Originally posted by Lord Shark
Now you could argue that this is due to the fact that we have come to the conclusion that all people are our equals, so we shouldn't have slaves or harm people of other races and so on.

Yes, that is what I was arguing.

My problem with the term 'equals' is that it is potentially misleading. I think you are using it in an 'equals before the law' sense, where of course we don't require any actual literal parity between people.
I intended 'equal in our eyes' sense.

This is why I think using the term 'equals' can lead to confusion. To take another example, it might be the case that one person is manifestly superior to another along a number of dimensions and across several domains. But we wouldn't want to conclude that the superior one need not feel it would be wrong to harm the inferior one. This reveals that 'equals' is a prescriptive rather than descriptive term in your 1)
Do you have a better description for the concept I am trying to get across of people deserving of our empathy to the point that we grant them a certain status morally. I am trying to separate the feelings of empathy we may have with animals, and the ones we have for fellow humans.

Ok, but leaving aside the problem with 'equals', how is this universal, non-relative and true? Is it not the case that some people consider it morally acceptable to harm equals in some circumstances?
I think those circumstances are simply complications of the rule not exceptions. Most commonly is the situation where not breaking the rule would lead to harm to ones self.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, that is what I was arguing.

My problem with the term 'equals' is that it is potentially misleading. I think you are using it in an 'equals before the law' sense, where of course we don't require any actual literal parity between people.
I intended 'equal in our eyes' sense.

This is why I think using the term 'equals' can lead to con only is the situation where not breaking the rule would lead to harm to ones self.

Ok I think I see what you're getting at now. I'll have a think about whether there's a better term.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I was pointing out a modern day example of those who try to justify breaking the Golden Rule by viewing those they oppress as being beneath them and the hypocrisy of your pointing to slave owners and Nazi's as if your position is any different.

No need to rehash it.

When did I say that homosexuals were beneath me? According to Christ if you have broken one law you have broken them all. In this respect, we are all equals. The debate you and I had is whether homosexual acts are a sin. The debate then moved to how people openly sinning in the church should be dealt with when they are in positions of leadership. It had nothing to do with homosexuality in particular. You can respond to this thread but as for myself, I'm done with the issue. Of course, you can follow me around calling me a hypocrite and bigot if you like.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I must also point out that there are examples from the old Testament where slaves or non-Jews were not treated as equals.[/b]

If I'm not mistaken, many of the disciples had an issue with the gospels being proclaimed to the Gentiles as Christ had instructed them to do. Again, Christ came to have us take notice of the walls that had been contructed between peoples so that we might take courage and tear them down.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Due to various discussions on morality in recent threads I would like to summarize my thoughts on the matter and get some input.
I believe there are two types of morality.
1. It is wrong to harm your equals. It is also wrong to deliberately allow harm to come to your equals through inaction, though this may be adjusted according to the amount of effort ...[text shortened]... lves as equal to humans or sometimes almost inferior, who see it as immoral to harm humans.

Good, thought provoking post.

Originally posted by whodey
When did I say that homosexuals were beneath me? According to Christ if you have broken one law you have broken them all. In this respect, we are all equals. The debate you and I had is whether homosexual acts are a sin. The debate then moved to how people openly sinning in the church should be dealt with when they are in positions of leadership. It had h the issue. Of course, you can follow me around calling me a hypocrite and bigot if you like.

Why do you bother to try to "spin" it? Evidently some are more equal than others. You support the ostracization of homosexuals from membership in your church just for being homosexuals. As such, you judge them as unfit to be members, and hence "beneath" you. This has everything to do with homosexuality. Your continued insistence on hiding behind the terms "leadership" and "openly sinning" is particularly lame, since all "members" are "leaders" in your church IIRC and unless they are having sex in front of the congregation, they aren't "openly sinning".

I hardly "follow [you] around". I almost never respond to your posts. Like I said:

I was pointing out a modern day example of those who try to justify breaking the Golden Rule by viewing those they oppress as being beneath them and the hypocrisy of your pointing to slave owners and Nazi's as if your position is any different.

No need to rehash it.

Why don't you tell it like it is, instead of trying so hard to make it sound other than it is?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Due to various discussions on morality in recent threads I would like to summarize my thoughts on the matter and get some input.
I believe there are two types of morality.
1. It is wrong to harm your equals. It is also wrong to deliberately allow harm to come to your equals through inaction, though this may be adjusted according to the amount of effort lves as equal to humans or sometimes almost inferior, who see it as immoral to harm humans.

You said the following:
"I am mostly concerned with 1. and I believe that almost any talk of morality can be derived from what I have stated in 1.
I keep hearing people say things like 'slavery was morally acceptable in the past and is no longer'. I believe that that is not the case, but rather what has changed is who we accept as equals."

I may have missed something, but it seems like, by your definition, changing "who we accept as equals", also changes what is "moral". If so, the distinction you try to make in your "slavery" example doesn't make sense to me.
"1. It is wrong to harm your equals. It is also wrong to deliberately allow harm to come to your equals through inaction, though this may be adjusted according to the amount of effort required to prevent said harm."

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, that is what I was arguing.

My problem with the term 'equals' is that it is potentially misleading. I think you are using it in an 'equals before the law' sense, where of course we don't require any actual literal parity between people.
I intended 'equal in our eyes' sense.

This is why I think using the term 'equals' can lead to con only is the situation where not breaking the rule would lead to harm to ones self.

Do you have a better description for the concept I am trying to get across of people deserving of our empathy to the point that we grant them a certain status morally. I am trying to separate the feelings of empathy we may have with animals, and the ones we have for fellow humans.

I think the concept you are touching on generally is just that of moral considerability, or moral patienthood. And, as I understand your inquiry, it is a predominantly a descriptive or anthropological one that inquires into the views that humans hold regarding moral considerability and how it is to extend to other species or even to other members within our own species.

Like Lord Shark, I also find the use of 'equals' to be problematic. I am not really sure what is supposed to constitute equality in this sense, but off the top of my head I don't see any reading of it under which I would agree with your thesis that nearly all talk of morality boils down to talk regarding harm unto one's equals. Even for those who do not think that any other species are the moral "equals" of humans, I have to think from experience that a large percentage of these people do not think that talk of morality in any way ends or is exhausted there. For instance, I know a lot of persons who take things like pain and suffering to be more or less fundamentally morally relevant. For these persons, talk of morality extends beyond moral "equality" (at least, in the sense I think you mean) to pain and suffering wherever it may be sourced. So, even if they explicitly deny that any other species would stand in moral "equality" to humans, they still recognize at least prima facie obligations and moral responsibilities toward lots or perhaps all sentient creatures. However, this doesn't mean that the topic is not still very intricate, since moral consideration could be afforded at varying levels to the different creatures (and at times, seemingly without too much rhyme or reason).

So, I would think that, more fundamentally, the issue breaks down to moral considerability or moral patienthood and the varying levels under which it could be afforded (and not necessarily to the seemingly more cut and dried moral equality or inequality).

To make the point another way, you could say that the issue of the moral status one grants to other species (or to another group of members of one's own species) boils down to whether or not one takes them as his moral equals. But how would that capture any of the nuances associated with someone's (1) denying that the members of some other species are his moral equals and (2) yet nevertheless having some very considered view on how he thinks he has specific moral obligations and responsibilties toward them? Such nuances are, of course, captured in a view whereby we say that issue breaks down to moral considerability and how it is afforded to various levels or extents; but how does your talk of equality or non-equality capture it?

EDIT: Here is another example. You mentioned that the abortion debate is tied up in whether or not the fetus is viewed as a moral equal. Again, a concern that I have here is that this fails to capture a lot of the intricate nuance and texture moral views often display on the matter. For instance, consider the fetus at gestational age where conscious states like pain start to emerge. I know many people who deny that the fetus at this stage is a moral "equal" (or deny that that the fetus at this stage should be granted rights that go with personhood); but at the same time they hold that we have prima facie moral obligations toward the fetus at this stage since pain is morally relevant. For instance, they might say that it would morally acceptable to abort it at this stage; but that we would have moral obligation to minimize pain as far as achievable.

Of course, in the same post you mention that when another is viewed as something less than moral equal, it doesn't necessarily mean that no moral consideration is afforded, but could just mean that morality is "subtly downgraded". Yes, I agree, and I guess my concern is that this part does not seem to be fleshed out enough when it comes to your talk of 'equals'.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I may have missed something, but it seems like, by your definition, changing "who we accept as equals", also changes what is "moral". If so, the distinction you try to make in your "slavery" example doesn't make sense to me.

My point is that the rules surrounding morality do not change, what changes is who we consider 'equals'. I think it is an important distinction.
A related point would be that two people may both agree on the rules, but come to different conclusions on particular instances especially in cases where there is a balance between two opposing cases. For example, to what extent self preservation contracts avoiding harm to others, and another example would be where direct and deliberate harm to the few may give benefits to the many. In both these examples we may disagree on what is or is not moral for given instances, but I don't see that as being different morality or relative morals, but rather differences in the way we evaluate them.

Regarding slavery, there have throughout history been people who were opposed to it, and usually it was because they regarded people in slavery as equals. Of course there were also plenty of people who realized it was morality wrong, but did nothing because they recognized the personal benefit as outweighing the morality.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Of course, in the same post you mention that when another is viewed as something less than moral equal, it doesn't necessarily mean that no moral consideration is afforded, but could just mean that morality is "subtly downgraded". Yes, I agree, and I guess my concern is that this part does not seem to be fleshed out enough when it comes to your talk of 'equals'.

I fully agree with you. I realized as the thread progressed that considerable moral consideration is granted to those 'less than equal' and that it does need fleshing out.
I think your post covers it fairly well, so I won't bother rehashing it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Due to various discussions on morality in recent threads I would like to summarize my thoughts on the matter and get some input.
I believe there are two types of morality.
1. It is wrong to harm your equals. It is also wrong to deliberately allow harm to come to your equals through inaction, though this may be adjusted according to the amount of effort lves as equal to humans or sometimes almost inferior, who see it as immoral to harm humans.

I know it was touched on, but what of our moral obligation to take be good stewards--- not just of the planet (and certainly not in an environmentalist sense), but of our own personal resources: our talents, skills, and any other resources we have at our disposal?

I consider none of these my moral equal in any regard, yet I am nonetheless morally compelled to fulfill my obligations to each of these.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I know it was touched on, but what of our moral obligation to take be good stewards--- not just of the planet (and certainly not in an environmentalist sense), but of our own personal resources: our talents, skills, and any other resources we have at our disposal?

I consider none of these my moral equal in any regard, yet I am nonetheless morally compelled to fulfill my obligations to each of these.

I suggest that that is a third use of the word 'moral'. I see it as quite separate, just as I do with matters of decency or sex (where they do not lead to harm or suffering of others).

It is interesting none-the-less. I don't think I feel any such moral obligation, or would tend to put it in different words.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I suggest that that is a third use of the word 'moral'. I see it as quite separate, just as I do with matters of decency or sex (where they do not lead to harm or suffering of others).

It is interesting none-the-less. I don't think I feel any such moral obligation, or would tend to put it in different words.

I'm thinking more of the base for all morality, the thing that informs our "oughts."

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm thinking more of the base for all morality, the thing that informs our "oughts."

Can you explain further? Does your moral obligation to be a good steward, inform your moral obligation not to hurt? I guess it is possible, but I don't see it that way.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You said the following:
"I am mostly concerned with 1. and I believe that almost any talk of morality can be derived from what I have stated in 1.
I keep hearing people say things like 'slavery was morally acceptable in the past and is no longer'. [b]I believe that that is not the case, but rather what has changed is who we accept as equals."

I m ...[text shortened]... s may be adjusted according to the amount of effort required to prevent said harm."[/b]

I may have missed something, but it seems like, by your definition, changing "who we accept as equals", also changes what is "moral".

Not necessarily. It might mean that our laws become more or less moral depending on who we accept as equals i.e. people. What is our equal and what we accept as equal are different ideas.