> "galathaea" gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1176946949.846052.92420@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>

>>> Yikes, g! What are you saying there --- that humanity is too stupid to
>>> grasp moral concepts? Or to recognize a "person" (in the moral sense)
>>> when they see one?
>>>
>>> If that's the case we are in deep trouble indeed.

>>
>> i think i am being overly obtuse
>>
>> empathy is a real phenomena
>>
>> apparently connected to the mirror neuron systems
>> that reflect external entities onto internal drives
>> for comparison and prediction
>> empathy is the desire to protect others
>> as you would protect yourself
>>
>> there are many good natural selection models
>> that show why empathy provides better fitness
>>
>> this is a very tunable trait
>>
>> empathy spans
>> from realistic associations of correspondences
>> to anthropomorphic caricatures
>> from strict isomorphismism
>> to any commonality shared
>>
>> i am arguing that it was not any deontologic ethic
>> that overthrew slavery
>>
>> it was the triumph of an empathic understanding
>> that was economically favored

>
> I think empathy is misunderstood, and hence greatly overrated as a behavioral
> motivator or modifier. Empathy is the capacity to *see oneself in others*,
> i.e., the kinship sense. It is an innate capacity in all primates, and
> probably most other social mammals also. It evolved as a device for
> maintaining peace and cohesion within a social group. It serves to reinforce
> tribal identity among tribal groups; it distinguishes "us" from "them" and
> binds the "us." Hence natural empathy has a group focus, not a global focus.
>
> Among civilized humans empathy depends upon two variables:
>
> 1. Each person's own self-concept, i.e., how he understands or defines
> himself, and
>
> 2. What he believes is just or appropriate or otherwise acceptable treatment
> of beings like himself.
>
> Hence, for any person, to whom his empathy extends depends upon their
> perceived similarities to himself, per his own definition of himself. Thus if
> being a "white person" is an essential component of his own self-concept, then
> he will not sense empathy with non-white persons. Or if his self-concept
> defines him as a Christian, then his empathy will not extend to "heathen."
>
> The second variable is important also. If he believes certain standards of
> treatment apply to beings like himself, then he will not object if others whom
> he perceives to be like himself are so treated. He would expect to be treated
> the same way in the same circumstances, and would himself treat others that
> way. So even though he may feel empathy for a person (like himself) who is
> being punished, he will not necessarily consider that punishment unacceptable.
> In fact, his very empathy for that person will serve to deter him from doing
> whatever provoked the punishment --- he "feels their pain," and modifies his
> own conduct accordingly.
>
> So what empathy entails, behaviorally speaking, and to whom it extends,
> depends upon a whole mess of beliefs --- about "justice" and how one
> understands the subjects of justice, such as oneself.
>
> The upshot is, if you change those beliefs, then you change, *ipso facto*, the
> workings of empathy. That is what moral philosophy aims to do.
>
> By the end of the 18th century liberalism had altered the beliefs of many
> people, especially in Britain, the US, and elsewhere in Europe. An important
> change was widespread acceptance of the notion of "moral equality," that there
> were no "natural classes," that all persons are born free and entitled to
> equal treatment in the same circumstances. As people began to grasp, via the
> writings of Wilberforce, Stowe, Douglass, et al, that Africans were indeed
> persons, then their empathies extended to them --- because of the liberal
> beliefs they now held.
>
> Empathy is an innate (though not universal) capacity. But to whom it extends
> and what it entails for behavior are learned.
>

>> in other words
>> i am still convinced that it was not a deductive analysis
>> of tomes on transcendental categorisations
>> and the categorical imperatives
>> brought upon by destiny in the face of free will
>>
>> i am strongly suspecting that
>> less than 1 in 100 people
>> of any era since the dawn of such terminology
>> may regularly make that association

>
> I agree with that. Most people, in that era as well as our own, have never
> read Locke or Rousseau or Kant or any other philosopher. They acquire moral
> beliefs through "social osmosis." They acquire all of their other beliefs in
> the same way --- by absorption from the surrounding intellectual culture,
> i.e., from parents, teachers, friends, preachers, newspaper columnists,
> talking heads on teevee. Most people have never read Pasteur or Jenner,
> either, and know nothing about the theory of bacteriology or virology. Yet
> they understand that many diseases are caused by microbes, and not by "evil
> spirits."
>
> At times, however, the "cultural pipeline" is shortened, as in Britain during
> the debates over slavery and in America prior to the Revolution. Millions of
> people were exposed to liberal doctrines almost "from the horse's mouth."
> Thomas Paine's *Common Sense* sold over 600,000 copies in the US (among a
> population of 3 million). His "Declaration of the Rights of Man" was almost as
> widely read, not only in America but in Britain and France (he was convicted
> *in absentia* in Britain for "seditious libel"). Radicals were running amok in
> those countries at that time, and found receptive audiences. Slavery was
> plainly incompatible with those doctrines, and could be tolerated only as long
> as Africans could be dismissed as sub-human. Wilberforce, Stowe, Douglass *et
> al* undermined that excuse. (BTW, Douglass had a forerunner in 18th century
> Britain, Olaudah Equiano, a former slave whose lucid writings had the same
> impact as Douglass's 60 years later in America).
>

>> empathy is gut morality
>> it is conservativism
>> in its most biological form
>>
>> that these drives
>> varied in their reactions to stimuli and state
>> have at least been selected as likely fit
>>
>> the great social understanding
>> was that slaves were capable of deep thought
>> and could achieve so much more
>> if not subjugated
>> that enslaving them was not really different than enslaving oneself

>
> I agree. But that "social understanding" is not biological and is not "gut
> morality." Only the empathic faculty is. It does not instinctively extend to
> all humans, much less to other animals. Were that the case, slavery would
> never have existed in the first place. Its extent and application depend on
> other beliefs, as mentioned above.
>

>> i am agreeing with you
>> that it was an entirely empirical process
>>
>> that was economically favored
>>
>> i keep adding that extra bit
>> because i think there were other times in human history
>> where slaves could be empirically seen as equals
>> but their economic influence was different
>>
>> imperialistic slavery is economically strong
>> due to the worker shortfalls
>> caused by diversion to the imperialistic growth
>> military

>
> Slavery always has economic motives. So does robbery. But economic motives
> alone cannot justify it. That requires some moral principles and empirical
> beliefs. When those are in place they trump economics. But the empathic
> faculty alone will not put them in place.
>

>> what i guess i am really trying to say is
>>
>> roman slavery
>> chinese slavery
>>
>> greek slaves were always troubling to the greeks
>>
>> they did not change their systems
>> because people are willing to look the other way
>> if it helps them out with a better lifestyle

>
> It did not trouble Plato or Aristotle.
>

>> it was the buddhist emperor wang mang
>> that abolished the chinese slave trade
>> possibly the first such abolition

>
> Temporarily. The ban lasted barely 3 years. And unlike the ban in 18th century
> Britain, it was a top-down decree, not a policy driven from the bottom up.
>

>> make someone fear something
>> tie it up in hate
>> and it is amazing what reason will not penetrate

>
> No argument there.
>

>> in other countries
>> the absence of the economy
>> made way for the moral indignation
>> that allowed their peaceful permanent ban

>
> What about Britain? The slave trade was hugely important there, as important
> as any other component of Empire commerce. But it was banned anyway.
>
> In America there was a secondary motive in the southern resistance to
> abolition --- the belief in states' rights. Many persons in the South who had
> doubts about the justice of slavery or its economic future nonetheless
> resented the impositions threatened by "self-righteous Yankee interlopers."
>
> "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge
> that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to
> expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than
> to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the
> latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are
> immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and
> socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their
> further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better
> things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a
> merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and
> melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery
> controversy."
> ---Robert E. Lee, Letter, Dec. 27, 1856.
>
> After the war, Lee wrote:
>
> "So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that
> Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the
> South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all
> that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to
> have this object attained."
> ---Robert E. Lee, May 1, 1870
>

>> i am looking for some dynamical model
>> to explain behavior when economies interact
>>
>> marxist models usually do pretty poor in predicting
>> because there are many more drives than economic
>> in influencing the law

>
> Indeed.
>

>> in fact i am offering a much more complicated model
>> where various avoidance techniques are in play
>> with assistance from economic benefit
>> corresponding well with models
>> on legalisation and abolition

>
> There are no conflicts when economic and moral motivations coincide. Conflicts
> arise when they are in opposition.
>

>> - when slavery influences an economy deeply
>> as it did in the most imperialist of societies
>> appeals to empathy are ignored

>
> It was not ignored in Britain. And as I mentioned, to whom empathy extends is
> dependent on the totality of one's beliefs.
>

>> the slave trade was not as powerful in england
>> as other trades it was benefiting immensely in
>> due to its own imperialism
>> one slavery was replaced for the others of imperialism
>> more lucrative exploitations of natural resources

>
> Not so. Natural resources were negligible components of 18th century trade. It
> was virtually all manufactured goods of one sort or another, including
> agricultural products such as tea, cotton, sugar, Asian silk, etc. Plus
> slaves. Colonialism in Africa did not become significant until well after the
> abolition of slavery. The first French colony in Africa, Algeria, was
> established in 1848. The first British colony, Cape Colony, was established in
> 1806, but it was an agricultural colony, not unlike the West Indies. Intensive
> colonialization in Africa didn't commence until the 1880s. BTW, Britain not
> only abolished slavery in its own territories, its Navy attempted to interdict
> that trade by other countries. It was partly a loss of that revenue that
> prompted more intensive colonialization.

>> this is not a valiant story of an idea succeeding
>>
>> it is the valiant story of one idea suceeding
>> others being obscured
>> some people benefiting
>> other being exploited

>
> Would you have expected contemporary moral standards to have been in place
> throughout history? Wouldn't that require that those precepts be innate?
>

>> the economic battle played out strongest in america
>> where it was fought eventually by militaries
>>
>> it started with a number of duplicitous congressmen
>> with strong fundraising ties to industry
>> using the issues of slavery
>> to hide issues of tariffs
>> and economic aggression hid in law

>
> Of course. Taxes are always used as political weapons. Still are.
>

>> the events in trying to bring kansas to statehood
>> show just how financiers from the two economies
>> started these battles
>> the free soil emigrants
>> were completely funded by the likes of
>> the massachusetts emigrant aid company and its later incarnations

>
> What has that to do with "financiers"? Eli Thayer was an abolitionist who ran
> a women's college. His goal was to make sure Kansas (and later other new
> states) was admitted as a free state. Later it assisted in migration of women
> to Oregon.

>> its also not conspiratorial
>> to point out john calhoun's deep ties
>> with many of the most powerful plantation owners of his time
>> and the point behind his outrage over the tariff of "abominations"

>
> Discriminatory tariffs were indeed a sore point in the South. They were seen
> as indicators of Northern hostility to slavery and an invasion of states'
> rights.

>> i think it is a very realistic stand
>> to understand the influence of money over power
>> and that despite any ideals anyone may hold
>> america has never been a law completely of ideals

>
> What country has? But showing that ideals are not the sole motivators of
> policy is not to show that they had no role.

>> in explaining why lincoln was chosen to lead the republican party
>> a new party formed with backing from the industrialist north
>> to break the connection with old world bankers
>> that was entrenched in the old whig fundraising apparatus
>> senator john sherman stated:
>>
>> " Those who elected Mr. Lincoln expect him . . .
>> to secure to free labor its just right to the Territories
>> of the United States; to protect . . . by wise revenue
>> laws, the labor of our people; to secure the public
>> lands to actual settlers . . . ; to develop the internal
>> resources of the country by opening new means of
>> communication between the Atlantic and Pacific. "
>>
>> these were the wise revenue laws
>> that levied 47 percent tariffs
>> most heavily affecting southern cotton plantations
>> and this was the internal development
>> promised to railroad monopolists
>> and other western prospectors
>> ( including coal and mineral mining )

>
> The railroad "monopolists" had no interest in the slavery issue (other,
> perhaps, than personal ones). They would have built railroads whether the West
> was free or slave. Why the term "monopolists"? What did they "monopolize" ---
> their own tracks and rolling stock? Do you disapprove of the land grant
> system? How else would railroads have been built and minerals developed --- by
> the gummint?

>

>>> Who are these "corporatists"? What evidence do you have for their
>>> opinions, or that their opinions influenced anyone?

>>
>> studies
>> studies on industrial coal mining
>> studies on the textile factories
>> studies on the rise of monopoly
>> in the late 1800's america
>>
>> there are strong economic reasons to favor the corporation structure
>>
>> vertical integration
>> horizontal integration
>>
>> bulk transport and quantity economics
>>
>> these were the people in charge
>> of which political parties would make it up north
>> and eventually throughout the nation

>
> By the late 1800s the slavery issue had already been settled. What role did
> the railroads and textile factories play in the slavery debate?
>

>>> Evidence? Sources? "Corporatism" is a Marxist shibboleth --- a
>>> meaningless abstraction advanced in lieu of names and documents.

>>
>> in council bluffs, iowa
>> lincoln made huge investments in land
>> when there was no development nearby
>>
>> he then pushed the enactment of the union pacific railroad
>> which had as its easternmost stop this same land

>
> You think Lincoln launched the Civil War so he could profit from the UP's
> railroad? Which didn't even start construction until 2 years later? Or that
> the UP's investors backed him so that he would abolish slavery, rather than
> because he supported land grants for railroads?
>
> During the 19th century the federal gummint granted lands to almost anyone who
> asked. I myself think they should have privatized a lot more of it. :-)

>>> Surely not. As long as you are not a slave you can acquire both wealth
>>> and skills. Everyone who arrives in this world lacks both.

>

>> third world exploitation is a very serious health problem
>> which transforms cultural structures
>> that have been providing for their needs for ages
>> into cultures that struggle to survive

>
> They have provided for their needs at a subsistence level. In between famines,
> plagues, and tribal wars, that is. Many 3rd world people aspire to more than
> that. No 3rd world person goes to work at a foreign-owned factory unless he
> thinks he will do better than by continuing whatever he was previously doing.
> And they almost always do better.

>> diabetes and other health problems
>> begin setting in
>> and quality of living measures
>> such as leisure time
>> time with children
>> or metrics such as effort to attain food
>> usually indicate the culture's situation is worse in the short term

>
> Only those people, individually, can decide how to measure their own quality
> of life.

> Whether leisure time with children outweighs being able to educate those
> children is a decision only they can make. And hours of labor required to
> obtain food declines spectacularly with industrialization. That is why 3rd
> world people abandon subsistence farming for factory work.