+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Political Flame War (Split from Found my Next Truck) (/showthread.php?tid=2634)
- Kaan - 08-16-2005
slavery was "one" reason for the war. just like terrorism was for this one... the majority thinks/though both were wrong and a just cause for war.
were you a history major? you havent seen my library at home... its all civil war books... are you sure you want to get into this?
- ScottyB - 08-16-2005
very interesting debate here, i can't stop reading....:thumbup:
- Kaan - 08-16-2005
way to not contribute and kill a thread... either that or they are trying to do some home work and come back later
- G.Irish - 08-16-2005
I think what Kaan is getting at is that some issues can only be judged in historical context. Right and wrong is largely a function of the overarching worldview. Differences in worldviews has resulted in violence and destruction many times in history the world over.
People much smarter than anyone here have mused over how to define right and wrong for centuries. The founders of this country came to the basic conclusion that one should be able to do whatever they want, as long as it does not harm others. That basic maxim takes care of a great majority of the right and wrong situations.
As for the greater good arguments, some of that stuff comes down to game theory but I think that it is a dangerous thing to think that harming the one (or the minority) for the greater good is an acceptable theory. If the few choose to sacrifice themselves for the greater good then it is fine. But the minority should not come to significant harm against their will to suit the majority.
- damnit458 - 08-16-2005
Kaan Wrote:slavery was "one" reason for the war. just like terrorism was for this one... the majority thinks/though both were wrong and a just cause for war.
I realize it was one reason, but it was also put into law as wrong by the majority because that majority won the war. Had the confederate side won, slavery would not have been outlawed, period.
Im actually a mathematics major, but I sure as hell would like to get into this =D
- damnit458 - 08-16-2005
G.Irish Wrote:I think what Kaan is getting at is that some issues can only be judged in historical context. Right and wrong is largely a function of the overarching worldview. Differences in worldviews has resulted in violence and destruction many times in history the world over.
But from who's viewpoint in that historical context?
- ViPER1313 - 08-16-2005
Kaan Wrote:are you sure you want to get into this?Bring it.
....goes to listen to "Pearl Jam - Do the Evolution" :twisted:
- Kaan - 08-16-2005
Robert E. Lee faught for the confederacy because his brother did... and he would not fight against his brother. BUT in his journal and collection of letters, he is adimately against slavery. it was a trend, something that would have eventually come to be... only war caused it to happen faster.
the armies of the north and the population of the north was far greater than the south. the souths population was inflated because they counted slaves as 1 for population... and 3/4 of a person for anything else. but still majority ruled... even in war...
- damnit458 - 08-16-2005
Kaan Wrote:Robert E. Lee faught for the confederacy because his brother did... and he would not fight against his brother. BUT in his journal and collection of letters, he is adimately against slavery. it was a trend, something that would have eventually come to be... only war caused it to happen faster.
the armies of the north and the population of the north was far greater than the south. the souths population was inflated because they counted slaves as 1 for population... and 3/4 of a person for anything else. but still majority ruled... even in war...
I still dont see how you can say that the abolition of slavery would have eventually come to be. By saying that its like you are acknowledging that there is atleast one universal right/wrong, that being that slavery is wrong, and that people in their hearts and minds would eventually acknowledge this. This contradicts your arguement that right and wrong is dependent upon the majority in power (although you still have not specified what majority).
Would you go so far to say that it is a universal truth that slavery is wrong? That in no way shape or form should it be condoned, in the past, the present, or the future, no matter what stance people have on it?
- Kaan - 08-16-2005
what i'm saying is... even in the south the peoples minds were being changed by legal propoganda and the use of free speach... SO yes eventually the majority would have rules and slavery would have been abolished.
it was abolished most of the world by the majority before it was here... the minds of the majority was changing all over the world...
- ViPER1313 - 08-16-2005
Kaan is right - slavery was not the main cause of the Civil War. The emancipation proclamation never "freed" the slaves like they teach you in elementary school. The North won out, and their view of anti slavery became imposed on the lesser South. Simple case of a stronger majority imposing its rules.
Other times the opposite has happened - the majority does not always win. The fundamentalist movement in Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan are great examples.
The majority is not always right, the minority is not always right - again with the grays we encounter.
And the world continues to turn.
EDIT: My point is that basing what is right or wrong off what the majority imposes is an ignorant way to look at morality and truth.
- Kaan - 08-16-2005
universal truths are defined by the majority in the global context... and in relation to time. slavery, racism, etc have yet to have had the time to be a universal truth... but are not condoned by the majority.
- Kaan - 08-16-2005
Iran and the Talaban both supported by larger countries... therefor their cause was given the majority globaly. think about it.
oh and in both cases the United States did it.
- ScottyB - 08-16-2005
Kaan Wrote:therefor their cause was given the majority globaly.
Kaan, could you rephrase that, i can't understand :lol:
- damnit458 - 08-16-2005
Kaan Wrote:universal truths are defined by the majority in the global context... and in relation to time. slavery, racism, etc have yet to have had the time to be a universal truth... but are not condoned by the majority.
Quite the opposite. Perhaps universal was not the right word. Objective is probably better. In my mind, an objective, or universal (again probably not the best word), truth is something that is true no matter time, space, or any other limitation on this earth. It does not change as people change. It remains constant.
- Kaan - 08-16-2005
ScottyB Wrote:Kaan Wrote:therefor their cause was given the majority globaly.
Kaan, could you rephrase that, i can't understand :lol:
the US backed them... making them the majority...
- damnit458 - 08-16-2005
[quote="ViPER1313"]Kaan is right - slavery was not the main cause of the Civil War. The emancipation proclamation never "freed" the slaves like they teach you in elementary school. The North won out, and their view of anti slavery became imposed on the lesser South. Simple case of a stronger majority imposing its rules.quote]
Im not argueing the casues of the war, im argueing the possible outcomes.
- Kaan - 08-16-2005
damnit458 Wrote:Kaan Wrote:universal truths are defined by the majority in the global context... and in relation to time. slavery, racism, etc have yet to have had the time to be a universal truth... but are not condoned by the majority.
Quite the opposite. Perhaps universal was not the right word. Objective is probably better. In my mind, an objective, or universal (again probably not the best word), truth is something that is true no matter time, space, or any other limitation on this earth. It does not change as people change. It remains constant.
the only objective truths are physics related. in the political world, in the world of moral arguements... things change... and majority rules.
- Kaan - 08-16-2005
oh and just because the majority rules, doesnt mean you have to like it.
- G.Irish - 08-16-2005
Eh the majority rules is a precipitous and treacherous slope. Millions of people have been slaughtered worldwide in just the past 50 or 60 years at the hands of majority rule. Rwanda, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Bosnia, and plenty more are places where lots of people died due to majority rule.
I think the universal right is that no one should harm another or make another to suffer. The exception would be harming someone to protect someone else from harm (i.e. the police).