I think you did a good job describing master morality, but a poor job discussing slave morality. Christianity is the main slave morality in the world, and none of its tenets say that you should avoid accomplishing things or being excellent. It created powerful hierarchies such at the catholic church and divine right monarchies.
What slave morality teaches is that once you achieve power, you should help those who do not have power, rather than wield it selfishly. This could be through Christianity’s golden rule, Utilitarianism, or noblesse oblige. When my parents taught me to go to a good college and get a powerful career to help others, that is entirely slave morality, not master morality. Perhaps your parents taught you to get status and money just to help you, your family, and/or tribe, but mine emphasized charity. That is why I would be higher status in my family as a Doctor who donates 10% of my income than a Big Law Lawyer who just spent the money on a bigger house.
Well it is only 6 paragraphs and titled “Some Thoughts,” so I had no illusions I might cover every nuance (:
I would say though, that Christianity has largely given way to a secular slave morality wherein trying to pursue success at all is seen as gauche/morally suspect. Many people internalize a morality wherein rich people are scummy and bad, power corrupts, and the under-privileged are inherently more virtuous than the privileged.
The utilitarianism/EA thing obviously works for people with a very particular type of mind. Noblesse oblige is a great way of looking at the interplay of these virtues.
I’m not really sure what the argument is supposed to be. You assert moral realism is false (no argument) and ignore my reasons why moral anti realists should accept my claims.
I'm not personally interested in repeating the same circular arguments - anyone can listen to your podcast with Walt to hear you get absolutely nowhere for an hour.
I think you did a good job describing master morality, but a poor job discussing slave morality. Christianity is the main slave morality in the world, and none of its tenets say that you should avoid accomplishing things or being excellent. It created powerful hierarchies such at the catholic church and divine right monarchies.
What slave morality teaches is that once you achieve power, you should help those who do not have power, rather than wield it selfishly. This could be through Christianity’s golden rule, Utilitarianism, or noblesse oblige. When my parents taught me to go to a good college and get a powerful career to help others, that is entirely slave morality, not master morality. Perhaps your parents taught you to get status and money just to help you, your family, and/or tribe, but mine emphasized charity. That is why I would be higher status in my family as a Doctor who donates 10% of my income than a Big Law Lawyer who just spent the money on a bigger house.
Well it is only 6 paragraphs and titled “Some Thoughts,” so I had no illusions I might cover every nuance (:
I would say though, that Christianity has largely given way to a secular slave morality wherein trying to pursue success at all is seen as gauche/morally suspect. Many people internalize a morality wherein rich people are scummy and bad, power corrupts, and the under-privileged are inherently more virtuous than the privileged.
The utilitarianism/EA thing obviously works for people with a very particular type of mind. Noblesse oblige is a great way of looking at the interplay of these virtues.
I’m not really sure what the argument is supposed to be. You assert moral realism is false (no argument) and ignore my reasons why moral anti realists should accept my claims.
I'm not personally interested in repeating the same circular arguments - anyone can listen to your podcast with Walt to hear you get absolutely nowhere for an hour.
Oh, so your post was just emoting!