I presume you refer to a cultural development, as whether in a suit or a loincloth (to quote Jhonen Vasquez), man is the same animal as he was a few thousand years ago. I cannot say how successfully lessons of time really translate into future generations, so I likewise cannot speculate as to the progress of some overarching development of the species. We may yet be on the path to destruction, for all we know. In any case, the possibility that future humans may be overall be better or past ones worse does not alter my view of the individual's capacity for reason, and the responsibility born of that.
As for deducing things, that isn't as easy as it sounds.
Easy and right are rarely related. I am aware (heh) of people's lack of awareness, and perhaps the problem is one of effort. People who are not interest in seeing will not see. The attitude of "I feel fine. Why worry about others?" is one I comprehend but do not think any better of. In fact, those in a position of contentment ought to be the most morally responsible, as they have less of their personal welfare to attend to. We must remember that, in talking about slavery, we are not talking about a single wrong that is absently committed and forgotten, but an ongoing process which, for slave-owners, sits under their very noses and confronts them daily with its ramifications. If it is so deeply wrong as we accept it to be, someone should have noticed. Perhaps many of them didn't want to.
Incidentally, "willful dehumanization" would imply an intentional harm, would it not?
...a rather poor picture of some of the people that signed the American Declaration of Independence.
I do not, as some do, view the founding fathers as paragons of virtue who were above reproach. They were people, composed of good and evil as other people are, and though they had good ideas, they were not saints. Even the brilliant Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. cheated on his wife, or so I've heard. (I think usulav dubbed the break between good ideas and character the "[David] Sim Effect", if anyone remembers that.) I will point out, as has been noted before me, that slavery was more acknowledged as wrong by that time period anyway.
But anyhow. I believe that possessing a mindset which causes one to repeat acts of harm represents evil, even without the amplification of a specific desire to produce harm, though it's possible for that evil to be insignificant. (Conversely, I believe I can apply a similar standard to good, which is likewise enhanced by but not expressly limited to deliberate intent. Random acts of senseless kindness, and all that rubbish.) As for whether people as a whole are evil vs. wrong, I have known a few people I consider to be evil out of being monstrously, incomprehensibly inconsiderate, but for average situations your distinction seems to be a reasonable one and I can think of no fault with it, although we might be splitting hairs at this point.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Part 1
Date: 2005-11-30 03:43 am (UTC)I presume you refer to a cultural development, as whether in a suit or a loincloth (to quote Jhonen Vasquez), man is the same animal as he was a few thousand years ago. I cannot say how successfully lessons of time really translate into future generations, so I likewise cannot speculate as to the progress of some overarching development of the species. We may yet be on the path to destruction, for all we know. In any case, the possibility that future humans may be overall be better or past ones worse does not alter my view of the individual's capacity for reason, and the responsibility born of that.
As for deducing things, that isn't as easy as it sounds.
Easy and right are rarely related. I am aware (heh) of people's lack of awareness, and perhaps the problem is one of effort. People who are not interest in seeing will not see. The attitude of "I feel fine. Why worry about others?" is one I comprehend but do not think any better of. In fact, those in a position of contentment ought to be the most morally responsible, as they have less of their personal welfare to attend to. We must remember that, in talking about slavery, we are not talking about a single wrong that is absently committed and forgotten, but an ongoing process which, for slave-owners, sits under their very noses and confronts them daily with its ramifications. If it is so deeply wrong as we accept it to be, someone should have noticed. Perhaps many of them didn't want to.
being a slaveowner doesn't make that person evil
I accept, and have previously accepted, that it does not by necessity make them inherently evil, or overall evil, or even significantly evil. I do think, though, that it at least makes them partially evil, as everyone is. Coming back to another earlier point, I do not feel bothered when I find stories depicting an evil slaver owner as 1) they are the least of the victims of the situation, 2) they (or their representatives) are not present to be offended, and 3) a parable is more successful in demonstrating slavery as cruel if the perpetrator is cruel, heavy-handed though it may be. I likewise do not find offense with depictions of villainous thieves or killers, despite that it is a cliché that is not always valid. (Though I will admit that both of these topics have a broader and more daring array of depictions while slavery, for its controversy, does not. If someone wishes to write a story about a non-evil slave owner, I will not defy them.) My time and resources are finite and I have priorities, and defending the good name of slave owners is not amongst them.
Incidentally, "willful dehumanization" would imply an intentional harm, would it not?
...a rather poor picture of some of the people that signed the American Declaration of Independence.
I do not, as some do, view the founding fathers as paragons of virtue who were above reproach. They were people, composed of good and evil as other people are, and though they had good ideas, they were not saints. Even the brilliant Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. cheated on his wife, or so I've heard. (I think
But anyhow. I believe that possessing a mindset which causes one to repeat acts of harm represents evil, even without the amplification of a specific desire to produce harm, though it's possible for that evil to be insignificant. (Conversely, I believe I can apply a similar standard to good, which is likewise enhanced by but not expressly limited to deliberate intent. Random acts of senseless kindness, and all that rubbish.) As for whether people as a whole are evil vs. wrong, I have known a few people I consider to be evil out of being monstrously, incomprehensibly inconsiderate, but for average situations your distinction seems to be a reasonable one and I can think of no fault with it, although we might be splitting hairs at this point.