[optimalsolver]

>Whether I'm right, or am an absolute drooling nutcase, for thinking interest-taking (on a full-recourse loan) is immoral is beside the point

No it most definitely is not. Could you just confirm the following statement is accurate:

It is your belief that interest taking on loans and legalized slavery are a difference of degree, not a difference in kind.

[geye1234]

> It is your belief that interest taking on loans and legalized slavery are a difference of degree, not a difference in kind.

No. They are comparable, and both moral evils, but are different species of action.

But suppose I said yes, then what? It would not affect the argument. Whether I'm right or wrong about interest-taking per se, I would be wrong to believe that people who defended it were wicked or stupid (rather than simply misguided) given its universality. Similarly, regardless of whether Aristotle was right or wrong about slavery per se, you are wrong to believe that Aristotle was wicked and stupid for defending it (rather than simply misguided) given its then-universality.

[optimalsolver]

>They are comparable

They are not comparable in any way, shape, or form.

>you are wrong to believe that Aristotle was wicked and stupid

He was unquestionably wicked and stupid compared to his contemporaries who were able to see past the miasma that was the culture they were steeped in.

[geye1234]

As a thought experiment:

- Is it possible that you are mistaken about some -- any -- moral issue which is almost universally held by the culture at large?

- If so, would it be reasonable to conclude from this that you're wicked and stupid?

You agree that the answers are "yes" and "no" respectively, right?

[optimalsolver]

Not as it pertains to the harming of other sentient beings, which is the only moral issue that matters. And in such cases I am often in conflict with my own culture.