Author Topic: hypothetical question about selling souls  (Read 1262 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Citizen Skeptic

  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 21436
  • I escaped from California.
Re: hypothetical question about selling souls
« Reply #60 on: May 18, 2012, 04:30:28 PM »
The buyer believes that he's paying a pittance for something of immeasurable value.

They both believe they're ripping the other off.

Ah! Now we are going into the more general case, which is great. :)
The first question that this expansion brings is "why does the buyer think the seller's soul has immeasurable value?"
This is still unethical on the part of the buyer for much the same reason why it was unethical for the Dutch to purchase Manhattan Island for trinkets. Sure, it was unethical for the Native Americans they "purchased" it from as well in that a. they "bought" it from a tribe who didn't live there and b. the idea of buying land was, to Native Americans, something that made about as much sense as buying air. However, given that the other party did not recognize the substance of the reasoning behind why the Dutch were willing to purchase the island in the first place, this was not a fair, reciprocal contract.

And who deeded the land to the "native" americans?
Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers. -- Bernard Haisch

Offline Johnny Slick

  • Jesus Christ HI PANDA U R HOT
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8639
  • Evilution's Worst Nightmare
Re: hypothetical question about selling souls
« Reply #61 on: May 18, 2012, 04:40:05 PM »
Nobody did, which is part of the point, isn't it? They were there first but besides that they didn't look at land as something that could be purchased from someone else. I'll agree that it was highly unethical for a tribe to accept payment for land under those circumstances (and again, the fact that they accepted payment for land someone else was occupying makes it even worse) but that hardly absolves the Dutch from blame.
"Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit; touch it and the bloom is gone." - Oscar Wilde

Quote from: Schlock Treatment, Episode 73
There is only one Johnny Slick, and he is a son of a [redacted].
Quote
You're really good at bad ideas.

Offline Citizen Skeptic

  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 21436
  • I escaped from California.
Re: hypothetical question about selling souls
« Reply #62 on: May 18, 2012, 06:15:14 PM »
Nobody did, which is part of the point, isn't it? They were there first but besides that they didn't look at land as something that could be purchased from someone else. I'll agree that it was highly unethical for a tribe to accept payment for land under those circumstances (and again, the fact that they accepted payment for land someone else was occupying makes it even worse) but that hardly absolves the Dutch from blame.

There were multiple migrations too and I'm sure that native americans also had land disputes. I'm pretty sure they didn't live in peace and harmony at one with the earth. 

Or for a more confusing question of ownership - who rightfully owns Europe?
Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers. -- Bernard Haisch