[Vision2020] The end of real slavery

[Andreas Schou]

Douglas --
 
Unfair.

If that's not "cheating," then I would like to call attention to the fact that Wilson's _Southern Slavery: As It Was_ is an invalid text because Doug didn't take the time to prove that he, history, and slavery actually exist. If we all have to proceed from first principles when making any argument, then everybody is disallowed from making any argument in any reasonable space.

I have to make some assumptions about Doug's theology here, but judging from his constant citation of Cornelius Van Til, I have to assume that he -- like Joan! -- is a presuppositionalist, though perhaps a different breed of presuppositionalist. For all you armchair theologians back home: a presuppositionalist believes that all arguments -- moral; theological; economic -- must proceed from a single presupposition. That is, that God is absolute ruler of the universe and that the Bible is totally inerrant.

When you reduce Doug's theology to base principles, it starts with, "Because I said so." (1) I cheerfully admit that, to a great degree, many of my own beliefs proceed from "because I say so," or "because that's what makes a great deal of intuitive sense to me." Among those base principles are: "the things I can sense actually exist; things I can't sense don't, until proven otherwise," and "I should probably take things that purport themselves to be conscious to be telling the truth about their consciousness, and wish them no harm."

You're absolutely right, Doug: I can't prove either of these statements. They're utterly unsupported and, furthermore, unsupportable. You presuppose the existence of God. Joan simply presupposes the existence of human consciousness, combines it with a genuine desire not to hurt anyone, and doesn't even have to presuppose the existence of any sort of supernatural enforcement of her views.

Which, yes, means that we humanists get to do the boring, stupid, day-to-day scutwork of enforcing the rules of the morality we claim. You have the luxury of being able to purport supernatural sanctions.  We humanists don't get that.

-- ACS

(1) That's not entirely fair -- the structure of Van Til's argument replaces 'because I said so' with 'because I have a deep-seated, fundamental intuition, which I assume everyone else has, that God exists.' Van Til disbelieves in the existence of atheists, a rather trickier feat of argumentative gymnastics than a disbelief in the existence of God.

(2) Yes, Doug, I am handwaving away the intractable disagreement between those who believe that ethics proceed irrevocably from authority and those who believe that ethics can exist in the absence of social sanction. If you'd like to have that argument, we can have thar argument elsewhere.