The official BOS 'Pro-Constitutional Monarchy' thread (1 Viewer)

[HalcyonSky]

Oh not as much as we see it now. But when they were killing aboriginals and driving them off their land, they would have realised that they were hurting them and that on some level it was wrong.

again, ur applying ur own emotions and values to the imperialists. To them, it was just another standard conquest to strengthen their global presence, not some cruel massacre of innocent inhabitants; their mindset was completely different to ours.

Even if they did have an inching of moral hesitation, their political and patriotic values far exceeded ths influence (obviously)

But in the end its just a matter of opinion, we dont really know how they felt for sure.

 

[incentivation]

www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ILB/2006/28.html

An interesting point about the relationship between the acquisiton of the sovereignty of the land, and native title.

 

[chicky_pie]

TheIslamic Republicof Australistan

I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!

great. now i have to find a male relative to escort me outside my house and to work as well

 

[bassistx]

Be smarter and look at the left hand side, it should look a little something like this -

I cbf, duh.. I meant "inform me" as in tell me, not give me a whole crap of stuff to read. Pwef.

Pretty much agree with Zimmer. It was horrible, let's move on.
And like whoever it was said, we're not exactly a part of Britain anymore. Heck, we verse them in sports, etc. Don't see why we should be a part of them politically.

 

[Silver Persian]

Alright then, but thats where we'll just disagree. I don't think they thought what they were doing was as reprehensible as we consider it to be.
But meh.

I'm sure that the Nazi's didn't think that the extermination of the Jews was immoral either.

Are you supporting moral relativism katie?? I thought you would have left such things to the latte sipping ivory tower academics.

 

[dieburndie]

Appeal to Genocide is fucking stupid. Sorry, Godwin's law says you lose.

Moral Relativism doesn't apply to history. She's justifiying it within its own context, whether or not it's illegal now doesn't mean that it's not enlightened behaviour for that period.

What makes time a justifiable basis for moral shifts that doesn't also apply to place/culture/anything else that can be identified as morally influential?
Whether or not it's illegal here doesn't mean it's not enlightened behaviour for that place. And so on.

I'm not saying this is what I think, but what makes time different?

 

[Silver Persian]

Appeal to Genocide is fucking stupid. Sorry, Godwin's law says you lose.

Moral Relativism doesn't apply to history. She's justifiying it within its own context, whether or not it's illegal now doesn't mean that it's not enlightened behaviour for that period.

Example: Heroin was legal at the start of the last century, and now you can go to gaol, surely we're going backwards here?

Morals and moral systems shift. Y0.

I was not arguing that the European settlement of Australia was ethically as bad as the Holocaust - that would be a case in which Godwin's law would apply. My point is - are you willing to relativise away the Holocaust by saying that "oh, morals in Nazi Germany were different to now. Therefore, its OK for the Nazi's to have killed millions of people"?? Because if you're not, you can't relativise away European occupation of Australia.

Of course moral systems shift, and I agree that there is a cultural element to ethics. However, I don't think you can relativise ethics in the same way that you can relativise something like beauty. Ethics (to me) has an objective basis in terms of the pain that is caused to other individuals, which can be applied historically.

 

[katie_tully]

I cbf, duh.. I meant "inform me" as in tell me, not give me a whole crap of stuff to read. Pwef.

Pretty much agree with Zimmer. It was horrible, let's move on.
And like whoever it was said, we're not exactly a part of Britain anymore. Heck, we verse them in sports, etc. Don't see why we should be a part of them politically.

Fuck off. I'm not going to wade through that bullshit and pick it apart because you're too thick to read it yourself.

 

[katie_tully]

I'm sure that the Nazi's didn't think that the extermination of the Jews was immoral either.

Are you supporting moral relativism katie?? I thought you would have left such things to the latte sipping ivory tower academics.

Where the fuck did this Nazi bullshit come from? We're not talking about Nazi Germany in 1940, we're talking about British Colonial Australia in the late 1700s.

What the British did, in terms of what was the norm in 1788 was not at that time ethically or morally aberrant.

If you want to talk Nazi bullshit fuck off and make another thread about it. Of course you cant relativise the Holocaust. It didn't happen. Jew lies.

 

[katie_tully]

I was not arguing that the European settlement of Australia was ethically as bad as the Holocaust - that would be a case in which Godwin's law would apply. My point is - are you willing to relativise away the Holocaust by saying that "oh, morals in Nazi Germany were different to now. Therefore, its OK for the Nazi's to have killed millions of people"?? Because if you're not, you can't relativise away European occupation of Australia.

Of course moral systems shift, and I agree that there is a cultural element to ethics. However, I don't think you can relativise ethics in the same way that you can relativise something like beauty. Ethics (to me) has an objective basis in terms of the pain that is caused to other individuals, which can be applied historically.

If you're not arguing that the Holocaust was as bad as Colonisation then what is your point? We can relativise Nazi Germany to todays standards because;
a. It was only 60 years ago
b. There are living survivors of both the war and the holocaust
c. The world knew it was wrong and thats why the world kicked some ass.

We cannot relativise Imperial Britain with todays standards because.. well fuck that I'm sick of spelling it out.

 

[incentivation]

Spot on. The world clearly identified at the time that what the Nazi regime was doing was wrong by the way of, a world war...

 

[Silver Persian]

If you're not arguing that the Holocaust was as bad as Colonisation then what is your point? We can relativise Nazi Germany to todays standards because;
a. It was only 60 years ago
b. There are living survivors of both the war and the holocaust
c. The world knew it was wrong and thats why the world kicked some ass.

We cannot relativise Imperial Britain with todays standards because.. well fuck that I'm sick of spelling it out.

My point is that we should be able to generalise ethical principles. Actions should not be regarded as ethical or unethical because of the dominant cultural views of a particular period. Rather, there should be abstract principles that act as philosophical guidelines for the judgement of ethics. These principles can then be used to judge actions historically and cross-culturally.

If, as you seem to be arguing, ethics are completely culturally constructed and determined by dominant social values, would you agree that if most Australians decided that all black women were witches and should be burnt, that such behaviour would become ethical because it had won majorioty support?

 

[withoutaface]

Spot on. The world clearly identified at the time that what the Nazi regime was doing was wrong by the way of, a world war...

Except the world war wasn't about the holocaust.

[/leaves thread]

 

[incentivation]

Except the world war wasn't about the holocaust.

[/leaves thread]

Not directly no, however it ultimately represented the plight of the Nazi regime. Invasion, genocide and the like were morally reprehensible at that time..

 

[Silver Persian]

Spot on. The world clearly identified at the time that what the Nazi regime was doing was wrong by the way of, a world war...

OK, but, if we pretened that the majority of nations had supported the Holocaust, would that have made it ethical? I think you're kind of making an appeal to majority - saying that social consensus determines whether an action is ethical or not. I point you to the example I used in the post above - if most Australians believed that all black women were witches, would such behaviour become moral purely because it had won social consensus??

 

[katie_tully]

My point is that we should be able to generalise ethical principles. Actions should not be regarded as ethical or unethical because of the dominant cultural views of a particular period. Rather, there should be abstract principles that act as philosophical guidelines for the judgement of ethics. These principles can then be used to judge actions historically and cross-culturally.

If, as you seem to be arguing, ethics are completely culturally constructed and determined by dominant social values, would you agree that if most Australians decided that all black women were witches and should be burnt, that such behaviour would become ethical because it had won majorioty support?

And your point is wrong. We can't generalise ethical principles. We certainly cannot try and relativise what was considered ethically/morally acceptable in the 18th century with what is ethically/morally acceptable today.

Your hypotheticals don't make sense either. The hypothetical you proposed would never happen in a current social climate and it's ridiculous to speculate otherwise. 200 years ago it wouldn't have been so ridiculous because they actually were burning women as witches. We're talking about there being a massive cultural and religious shift for your hypothetical to happen and I find it an unrealistic proposal.

 

[katie_tully]

OK, but, if we pretened that the majority of nations had supported the Holocaust, would that have made it ethical? I think you're kind of making an appeal to majority - saying that social consensus determines whether an action is ethical or not. I point you to the example I used in the post above - if most Australians believed that all black women were witches, would such behaviour become moral purely because it had won social consensus??

Ugh. You're providing us with a completely unrealistic hypothetical to work with. I cannot even begin to make it relevent because it's so completely unrealistic.

Use something current. Iraq is a perfect example. Sudan.

If most Aussies believed black women were witches who needed to be burnt, we'd obviously have undergone radical social and religious shifts, so if the majority of Australians believed this and if this hypothetical were taking place outside of our current reality, then who am I to decide whether it would be ethical for the time.

Ethical for us now? No
Ethical for mythical civilisation? Maybe?

 

[Silver Persian]

And your point is wrong. We can't generalise ethical principles. We certainly cannot try and relativise what was considered ethically/morally acceptable in the 18th century with what is ethically/morally acceptable today.

You are conflating what most people think is ethical and what is ethical.

If you are arguing that people's perceptions of what is ethical determines what is, in fact, ethical, then respond to my previous hypothetical. If most people believed that the burning of black witches was ethically OK, would burning black withces becomes ethically OK in fact - purely because it had won social consensus.

 

[katie_tully]

It's not about right and wrong, its about self interest, if Hitler was off killing some natives in Africa the allies wouldnt have given a fuck.

Similarly the world didnt take on the British empire which controlled 25% of the world's territory at the time they colonised Australia, because a) they couldn't b) it didn't effect them. That doesn't change the fact that it was just as wrong then as the holocaust was in the 1930's and 1940's.

No, it was also because the rest of the world wasn't doing anything different to Britain anyway.

The yanks were too busy fighting the poms in the 18th Century to care about whether Britain was colonising a land mass with natives. And even if they had the capacity to take them on I doubt they would have, as they wouldn't have seen anything unusual about it.

Again you're trying to apply modern day principles to the 18th century. The world intervenes now when a rogue state is invading another country because it's not morally or ethically acceptable by western standards.

 

[katie_tully]

You are conflating what most people think is ethical and what is ethical.

If you are arguing that people's perceptions of what is ethical determines what is, in fact, ethical, then respond to my previous hypothetical. If most people believed that the burning of black witches was ethically OK, would burning black withces becomes ethically OK in fact - purely because it had won social consensus.

I'd say yes. Taking myself out of my current context and putting myself in a realm where this were to happen, I believe it would be ethical in that context.