Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
There's just no reason at all to think this. Most obviously, people who signed their names to the idea 'all men were created equal' while themselves owning slaves quite obviously did not possess a high degree of moral integrity.
More a different definition of "men".
True, but one that conveniently allowed them to do what they were already doing anyway. As I say: not titans of moral probity.
could this have been a tree they planted knowing they would not live to see fruit?
That may explain why they didn't abolish slavery, but does not justify the fact that they themselves owned slaves.
I did not say that it was good morals (from today's point of view: most of what they did was actually criminal). I said strong ones.
Having strong morals is mutually exclusive with compromising your morals to enrich yourself, which we've established is something they did.