Why is slavery wrong?

[promethean75]

The questioner would need to specify whether he means categorically or hypothetically 'wrong'. If the former, then no, there would be no such thing. If the latter, then sure, but only relative to the effectiveness in establishing some desired end. An end, I would add, that might not be shared by everyone. So here you'd only get a subjective/intersubjective agreement, but certainly not an objective agreement. Just ax the slaver. He ain't tryna give up his slaves, bruh.

[henry quirk]

I am fully willing to sell myself into slavery at 10 millions dollars if I have an option to buy my way out at 5 million. However, I would like first to assign my personhood to an off-shore trust -- this will involve about 20 thousand dollars of legal work which I will be happy to pay -- before any money changes hands. Then please make the check out to the trust . . .

the slaver isn't gonna negotiate with you, guy

if he buys you, it's cuz he's buyin' you from another slaver

no, he just takes you

question is: is it wrong that he takes you?

and: if it is wrong, why?

[henry quirk]

The questioner would need to specify whether he means categorically or hypothetically 'wrong'. If the former, then no, there would be no such thing. If the latter, then sure, but only relative to the effectiveness in establishing some desired end. An end, I would add, that might not be shared by everyone. So here you'd only get a subjective/intersubjective agreement, but certainly not an objective agreement. Just ax the slaver. He ain't tryna give up his slaves, bruh.

guy, slavery is wrong, or not-wrong

if wrong: there's an undergirdin' reason why

if not-wrong: then meat for sale!

[promethean75]

The law of the excluded middle is only going to hold for deductive arguments whereby a false conclusion is reached if the definitions of the premises are violated. But better to use the word 'incorrect' than 'wrong' because it's more studious, erudite and Bertrand Russell sounding.

Other than that, you can make it work for hypothetical imperatives too, e.g., if driving would be faster than walking, and the right thing to do would be to arrive as soon as possible, then it would be wrong to walk. The rightness or wrongness is all about the 'for-ness' here, the 'ends' one wants to achieve.

Other than these cases, rightness and wrongness are just emotive senses, equivalent to such expressions as 'yay!' and 'boo!', and as senses that have no real cognitive content, they can't be true or false (like deductive conclusions or hypothetically-imperative bound efforts).

So then, if one guy feels that slavery is mean, he can call it wrong, because it does not achieve his end of avoiding meanness. The slaver, on the other hand, feels that slavery is great, and calls it right, because it achieves his end of not having to work.

[Immanuel Can]

The question is, "Why is (chattel, i.e. involuntary, forced) slavery wrong (i.e. for the enslaver to do).

Has anyone here yet sufficiently given you an answer to the question?

They're trying very hard to misunderstand the question, so as not to have answer it.

[promethean75]

"Has anyone here yet sufficiently given you an answer to the question?"

Indeed, I have, and it has been decided

[henry quirk]

meat for sale!

[Immanuel Can]

The questioner would need to specify whether he means categorically or hypothetically 'wrong'. If the former, then no, there would be no such thing.

That answer means that even the hypothetical cannot be justified, for "wrongness" then refers to no real or objective property of anything, and enslaving people cannot possibly even hypothetically be "wrong."

But that's not an answer most secularists are going to like: you've just told them they have no objective justification in condemning slavery. It might be true, but they won't be happy.

[promethean75]

Henry gets more interesting by the minute. We now have a no tax payin deistic minarchist who endorses slavery and has a fancy for colored women.

[henry quirk]

Henry gets more interesting by the minute. We now have a no tax payin deistic minarchist who endorses slavery and has a fancy for colored women.

pardon my french, but: what in the high holy fuck are you talkin' about?

I did not, do not endorse, slavery

even a casual review of the thread -- or of anything I've posted over the years -- would show the opposite

as for colored ladies: I like 'em all, no matter the color

[promethean75]

Oh my bad then. As I skimmed this thread I kept seeing you ax why slavery is wrong. It made me think you thought it wasn't and that you were demanding someone to prove otherwise. Then the 'meat for sale' thing. I dunno I just pictured you out in a cabin like grizzly adams with a sign in your yard reading 'government keep out!' and a few neegrows lined up to be sold at the auction.

[henry quirk]

I skimmed this thread

yep

I amended the opening to take that, and other things, into account

[promethean75]

"But that's not an answer most secularists are going to like"

Hey you ain't tellin me nuthin new. My answers are so disconcerting that even the frickin satanists don't like me. That's the price one must pay for being a Lovecraftian cosmic indifferentist, I reckon.

[reasonvemotion]

The descendants of captured slaves should be offered an apology.

White Americans were significantly advantaged by slavery while slaves struggled.

Modern African Americans still experience oppression to this day.

[henry quirk]

The descendants of captured slaves should be offered an apology.

sure: identify those descendants, then identify the descendants of those specific slavers, then go get those apologies

me: not a slaver, and not a descendant of slavers...I don't owe anyone diddly

White Americans were significantly advantaged by slavery while slaves struggled.

some were, mebbe still are: identify 'em, take 'em to court, get that compensation (whatever the modern equivalent is of
40 acres & a mule)

me? ain't no advantage livin' here

Modern African Americans still experience oppression to this day.

that's what them community organizer-types say...yes, siree, they surely do say that

but it just ain't so