Why is slavery wrong?

[promethean75]

"that...but his grasp of theology was so embarassingly weak that apologists often use his book "Why I Am Not a Christian" as a launchpad for their own apologetics. The guy threw nothing but softballs, underhand. Any good theologian can hit them out of the park."

Actually it was a lecture given on the fly, so ol' Berty was really taking it easy on us. You have to believe that. If he wanted to set out a book on such matters, your softball playing christian apologists would have to obtain at least a bachelor's in logic before they even opened it... and learn how to play hardball, as well.

I dunno man, to me Christianity is so embarrassingly ridiculous it is difficult for me to even sustain a conversation with one. It's really at a level of deep neurosis, and I think past a certain age, there's no bringing anyone out of it.

Fortunately I'm not distressed by this because I'm watching the rise of secularism in the world (at least in first world countries), so I wouldn't count Christian apologists as any real danger anymore. Christianity has merged quite nicely into the machinations of western capitalism, sure, but it's nowhere near as deadly, and does not act as directly, as islam. That's the beast real attention should be turned to if any attention is given at all to such silly dogma.

[Immanuel Can]

I dunno man, to me Christianity is so embarrassingly ridiculous

Well, when you don't know anything about it, almost anything can sound "ridiculous."

Who would have believed that invisible, airborn "agents" can cause disease? On the face of it, the idea sounds preposterous and unscientific. Nothing obvious suggests that's a reasonable claim...which is why it wasn't really entertained for most of human history...until the discovery of bacteria and viruses.

It all depends on how much one knows.

Christianity has merged quite nicely into the machinations of western capitalism, sure, but it's nowhere near as deadly, and does not act as directly, as islam. That's the beast real attention should be turned to if any attention is given at all to such silly dogma.

It depends which putative "Christian" group you mean, of course. Nominal "Christianity" in the West is pretty compromised, for the most part.

But yes, Islam is much more direct. Christians are taught to love even their enemies. (Matt. 5:43-48) Those that heed that, do. But Islamists...that's quite a different kettle of fish.

If you're really interested in Islam, I'd say you could read the Koran...except that I wouldn't burden you with it. It's really hard to read, not because it's got a difficult vocabulary, but because it's nearly totally disorganized, unfocused, and downright boring...even when it isn't proposing something like the beating of women or the murdering of "infidels," which, of course, it does. It's like wading through mud, up to your knees in it: you can make it through, but clarity is not going to emerge from that experience.

I read it. But you wouldn't thank me if I encouraged you to. Still, it definitely cures any impression that Islam and Christianity are anywhere near on the same page.

[RCSaunders]

Right and wrong are determined by whatever objective is to be achieved by a principle.

Great: name the "principle."

I already did. First to Alexis Jacobi:

It has nothing to do with feelings. It is entirely a matter of how one evaluates one's own individual life.

There is a psychological flaw in the thinking of any human being who can, even for a moment, entertain the idea of using another human being against that other human being's will for one's own gain or pleasure. It says, in essence, "I cannot succeed or survive if I have to depend entirely on my own will and effort and therefore, to have the kind of life I want, I have to be a parasite or predator--not a fully competent, viable human being."

Slavery is just one of the ways that psychological flaw manifests itself.

There is an equal and opposite flaw in the psychology of anyone who would allow themselves to be so used.

You may see nothing wrong with that. Most people don't. Apparently you don't.

And then to you:

Anyone who cannot see that no one gains any real objective self-enriching value at anyone else's involuntary expense suffers from either short-sightedness or some sociopathic disorder. We can all profit from others by voluntary exchange, but taking by force is always killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

... It has nothing to do with someone's view of, "morality." What is right or wrong is not determined by dictate or agreement or any individual's feelings. Right and wrong are determined by whatever objective is to be achieved by a principle. If the objective is a successful, (fully satisfying life of achievement without regret or despair and fully enjoyed in this real world), that excludes using others for one's own gain against their will. Not understanding that is a form of pathology.

The most common form of that pathology is the self-inflicted mental disorder, superstition, which those who suffer from it call faith. It ultimately destroys the mind and the ability to reason honestly.

[reasonvemotion]

Immanuel Can wrote:

It's Catholic -- and as I've said before, Catholic is its own thing, distinct from Christian.

Can you please elaborate in further detail?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I did not state the forms of slavery in the stats you linked are "not slavery"

Great.

Then answer the question: "why is slavery wrong?"

I have already explained "why chattel slavery is wrong", re pains, sufferings, mirror-neurons, laws, etc. [note again, my point is specific to chattel-slavery, not all forms of slavery].
I suggest you revisit the explanations I have given on 'why chattel slavery is morally wrong' and give your counter argument to it. You have not done any of that yet.

It is not that I don't want to answer further, I don't want to waste my time giving tuition to you with your thick-skull on this subject.

Personally you would have accepted slavery is morally wrong. You deny this??

Are you trying to make me the moral touchstone for others? Are you actually going to argue that what I "accept" must therefore be right, and needs no proof?

You are giving me much more credit than I ever asked for. You've made me the "pope" of morality.

But I would prefer that people operate on evidence, not my say-so.

What's your evidence?

If you agree 'chattel slavery' is morally wrong, surely you have a strong personal conviction to trust yourself that you are right. So at the least you have the intuition [like Henry] that chattel slavery is morally wrong.

It is not that I am making you the 'pope' of morality. The issue is you personally, are you doubting what you accepted is wrong?

If you have a good 'theory of mind' you would also believe the majority [as evident] who don't enslave will agree with you.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

As for proof to convince you, note what I stated above,
"It is not that I don't want to answer, I don't want to waste my time giving tuition to you with your thick-skull on this subject."

[attofishpi]

Everyone that has a mortgage and a menial job is a paid slave.

You stick with that shit job, and don't cause any rumblings regarding getting better pay and/or conditions, because the bank owns your WAY overpriced house, and you can't risk losing your job.

House prices here in Oz are ridiculous. Young Australians end up having to rent because they simply can't afford a house (even with such low interest rates) - and who are they paying their rent to? Rich Chinese that are permitted to own properties here. Why are foreigners allowed to purchase private residential properties as an investment? Because the fat slobs that run our country get to tax them more.

[Age]

I dunno man, to me Christianity is so embarrassingly ridiculous

Well, when you don't know anything about it, almost anything can sound "ridiculous."

Who would have believed that invisible, airborn "agents" can cause disease? On the face of it, the idea sounds preposterous and unscientific. Nothing obvious suggests that's a reasonable claim...which is why it wasn't really entertained for most of human history...until the discovery of bacteria and viruses.

It all depends on how much one knows.

"christianity" LOOKS and SOUNDS 'embarrassingly ridiculous' to a lot of people BECAUSE so-called "christians", like the one here known as "immanuel can", make "christianity" LOOK and SOUND 'embarrassingly ridiculous'.

Christianity has merged quite nicely into the machinations of western capitalism, sure, but it's nowhere near as deadly, and does not act as directly, as islam. That's the beast real attention should be turned to if any attention is given at all to such silly dogma.

It depends which putative "Christian" group you mean, of course. Nominal "Christianity" in the West is pretty compromised, for the most part.

But yes, Islam is much more direct. Christians are taught to love even their enemies. (Matt. 5:43-48) Those that heed that, do. But Islamists...that's quite a different kettle of fish.

Yes, "muslims" are taught to rid 'the world' of the enemies of 'the world', through 'love'.

Which, when LOOK AT FULLY is MUCH BETTER than being taught to love 'the enemies' of 'the world'. Which, OBVIOUSLY, would ALLOW 'the enemy' to flourish and prosper.

And, 'the enemy' of "the christians" are NOT necessarily 'bad' AT ALL.

Forming a separatist group, like "christianity", and then teaching "them" that there are "enemies" of said "separatist group" is probably one of the biggest reasons WHY 'you', adult human beings, FIGHT among "yourselves", and even to the point of KILLING each other, hitherto the days when this was being written.

If you're really interested in Islam, I'd say you could read the Koran...except that I wouldn't burden you with it. It's really hard to read, not because it's got a difficult vocabulary, but because it's nearly totally disorganized, unfocused, and downright boring..

LOL
LOL
LOL

NOT like the bible, which is Truly AMAZING, BEAUTIFUL, and INSIGHTFUL, right "immanuel can"?

LOL 'you', adult human beings, are BEYOND RIDICULOUS. So, BOTH the koran, and the bible, teach that there is ONLY One God, BUT "my" version/interpretation is the ONLY true, right, and correct ONE. 'you', adults, REALLY are ALL just as STUPID as EACH OTHER IS.

.even when it isn't proposing something like the beating of women or the murdering of "infidels," which, of course, it does.

This is ONE of MANY INTERPRETATIONS, which are ALMOST ALL Wrong.

Have you EVER considered MURDERING those AGAINST 'us' could be REALLY a VERY GOOD THING for 'the world' itself?

Have you EVER considered that MURDERING those NONBELIEVERS can be done without harming nor hurting the physical body?

SEE, when 'things' are LOOKED INTO FULLY, there REALLY are some Truly AMAZING SURPRISES to be SEEN 'HERE'.

It's like wading through mud, up to your knees in it: you can make it through, but clarity is not going to emerge from that experience.

LOL
LOL
LOL

And the LAUGHABLE "clarity" obtained from the bible is God is 'male' gendered.

Talk about HOW MUCH MUD one MUST OF waded through to gain that MUCH "clarity", or better worded, that MUCH INSANITY?

I read it. But you wouldn't thank me if I encouraged you to. Still, it definitely cures any impression that Islam and Christianity are anywhere near on the same page.

And NEVER even a thought arose that if this one was born into and raised within an "islamic culture", then this one would be the one FIGHTING for 'islam' and 'trying to' DISMISS or DENOUNCE "christianity".

Which, AGAIN, is Truly AMAZING to WATCH and OBSERVE, from a Truly "outside" perspective.

[Sculptor]

Everyone that has a mortgage and a menial job is a paid slave.

That is called choice.
Slavery is about not having choice, except that bestowed by your owner.
If this differences cannot be recognised then the whole thread is meaningless.

[Immanuel Can]

Right and wrong are determined by whatever objective is to be achieved by a principle.

Great: name the "principle."

I already did. First to Alexis Jacobi

Well, no...you didn't.

There is no "principle" mentioned there at all. There's a sort of vague insult that is supposed to rebuff any further question, at it goes,

"There is a psychological flaw in the thinking of any human being who can, even for a moment, entertain the idea of using another human being against that other human being's will for one's own gain or pleasure."

So you just assume anyone who has such a question is "mentally flawed." That's not a principle capable of grounding the value judgment that slavery is wrong. It's just a dodge.

Or maybe you meant,

"I cannot succeed or survive if I have to depend entirely on my own will and effort and therefore, to have the kind of life I want, I have to be a parasite or predator--not a fully competent, viable human being."

That, of course, is just another vague insult designed to shut down inquiry; but again, the enslaver has an easy reply. And it's that he does not need to "depend" on his slaves, but enjoys making them do work he prefers not to do. And he might say it actually allows him to achieve much more in his own life -- not having to do menial tasks or hard labour, he finds it suits him to direct his activities to what he considers 'more important' things, and thus his life is much more fulfilled and enriched then yours, doing all your own labour yourself, could ever be.

So you need a better answer than vague insults. You need something strong enough to prove to a rational doubter that even if he likes enslaving people and finds it useful to do so, and even if he thinks it allows him privileges and advantages, it's still wrong.

Now, maybe see if you can actually do that this time. Claiming people who doubt you are "mentally ill" does not represent either a priniciple or a rational response to a relevant question.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Immanuel Can wrote:

It's Catholic -- and as I've said before, Catholic is its own thing, distinct from Christian.

Can you please elaborate in further detail?

Perhaps I can interject my understanding of IC's position while, as always, advancing some of my own ideas. I hope you and those who read will bear with me.

First, I think it is highly relevant to consider the sense and meaning of Dubious' discourse. We have to see, confront, deal with, and respond to his level of intense criticism of *Christian belief*. We must -- this is my view -- understand why he holds to his views; where they came from; and why they have been given energy and power. As I often say we must ask questions about *function*. What is the function of these powerful and in a real sense deadly critiques of Christian belief? I feel I can say, and with no doubts, that this alone is a demanding and difficult topic. Movements that overturn what they define as 'old orders' and 'established hierarchies' involve themselves in modes of attack. It is similar, for example, to the assault on a fortified city. You have to find the weak-point and you have to exploit it. And there are, always, ranges of motives that come to play their part. So, these things need to be carefully and judiciously gone through.

But this implies, of course, that the one who will do this has some sort of 'balanced perspective' and is not, shall we say, compromised and biased. So another problem arises: Who can we rely on? And do we consider that 'balanced perspective' to have validity?

The other side of this strange coin is IC himself. We have to be able to define, in as exact and true terms as are possible, what he is trying to present to us, and why he is trying to present it to us. (I say *us* and I simply mean that any discourse has as its goal that of convincing, and the *us* I refer to is the listener to his discourse, whoever and wherever they may be). I would have to say that IC's views are 'chemically-pure Protestant Christianity'. But IC does not state it like that. He says his views are simply *Christianity*. And he builds his platform, his assertion, by referring solely and exclusively to the texts of the NT itself -- the Gospels and the Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles and the Revelation.

And as I say, because I think it is important, his position is that of an ultra-modern man -- the outcome, if you will, of hundreds and hundreds, centuries, of civilization processes that *produced him*. They have in fact produced us all and I introduce this idea again because I think it true: We have a hard time seeing ourselves. How could we actually *see* what has informed us? We can only see it, I assert, if we study it. So the example of the fish that cannot define water, or does not even think about it, applies to us. We are all *outcomes* of extraordinarily involved cultural processes that 'inform' us in ways that we cannot know unless we gain distance from ourselves. That is why Basil Willey (a minor historian of culture) said that we require a 'master metaphysician' in order to be able to see, and understand, the ideas (the sense of things) that we take as 'given and 'normal' and 'the way things really are'. We have a really hard time *seeing* our presuppositions.

Now, we have to describe The Field. That is to say the place where we are; the time we are in; our *temporal modality*; our cultural and political situation; and here I can mention our *description* of what the World is. What is it? Where is it? How did it come to be? How did we come to be the aware beings we are in a world where consciousness is the supreme event that undergirds what he human beings are and, essentially, all that we do and can do?

The Field is also our immediate circumstances which, in our day, seem to be in turmoil. This is not a minor element. Revolutions in this-and-that follow other revolutions in this-and-that and everything seems to be accelerating. It seems to be true, given how much weight we give to the dystopian visions (1984, Brave New World) that we can rely on them to a degree as harbingers. Thus we have, in our midst, what perhaps I can fairly call *seers* and *visionaries* who have, as far as I can tell, not painted the prettiest picture of what we accelerate toward. But let us leave that aside though it must be mentioned, and we must consider the implications of the events of the 20th century where the outline of dystopia was drawn.

There is one more thing that I feel needs to be mentioned. It is known as Clown World in its popular meme-form. But what I want to mention is that there are vast numbers of people who I believe we can say are completely adrift in the sense that they have no way to define their world. And yet when they think about it, and when they reveal what they think, it is looney-toon material. I could mention again Michael Barkun's Culture of Conspiracy which goes into the confluence of strange religious idealism (distorted religious ideas and notions) that combine with other strange currents of ideas as:

What is far less known is the extent to which conspiracist worldviews have recently become linked in strange and unpredictable ways with other “fringe” notions such as a belief in UFOs, Nostradamus, and the Illuminati. This book, the most comprehensive and authoritative examination of contemporary American conspiracism to date, unravels the extraordinary genealogies and permutations of these increasingly widespread ideas, showing how this web of urban legends has spread among subcultures on the Internet and through mass media, how a new style of conspiracy thinking has recently arisen, and how this phenomenon relates to larger changes in American culture. The author discusses a range of material—involving inner-earth caves, government black helicopters, alien abductions, secret New World Order cabals, and much more—that few realize exists in our culture. Looking closely at the manifestations of these ideas in a wide range of literature and source material from religious and political literature, to New Age and UFO publications, to popular culture phenomena such as The X-Files, and to websites, radio programs, and more, he finds that America is in the throes of an unrivaled period of millenarian activity. His book underscores the importance of understanding why this phenomenon is now spreading into more mainstream segments of American culture.

I have taken the loooooonnnggg route to offering my answer to your question, but it is not without some purpose.

IC defines Catholicism as a hybrid distortion of *true Christianity*. And in some senses, of course, he is right. But I suggest that when we consider what Catholicism is, and what Christianity became, that we cannot simply dismiss it all, as IC seems to do, and that it is impossible to ex post facto redefine Christianity-Catholicism -- the religion that formed Europe -- through an act of Protestant modernist revisionism.

Catholicism is an enormous blending of many many different strains of ideas that necessarily flow together, that flowed together, into a general European paideia. These are what Europe, and our civilization, are built on.

Oddly, I draw a parallel to what I label Dubious' 'destructiveness' (undermining, invalidating, and distorting with unique purposes in mind) to what I understand IC to do as he undermines and invalidates the attainments of Europe, that is to say of Christendom. The Kierkegaardian critique of Christendom needs itself to be examined critically.

The attack on Christianity is far more meaningful than those who are soldiers in that attack seem to be aware. If Christianity is killed, and in that sense if God is killed, the living being known as Europe dies.

So the question is really not how to go about killing God, or undermining the profound meaning that is there, but much more about bringing back to life, resurrecting, strengthening, restoring health. This, I assert, involves truly creative work and not the tearing apart and tearing down that come far to easily.

[attofishpi]

Everyone that has a mortgage and a menial job is a paid slave.

That is called choice.

What alternative choices do these people have?

Slavery is about not having choice, except that bestowed by your owner.

Definition of slavery does not necessarily mean one is in a worse state of affairs than let's say a homeless person forced to beg on the street.

A slave owner could in fact provide very good work conditions, a nice place to live and lovely hot meals.

[RCSaunders]

You need something strong enough to prove to a rational doubter ...

Any reasonably intelligent honest person will be convinced by simple reason that attempting to gain anything of value by using force against other human beings is wrong. It is wrong because it is devastatingly harmful to one's own psychological nature.

One does not have to go through life convincing every irrational idiot who sees nothing wrong with using force against other human beings they are less than fully human. I cannot help it if you see nothing wrong with slavery. It's your problem, not mine.

[Immanuel Can]

You need something strong enough to prove to a rational doubter ...

Any reasonably intelligent honest person will be convinced by simple reason that attempting to gain anything of value by using force against other human beings is wrong. It is wrong because it is devastatingly harmful to one's own psychological nature.

Well, prove that's true, so such a doubter cannot any longer doubt. Show that the "harm" is greater than the advantage he perceives in enslaving people. And show that using force is "wrong."

I cannot help it if you see nothing wrong with slavery. It's your problem, not mine.

I'm a Theist. Of course I see something wrong with it. But my reasons cannot be your reasons, unless you're also a Theist. So let's see what reasons you and I can actually share: how does a non-Theist like you manage to prove, to himself or to a rational but doubting non-Theist, that slavery is wrong?

And let's not bother with the "if you don't see it you're evil" kind of argument. That's ad hominem at best, and merely slinging insults at worst. Let's take the skeptic seriously, instead, and give him an answer he has reason to believe.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can wrote:

It's Catholic -- and as I've said before, Catholic is its own thing, distinct from Christian.

Can you please elaborate in further detail?

Alexis and I have been discussing this on the "Christianity" thread. You might find that discussion much more comprehensive than what I can give you on this thread.

[uwot]

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

I cannot help it if you see nothing wrong with slavery. It's your problem, not mine.

I'm a Theist. Of course I see something wrong with it.

There is is nothing in the Bible that condemns slavery. In the OT there are even rules for how you should treat your slaves. Jesus compares the relationship between a man and god with that of a slave and master. Wherever Mr Can got his sense that slavery is wrong, it wasn't from reading the Bible.