken about perceived racial injustices would be the same people fighting against injustice then. But the opposing conjecture seems plausible too; since most students are already quite energized about these issues, those who openly avow disinterest or who challenge aspects of promulgated narratives are demonstrating a willingness to be unpopular, and, thus, could be regarded as abolitionists in the making.
Since we can never run this experiment, I’ll settle for the next best thing: a referendum. Please feel welcome and encouraged to register your “vote” in the comments section and I’ll tally the results in a future post. It might be helpful to imagine a specific set of people—say 10 of your friends—and speculate about which of them would have opposed slavery if “they” had been born two centuries ago, or if they (no quotes) were teleported to that period in our history.
[1] I’m curious how his black students respond, since the thought experiment requires transmogrification from them.
[2] Possibly, many do adopt the transmogrification interpretation, but are simply unwilling to say the words: “I would have supported slavery.” lest their understanding of history be misinterpreted as an endorsement of it. I can imagine someone poised to utter those five words fearing what might lie ahead. “Wait everybody, why are you castigating me? My answer merely reflects the metaphysical ambiguity of the question. I was actually indicting the immorality of past people, which you should regard as virtuous...”
[3] Even assuming a teleportation interpretation, considerable ambiguities remain. For instance, would the temporally displaced student be permitted to reveal her unusual situation? I’m trying to imagine it: “I’m from the future. I have the benefit of perspectives you lack. Here is a screenshot of a recent poll showing that nearly all Americans support interracial marriage. Here is the product of such a union being sworn in as President of the United States. Here is a video of an airplane. It can travel 20 times faster than a horse. I flew in one yesterday. You all really need to listen to me.”
[4] One could further ask what would happen to the beliefs and attitudes of his teleported students, having found themselves thrust amid those whose views bear no similarity to theirs or to any views they’ve ever heard. My guess is that they would never own slaves themselves but do little to publicly oppose slavery, except perhaps sharing their moral misgivings with a handful of their least racist friends after their fourth mint julep.
you can't compete against free labor.
Yet unions today support open borders which shows the same kind of ignorance. Cesar Chavez was smart and didn't.
By the way, Eli Yale was a slaver, so you should talk to your admins about a name change.
i have no idea, really. i am not sure what i would do, similar as i am not sure what i would do today, even if i am not jeopardized and if helping doesn't come at huge personal cost
would i help each and every homeless person on my way to work, for example, and if i would meet many of them, would that decentivize me for human suffering? i guess i wouldn't help or i would help randomly in the best case scenario. (unless i am a social worker working in this sector)
and then, the changes are made when majority is ready for them, or at least doesn't oppose them actively. if 99 percent are complacent and don't mind or even cherish having some sultan over their head, now, i see no point in playing a hero for that 99 percent, because they are hardly able to appreciate it, and if they are fred by 1 percent or few heroes, they might even hate them
if you have a complacent majority, not much you can do about it, except not owning a slave yourself, but you would still live in the society where you would buy groceries, shop in the stores, use products, sit in restaurants etc. owned by slave masters or supported by exploitation of slave labor. which is not that far from some countries where literally all business and stores etc. are owned by former criminals, so you really have no choice but to buy there or change profession to agriculturist
Standing up against slavery would work if a person had wealth and power. An ordinary person would probably find it dangerous. That society at the time relied on slave labor, jutifying inhumane treatment by proclaiming slaves weren't fully human.
If living in that time with that kind of deranged attitude, I'm not sure what I would do or say. People had to go underground to oppose slavery.
So now we have marches that are opposing racism. I support the peaceful protests. Most times it's not dangerous and not like it was as recently as the 60s in the south. So young people now protesting aren't the brave heroes of back then.
Suppose you're living in a liberal democracy in the early 21st century and care about suffering, or more exactly: its reduction and prevention.
Suppose you try to argue why sexism and racism should be rejected, and are having a hard time finding anyone in your life who genuinely thinks discrimination based on sex and/or race is okay.
Suppose you find it hard to imagine sexism and racism were once even more widespread and caused even more suffering than today.
And now suppose someone asked you whether you think most humans in the early 21st century are either unaware of or deliberately repressing any thoughts of other forms of discrimination that would also in hindsight (along with its consequences) be considered detestable in some generations' or maybe in some centuries' time.
Would you react by questioning the likelihood of all previous generations having got a lot wrong but moral catastrophes not possibly being perpetuated by us, the first truly enlightened generation who got everything right? I hope you would.
I present: speciesism.
Why do we eat pigs, wear cows, and cuddle dogs?
How can we justify inflicting suffering upon sentient beings whom we treat however we want, for reasons such as pleasure, taste, clothing, entertainment, tradition, convenience, and profit?
It can't be a difference in intelligence, or else we would value the suffering of humans who are very young or disabled less, which we don't. Thought-experiment ahead: Citing intelligence as the reason why humans' suffering is apparently more important than everyone else's (i.e. than the suffering of other sentient beings, which encompasses at the very least all other vertebrates) would make us appear like hypocrites in the eyes of alien lifeforms who are intellectually superior to us and wonder whether they should have any qualms about breeding, enslaving, torturing, and murdering us "stupid and inferior humans" for their (frivolous or (allegedly) righteous) causes. Biting the bullet here and arguing that yes, these aliens are morally allowed to treat us like we treat non-human animals would be tantamount to espousing the major tenet of fascism: That might is right.
How would we humans feel if we were treated like the unfathomably large numbers of fish, chickens, cows, pigs, etc. who are treated "like animals"? There is bloodcurdling testimony of some Holocaust survivors who dared to make that very comparison.
The case against speciesism is pretty airtight and there's broad consensus in philosophic academia that we can't justify treating non-human animals the way we do (whether from a consequentialist approach to ethics or from an ethics focused on virtue or duty).
It is also clear to most people who are honest with themselves that factory farming (which is the reality the vast majority of animals farmed for food and clothing face every second of their mostly miserable lives) will undoubtedly be seen in hindsight as one of the most abysmal atrocities ever perpetuated.
People who, in the early 21st century (or even before that), voice(d) that concern, people who are anti-speciesist (which entails taking veganism and wild-animal suffering seriously), are those who have the mindset that would have made them oppose slavery even when most people would've insisted that "better" (i.e. less bad) treatment of slaves and a "reform" of slavery was enough.
i would agree somewhat, though if everyone just became a flexitarian today, eating dairy and meat three times a week instead of seven, it would already slash the meat and dairy industry in half and allow them transition to vegan farming.
i agree that sometimes "reformation" is a code for not doing anything, or even more, misleading and intelligence insulting prop (for example, generously suggesting the law that forbids building dams on rivers in protected areas or making "better" dams - how noble - until one reads again - protected areas make 10% of the total area and the law actually allows "improved" dams on the rivers on 90% of the territory, damaging 90% of the rivers permanently).
again, not much one can do about it, and nature will eventually take care of itself.
i am divided in general on this issue because even the fight against the racism /for women rights was slow, and it indeed, started with baby steps -opening segregated schools because before there were no schools for women and black people, it was not all or nothing approach. so i guess it depends. don't know really, as i said, not hero.
You don't get into Princeton by challenging social norms.
Of course, all modern Princeton students would claim to be abolitionists. Had they lived in the antebellum South, they would have all tolerated slavery, even if they didn't own slaves themselves. These people have been preparing their entire lives to go along to get along.
Most people being selfish (self replication ) don’t have a particularly comprehensive understanding of the things needed to really “think outside the box”. The vast majority prefer to maintain the status quo and take good things as they come.
I don’t think many people born in today’s very socially orientated culture would understand how these circumstances have shaped minds just the same way as back then. If you are doing what you are told now you would have done what you are told back then.
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.