Intergalactic Summit

I don't mean to intrude and I hope it isn't seen as an offence, but I thought it best to interject on this point. It's fine to believe that a slave is an individual who does not embrace their moral culpability, but this isn't the common definition. Pragmatically, a slave is someone held in ownership by another. Again, you are free to believe your alternate definition, but maintaining that definition while in public debate will have you speaking at cross-purposes. You accuse good Mr. Monmaki of avoiding your arguments, but I fear that perhaps your own alternate definition is the source of the confusion, not his unwillingness.

May I gently suggest that the both of you proceed with this in mind?

Hmm.

Perhaps there is some merit in the bloodthirsty attitudes of my brothers and sisters. As days go by, it appears that there is less and less within the Empire worth dealing with as civilized people, and more and more which simply should be burned to fine ash.

It is difficult to answer an argument when it is a moving target. You are quite adept at the bait and switch form of argumentation, much like a politician. I congratulate you. It is easy to say one thing and then later claim that you meant something else. That way, you never have to admit that your argument is wrong. Well, let's keep at it, shall we? It would be nice if you would just state your position in plain language and not beg the poor culturally misunderstood victim ploy.

Let me translate it for you: "If you would just understand me within my cultural context, of course you would agree with me." and on it goes. Stop trying to hide behind a supposed cultural value that you keep conveniently undefined and esoteric. The original post had to do with real human beings held as slaves and owned by someone else. You remind me of a politician who, when confronted about a certain indiscretion quipped, "It depends on what "is" "is.""

While it may be fruitless to try and hit your moving target, I'll give it a try anyway.

For this post, let's just address one or two things.

Mithra: "As to: "Unfortunately, human beings are fallible and do sometimes push their responsibility away, reject their constitution as moral agents and thus forfeit their freedom" Your reading of it is such that the premise isn't true. (It is a premise, by the way, not an implication and thus it can't be a non sequitur.)" You are wrong. You are very fond of using the word "thus." Thus is used when drawing a conclusion from a premise. That is exactly what you do. Non-sequitur is the perfect assignment to such. You say "thus forfeit their freedom." You draw a conclusion from your premise that does not follow. You need to work on your logic.

Mithra: "Also, of course every Amarrian would be happy if all people lived up to their moral responsibility. Your confusion must lie with the ambiguity of the term "Amarrian". Given your argument, it should be obvious that I'm not referring to the Amarrian ethnic group, but to the normative meaning of "Amarrians". On this level it is by definition that an Amarrian is someone who lives righteously. It's unrighteous to keep someone in slavery is he is ready to and will take up moral responsibility. Thus every Amarrian will by logical necessity be releasing those slaves, as by definition those that don't aren't Amarrian" There are several problems with this paragraph, almost too many to address. First, your definition of Amarrian is as slippery as yesterday's fish. It is left to completely arbitrary opinion as to what constitutes living righteously. I note too that leave "righteous living" undefined, and why not? Keep the definition to yourself until after you are criticized, that way you can accuse your detractor of not understanding your definition. At the end of they day you are still left with your definition of "righteous Amarrian" determining who and who does not qualify as having exercised their moral agency to your satisfaction. Those who don't meet your criteria, you call slaves and justify their ownership by the "righteous."

Mithra: "Thus every Amarrian will by logical necessity be releasing those slaves, as by definition those that don't aren't Amarrian" this logical fallacy is called 'asserting the consequence.' Frankly, I'm a bit surprised you let that slip.

Again, at the end of the day, you are making a religious argument. The moment you defined Amarrian in your "normative" sense, you locked yourself in to the religious argument. You have said nothing new or different.

You claim that a religious group called Amarrians have the arbitrary right to determine who is or is not properly exercising their moral agency. Those who are not are arbitrarily called slaves and can furthermore be denied freedom and become the property of said Amarrians. Only said Amarrians can arbitrarily determine if said slaves are ready to be free. And, by asserting the consequence, these true Amarrians will always free those who are ready and that by definition. Please! Stop arguing in circles! Stop saving your definitions! Stop turning your points into esoteric non-sense. You are justifying the arbitrary enslavement of people via your cultural values and then whining about not being understood. You are, indeed, understood, all too well.

Well.. considering the outlook of your own organisation, you would appear, at least in some part, to agree with her?

And that is the difference between us.

Where we seek to improve the lot of the lesser races, you merely seek to destroy that which is better than you.

Cpt. Momaki, I already stated the essence of my argument in quite plain language, your own words, even. I will repeat it for you:



A) "Unfortunately, human beings are fallible and do sometimes push their responsibility away, reject their constitution as moral agents and thus forfeit their freedom"

Your own words are "The essence of freedom is personal responsibility.". If someone shirks personal responsibility he fails to fulfill the prime criterion of freedom you yourself gave. So, you're contradicting yourself if you claim that from rejecting ones constitution as moral agent doesn't follow from the rejection of moral agency. Let me state the implicated fully and more explicitly:

P1: "The essence of freedom is personal responsibility."
P2: Humans can and time and again do reject their personal responsibility.
P1+P2: Humans that reject their responsibility lack the essence of freedom.
P3: If you lack the essence of something you lack that something.
___________________________________________________________
C: People who reject personal responsibility lack freedom.

Of course they lack freedom only to the degree they reject their responsibility, so, that someone who rejects his responsibility entirely lacks freedom entirely.

So, either you have to revoke your own words, or you will have to agree that if someone lacks the essence of freedom, personal responsibility, he is, indeed unfree.

The reason why I responded that it's a premise is, because you were stating that it's a non sequitur and then related to that 'this is my opinion' and you were pointing to the "freed slaves" that are capable of morally responsible action. Thus, your implication was that I had some kind of implication here that goes like this:

P1: If someone is a slave, he rejects moral responsibility.
P2: Person X is called a slave.
____________________________________________
C: Person X rejects moral responsibility.

The above argument is indeed a misconstrual of what I have said and I hope you see that, now. I don't implicate that because someone is held as a slave it's safe to assume his rejection of moral responsibility. Instead I define a slave as someone rejecting moral responsibility, as I pointed out above.


B) Definition of Amarrian.

The definition is just fine. Of course it's left open what is righteous. That's exactly why it's a misconstrual to simply assume that I'm presupposing a specific definition of what "righteous" is. I did deliberately let it open as I think this is indeed a topic one would have to discuss.

Therefore a quite valid interjection of you would be at this point: "But slavery isn't righteous." I'd then be in the situation that I'd have to argue for the righteousness, that is the justification of slavery. And that, I did above - partially, as I have to admit.


C) "Asserting the consequence."

Again, you're misconstruing my argument to build up a straw men. The fallacy you cite follows the scheme:

P1: If P, then Q
P2: Q
____________
C: P

This is indeed a fallacy, as other things then P might implicate Q.

My given argument is another, though, as there's a biconditional, not a simple implication at work in P1, as it's a definition - as I already made clear. Let me explicate it for you:

P1: Someone is an Amarrian if and only if he lives righteously and in fear of God.
P2: Person X doesn't live righteously and in fear of God.
_______________________________________________________________
C: Person X isn't an Amarrian.

The argument, by the way, isn't a religious one, but the definition of Amarrian, indeed, has religious overtones. That is, of course, because what an Amarrian is (partly) defined religiously. You might insist here on the 'and in fear of God' clause to invoke religious bigotry. I'd like to point out that 'living in fear of God' doesn't implicate any specific religion here and that the conjunction in place means that it doesn't matter whether someone lives in fear of God, if he fails to live righteously he isn't an Amarrian by virtue of that biconditional that's in place here.


C) "You claim that a religious group called Amarrians have the arbitrary right to determine who is or is not properly exercising their moral agency. [...] You are, indeed, understood, all too well."

That, dear Cpt. Momaki is exactly not what I'm claiming. So, stop to insinuate that this is what I do, you will only discredit yourself by doing so.

In this case Blake, 'better' is entirely subjective.

Personally i cannot see how a culture and civilisation (and i use those terms very loosely) that institutionally infects those it claims to be saving, with a toxin they had no cure for, can be seen by any to be better.

It is barbarism of the worst kind.

Some who are born of the amarrian culture appear to understand this flaw, most are willfully ignorant of it.

yet it is the vocal minority, such as yourself, that engender such vehement responses from the Matari people, that minority that claim that such methods are justifiable and righteous.

You and those like you blake, are the reason that, as Tamiroth said with such beautiful words, 'God wields a Khumaak'

Now, I don't believe in the god your scriptures describe, yet if - for the sake of argument alone - we accept that theory, then the war, the hardship and the loss Amarr is sufferring now, is the will of your god. Ergo, you are doing something wrong. Think on that.

This sounds awfully familiar, but in a good way.

Hear again: There's a marked difference between personal responsibility and personal power. Freedom arises not from the power to do as one sees fit. It arises from subjecting oneself to the obligations of ethics and morality.

That sounds a bit of an oxymoron, or something I used to hear often in church. Subjecting to this to gain freedom from that, etc etc. Usually right before the collection plate was passed around.

It's better this way:

Freedom arises directly from the power to do as one sees fit. It arises from rejecting the common obligations of ethics and morality.