Why is slavery wrong?

[Alexis Jacobi]

That is one of the most dishonest comments anyone has ever made. To intentionally take some part of something one has written out of the context in which it is written is intentional distortion.

With no desire to say anything insulting, RC, and having read carefully what you write, I would say that you have a very *mushy* and non-substantial argument against slavery. Ultimately, it boils down to what you feel about it. But I also recognize that there are some ideas (they seem fuzzy to me though) that connect with your feelings.

The issue here seems simple:

If one relies on 'naturalism' (the way nature is, the 'laws of nature' if you want, and the mechanical world of biology within natural systems) it is not possible to construct an absolute argument against slavery. Slavery (defined as using another being for one's advantage with little or no concern for the welfare of that being) is in fact part-and-parcel of the natural world. This seems to me an irrefutable fact.

What you seem to be describing is a democratic reaction against the abhorred condition of slavery. What you fail to take into account is that that abhorrence that you feel, and which I also feel, is not shared by many people who now enslave others. IC notes that slavery worldwide is not diminishing -- it is increasing! There are therefore many people out there who are not on-board with your sense of things.

You do say, and I am sure that you do believe, that "Nothing is just wrong. There is no intrinsic or inherent right or wrong". If you did not believe that, you would not, and you could not, write that sentence. It contains a specific and non-qualifiable meaning. You either say it, and believe it, or you do not say it.

If there really is no intrinsic right and wrong, then there really are no right and wrong. Or, those are decisions of convenience made in a given moment. If they are 'principles' they are mutable principles. They might apply now and today, here, but not tomorrow and there.

The curious thing is that, and this seems obvious, in order to define an absolute value, it requires a law or a rule outside of the system in which the rule or law is applied. Clearly IC's argument moves inexorably to a divine mandate. Similarly, or relatedly, one might try to build an argument by reference to metaphysical principles -- but many here do not recognize those and in fact deny that such *exist*. Yet metaphysical principles are not part-and-parcel of the natural world, they are ideas and principles that arise, uniquely in us, and have a domain in some other space. (I view metaphysical ideas as being 'intrusions' into, and often against, the rules that apply in Nature).

So it seems to me that you really and truly are in a position in which you cannot build a universal and absolute argument against enslavement of another human. You can though state your preference against it.

I believe that I have seen and restated your position correctly and fairly. Though I have a strong sense that you will accuse me of being underhanded in some way?

[Immanuel Can]

To intentionally take some part of something one has written out of the context in which it is written is intentional distortion.

It's called "summarizing." And it's devoid of evil intent. I'm just repeating back the pith of what you said, even though you tried to couch it in extraneous verbiage designed to conceal its flaws.

...there is an objective purpose which determines what is right and wrong.

That means that for you, "wrong" is merely an instrumental term, not a moral one. And the action to which the other action is instrumental is not included in any moral judgment. Actions are merely judged "good" or "bad" by whether they 'work' for some purpose a person has in mind.

Basically, you've said that slavery is right IF it objectively serves a purpose. So if somebody has a crop of rice or cotton to bring in, and he needs workers, then slavery is an efficient means to achieve that objective purpose. He'll get his crop in, and without having to pay any wages. Very effective for your "objective purpose."

Happy now?

[Lacewing]

If I say that people have lost the capability of understanding themselves, and their cultural matrix, and thus of Christian culture (which is so much a part of the whole), it is to try to speak about people who have been, as a result, separated from themselves.

Have they lost it, or is it no longer useful/applicable to them?

Have people (in general) ever understood themselves very well? Hasn't self-reflection always been a practice of a minority?

And to say that they have been 'separated from themselves' is a big presumptive stretch. It suggests that you know what they are/aren't and what they should be. It doesn't allow for humankind to shift or waver or redirect without 'losing themselves'. So perhaps the problem with your thesis is that it is not as flexible as humankind and nature actually are.

Maybe Christianity is losing the immense hold it has had in the past because more people are becoming more self-directed and recognizing more paths/methods/options. Whether the fallout will be difficult from disengaging conventions of belief from everything they have been entwined into, I don't know. But in the long run, humankind seems intent on evolving beyond the beliefs that limit it. You don't seem to give humankind much credit. You conclude that those of us unlike you have lost ourselves, rather than recognizing that it makes more sense that the limits of your beliefs limit your understanding of what is naturally taking place.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You conclude that those of us unlike you have lost ourselves, rather than recognizing that it makes more sense that the limits of your beliefs limit your understanding of what is naturally taking place.

日本語に切り替えてもらえますか？無神論者のカブトムシに反対するとき、私は日本語で書くほうが効果的だと感じます！

[Lacewing]

日本語に切り替えてもらえますか？無神論者のカブトムシに反対するとき、私は日本語で書くほうが効果的だと感じます！

You go now... you been here four hour!

[RCSaunders]

That is one of the most dishonest comments anyone has ever made. To intentionally take some part of something one has written out of the context in which it is written is intentional distortion.

With no desire to say anything insulting, RC, and having read carefully what you write, I would say that you have a very *mushy* and non-substantial argument against slavery.

I have not and never intended to make an, "argument against slavery." I don't even know what that would mean. It sounds like a social or political view (an ideology, perhaps). I have no ideology.

My only point is, relative to any individual's own success and well-being, enslaving others or being a slave is self-harmful and ultimately self-destructive. It's a totally selfish individualistic view. It's not a social view or political view.

\Ultimately, it boils down to what you feel about it. But I also recognize that there are some ideas (they seem fuzzy to me though) that connect with your feelings.

I've already explained [perhaps you have a reading comprhension problem], so try again to understand:

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."

The problem is, you cannot decide if something is right or wrong without identifying what it is that something is right or wrong for.

If one relies on 'naturalism' (the way nature is, the 'laws of nature' if you want, and the mechanical world of biology within natural systems) it is not possible to construct an absolute argument against slavery. Slavery (defined as using another being for one's advantage with little or no concern for the welfare of that being) is in fact part-and-parcel of the natural world. This seems to me an irrefutable fact.

No, no, no. It's not, "naturalism," to identify the fact everything has a specific nature that determines what is good and bad for it. All animals need food and water. Food and water are good for them, not having food and water is bad. Every organism has a specific nature that determines what is good for it and what is right for them too do. It is good for the fish to be in water and it is right for them to swim. It is bad for them to be out of water and wrong to try to fly. It is good for birds to be in the air and right for them to fly, it is bad for them to be under water and wrong to not fly.

It is human nature that determines what is good and right for them also. The most important thing that is good (and necessary) for human beings is knowledge and the most important and right thing for them to do is to use that knowledge to produce all the other things their nature requires for them to live (from food to medicine) and be all they can be as human beings.

You do say, and I am sure that you do believe, that "Nothing is just wrong. There is no intrinsic or inherent right or wrong"....

If there really is no intrinsic right and wrong, then there really are no right and wrong.

"Right, wrong, good, bad, necessary, unnecessary, important, unimportant," are all value terms. They only have meaning relative to some objective, purpose, end, or goal. Things are only good, bad, necessary or important relative to the achievement of or realization of some objective. A thing only has a value if something is at stake.

I made that all clear to IC:

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.

Slavery is only wrong relative to the individual successful enjoyment of one's own life. Some simple rules: neither a lender or borrower be, neither a leader or follower be, neither a slave or slaver be--always be the best you can be in all things, both physical and intellectual, and you will never be or want to be any of the others.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I've already explained [perhaps you have a reading comprhension problem], so try again to understand:

Not my comprehension problem, but rather that your philosophical position is solipsistic.

Am I reading wrong if I reduce it to: “I could not take advantage of another human being because I have a strongly developed belief that to do so harms me, as well as the enslaved one.”

It is thus a completely personal position. Someone else may, or may not, adopt your view.

(But as such I commend you for it.)

But it only answers a part of why slavery is wrong.

[RCSaunders]

I've already explained [perhaps you have a reading comprhension problem], so try again to understand:

Not my comprehension problem, but rather that your philosophical position is solipsistic.

Am I reading wrong if I reduce it to: “I could not take advantage of another human being because I have a strongly developed belief that to do so harms me, as well as the enslaved one.”

It is thus a completely personal position. Someone else may, or may not, adopt your view.

Well, I hope no one, "adopts," my views. Everyone has their own mind and must use them to form their own views. I think anyone who is able to reason correctly and is willing to make the effort will form views very similar to mine, that it is not in their interest to have a relationship with any other rational human being that does not exclude all coercion--that only totally voluntary relationships between individuals can be benevolent.

Just out of curiosity, whose views do you hold, if they are not your own personal ones?

But it only answers a part of why slavery is wrong.

Well, it means for any individual, having slaves or being a slave is wrong. What part doesn't it answer?

[Immanuel Can]

I made that all clear to IC

Oh, you said it, alright. But there was nothing "clear" about it.

[Sculptor]

-----

clarifyin' edit: I know why slavery is wrong (and it most certainly is wrong)...this thread is about why you think or know slavery is wrong (or why slavery is a-ok by you)...it started as goof as against another, amoralist, member who dances hard and fast to avoid declarn' slavery wrong (cuz she knows that if slavery is not wrong, then she has no justification to oppose it beyond I don't wanna be a slave!)...it's become a rather picayune example of what I already knew: this place overflows with amoralists who deny a moral reality while, at the same time, just can't bring themselves to say slavery? well there's no reason why men shouldn't treat other men as property!

You are, as usual, confused.
You are grapsing at straws concerning your disquiet about the simple fact that morality is not objective. That scares you. The simple facts about slavery is that for most of human history slavery was perfectly acceptible, and he USA enjoyed and exploited the institution of slavery for a good deal of its history.
If it were not for the British Empire showing the way and banning the slave trade one imagines that slavery would have continued to persist long after the abolition date that was eventually achieved by the USA.

SInce you seem to think that slavers or those that refuse to condemn it are "amoralists", then I suggest that your nation was founded by amoralists, since most of the early Senate all owned slaves.

Look the world is a scary place. Get a life and acknowledge your fear.

[henry quirk]

sculptor,

You are, as usual, confused.

and, as usual, you haven't answered the question (don't feel bad, though, our most vocal, most eloquent, haven't either)

You are grapsing at straws concerning your disquiet about the simple fact that morality is not objective. That scares you.

not so...but: even if that were the case, that's no answer to the question

The simple facts about slavery is that for most of human history slavery was perfectly acceptible, and he USA enjoyed and exploited the institution of slavery for a good deal of its history.

okay...still not seein' your answer

If it were not for the British Empire showing the way and banning the slave trade one imagines that slavery would have continued to persist long after the abolition date that was eventually achieved by the USA.

mebbe so...and your answer is?

SInce you seem to think that slavers or those that refuse to condemn it are "amoralists", then I suggest that your nation was founded by amoralists, since most of the early Senate all owned slaves.

that's certainly worth discussin', after you answer the question

Look the world is a scary place. Get a life and acknowledge your fear.

I'm probably a lot further down the road in seein', and livin' in, the world as it is, than you and most of the folks in, and out of, this forum, but -- ya know what? -- that ain't relevant to the question, the question you avoid answerin' (preferrin', instead, to waste everyone's time as you demonstrate, one more time, how good you are at pissin' on another man's cornflakes)

so: here it is, one more time...

Why is slavery wrong?

surely, the courageous sculptor, ain't a'fear'd to answer?

mayhap the structure of the question offends you

cuz you're my best bud, I'll do you, and only you, a favor and tenderize it, make it more digestable...

Is slavery wrong?

there you go: yes or no

easy-peasy

[Age]

You conclude that those of us unlike you have lost ourselves, rather than recognizing that it makes more sense that the limits of your beliefs limit your understanding of what is naturally taking place.

日本語に切り替えてもらえますか？無神論者のカブトムシに反対するとき、私は日本語で書くほうが効果的だと感じます！

How could you find this more 'effective' in an english speaking forum?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are really blinded by confirmation bias

Au contraire, you're hopelessly fixed on the word "chattel" which is not in the question. Any kind of slavery, short of indenture, as involuntary, unpaid, compelled labour qualifies for the question; so quit wiggling and splitting hairs in a desperate attempt to escape.

After reading so many of his posts re slavery, I am very familiar with Henry's perspective which is focused on Chattel slavery. I am certain Henry is against all forms of slavery, but his discussion re slavery and morality is most of the time with reference to ownership and humans as 'properties' i.e. chattels.

Note this in his OP;
viewtopic.php?p=555896#p555896

at the same time, they just can't bring themselves to say slavery? well there's no reason why men shouldn't treat other men as property!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Chattel_slavery

The term "slavery" is a very loose term with wide perspectives and you are the one who is wriggling that slippery sludge.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What's the difference between forcing someone to work and produce for you (slavery) and simply confiscating what someone has produced on their own (taxes). Aren't they both theft?

yep

Can you be against slavery and for taxes?

not if you understand slavery and taxation are the same, you can't

What an idiot. You have to be earning to be able to pay taxes. Slaves don't get paid

[attofishpi]

What's the difference between forcing someone to work and produce for you (slavery) and simply confiscating what someone has produced on their own (taxes). Aren't they both theft?

yep

Can you be against slavery and for taxes?

not if you understand slavery and taxation are the same, you can't

What an idiot. You have to be earning to be able to pay taxes. Slaves don't get paid

Correct. Myself as a sex slave being held forced to have sex (with no pay, but a bowl of rice at the end of the day), well, apparently the woman that has me chained up and is making a fortune out of my services, well, she puts it all on the books and pays tax.
It's extremely taxing for me.