And Kreeft said the same thing: “For most of human history more powerful societies enslaved weaker societies, and prospered. That’s just the way it was, and no one questioned it." So you’ll need to clarify your point here and explain exactly how it has a bearing on Kreeft’s conclusions.
Kreeft’s argument is whoever writes history get’s to choose, it’s pure relativism.
You’re argument has gone off the rails here. Kreeft acknowledges two different perspectives when comparing ancient outlooks on slavery and modern day ones:
Perspective #1: Slavery was accepted in the ancient world (this is a historical fact). Slavery is not accepted in today’s world (this is a modern day fact). According to someone who embraces Perspective #1, all that we can say about the morality of slavery is that it is a strictly social phenomenon: We cannot impose our modern standard (i.e., “slavery is not accepted”) upon ancient people and make moral conclusions as a result. Therefore, we are not supposed to say that the ancient slave owners were evil. But if we can’t say that slavery was evil in the ancient world then we really aren’t in a position to criticize the institution of slavery as a whole.
All this is summed up in Kreeft’s statement: ”If you can’t make that distinction between accepted and acceptable, you can’t criticize slavery”. But, as I’ve stated before, Kreeft’s video is aimed at people who already do criticize slavery and share the common ground that slavery is never acceptable (which, incidentally, is perspective #2). Recall what I stated in Notable Point #2.
Incidentally, there’s a difference between legality and morality.
I don’t see your point here, so you’ll need to clarify it. If this stems from my comments concerning civil law then let me point out that I only brought up ancient and civil law as an objective way of demonstrating social outlooks concerning slavery.
And no, we don’t need to ask anything about evolution.
But Kreeft has to address evolution for the simple fact that many people cite evolution as the sole basis for morality. See Notable Point #1.
We’re grown ups, we thought about it and collectively concluded that slavery is immoral, wrote it into the (secular) UDHR and passed it into law. We do not need to retrospectively arm God with a big stick to help us.
Then explain why. What exactly was “thought about” that led to the conclusion that slavery is “immoral”?
I must say I’m very uneasy at the way we’re fawning over every word in the video as if Kreeft is holy or something.
I admit that I am a big fan of Kreeft, and I admit that I am a big fan of sarcasm and hyperbole. But exactly what are you implying with this statement? Are you suggesting that my comments in this thread are emotional and irrational as opposed to objective and rationale? If so, then kindly cite the comments I made where I displayed such “fawning” behavior. Do I have to consider Kreeft’s words to be “holy” in order to believe that they should first be actually demonstrated to be fallacious before being branded as such?
The opinion of one group of people about another is just that, an opinion. The view of most people today does not define what is and isn’t moral, and to say that it does is, by definition, “might makes right”, pure relativism.
If I understand you correctly, I have now addressed this in my above commentary on Kreeft’s statement: ”If you can’t make that distinction between accepted and acceptable, you can’t criticize slavery”.
(Continued in my next post)