I suppose its a bit late, but I would like to address one paragraph in the OP:

“Not so long ago Slavery was considered to be moral by those who practiced it. The Scramble for Africa is a wonderful example we can use to uproot this fallacy. If enslavement of the entire continent of Africa was a moral undertaking a few centuries ago, how have the Western civilization suddenly shifted its moral campus and say slavery is despicable? Is evolution this fast that under a few centuries we can go to?”

The entire continent was not enslaved, it is hyperbole to say so.

The history of the African slave trade goes back a long way. It existed on the east coast of Africa to Arabia before European Colonialism. That was an Arab trade. If we are only going to consider West Africa to the Americas, then it needs to be understood the rounding up was done between Senegal and Sierra Leone by establish black chieftains who had adopted Islam. They sold the slaves to the European traders, mainly Spanish and Portuguese, and smaller number of others, at points on the coast. These traders rarely went into the interior where they were hopelessly outnumbered. The black Muslims almost never sold another “believer” into slavery except for major crimes.

From the accounts that I have read, the traders did not question the morality of the trade. They were there to make money, and devil take the hindmost. And the black Muslim chieftains used the Koran to justify their right to capture and sell the more primitive black tribes that had not been exposed to Islam.
Certainly Western civilisation was evolving, but it did not happen as a moral upheaval. While slave traders, and more importantly, their investors, could keep the reality of the trade quiet, they could make money. They could easily argue a justification of some sort, but it was publicity that released British and later American public opinion. That is quite different to some kind of swing in morals. The distaste for the trade was already there in any fair-minded person.

And on the subject of Nietsche, I do want to like him, but he repeats himself so often it gets tedious.

Amadd wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 1:22am:

Yes, and even this is problematic. You may have to do a generally perceived 'wrong' to do so.

Emma wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 12:50am:

Therefore your statement is insane?

Either we have shared norms and make a community, a society on he basis of those shared norms, values, mores - or we have nuffin' to do wiv each other and it's all about the rule of brute force.

You seem to be advocating, without realising it, for the re-primitivasion of the world. You seem to want to uncivilise the world because you think civilisation is barely disguised oppression.

I think that is bonkers stupid. Dissociate yourself.

Plus you still haven't answered my question.
Deflection once again.

Would you turn in your own child to the tender mercies of the Police, if they had broken the Law.?  Would it depend on WHAT law.? Would that matter.?

After all, the POLICE and the LAW, represents our civilisation, more than any other man-made construct.  Can't have anarchy can we.?  Perhaps you think there is no anarchy in this, our civilisation.
Look again.

How does YOUR moral compass work in the world as we know it?. Do the circumstances matter.?

gone to bed? Thinking about it? Or have NO answer.!

Soren, I won't bother looking at the vid. I thought you would repond personally, not shuffle it off to someone else. And an intellectual POM at that.!!  Of course they will espouse the greatness of their Empire, and the good it did.

I guess YOU don't have a reasonable reply.
WHY?
Because you are unable to deny the truth. Which is a good thing.

ah OK I'll have a quick look.

Emma wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 10:19pm:


No contest. I was simply addressing one paragraph in the OP which is highly representative of popular perceptions.