Why is slavery wrong?

[Alexis Jacobi]

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 reason why I feel that what you state is incomplete is because 1) in the so-called natural world creatures have no compunction about using other creatures totally and utterly against their will. There is no 'psychology' is nature but what you actually mean is I think something different. You mean conscience. So the person you refer to has to be aware of a psychological flaw but the necessary question is: And where does that come from?

There is absolutely no reason why many many humans may have no compunction whatever against using other humans "against that other human being's will for [their] own gain or pleasure". To say something different is to see this world through an idealistic lens.

Again, in nature, where is the "fully competent, viable [----] being". I don't think that being exists. All beings are either parasite or predator or a combination thereof. And Nature does not think about any of this.

See, I read what you write and I have to say "Your ideas did not come out of a vacuum". It seems to me that whether you are aware of it your thinking can only be defined as Occidental and Christian. This is why I refer to all of us as *outcomes* of what has informed us.

I am intrigued by your assertion that a fully competent, viable human being exists. How did you arrive at even the sense that such is possible? not to say necessary, good and attainable?

[attofishpi]

...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.

Hey, I'm God's slave, but it's a lot more rewarding than what I was doing prior to 'HIM' kicking my arse out of the last shit job!

[attofishpi]

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

Everytime you say that I think of a can of baked beans - basically a can full of skinheads covered in a tasty tomato sauce.

[Alexis Jacobi]

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.

But I would insist that indeed it would necessarily come from reading the Bible. Because it is established that the work of God, the manifestation of God, the revelation of God, brought the Hebrews out of the condition of slavery in Egypt. You can take it, Wee Willy, as simply a story if you'd like, but the idea resonates through history and continues to resonate.

The thing about the Israelites vis-a-vis slavery is that if an eventual and designated Jubilee was law it was only for an Israelite. So 'freedom for me but not for thee'.

I cannot myself locate in any other religious philosophy a direct narrative involving the liberation I referred to. The notion of it.

Yet it is true, and I agree with you, that there is not a specific word against the institution of slavery as it existed at that time in the NT (there hardly seemed to be a rebellion-movement against that form, at least as I am aware, in the ancient world, and slaves seemed to have accepted their condition with resignation and to have yet excelled in many areas).

The anti-slavery movement arose out of Christian philosophy and ethics as these progressed. Please correct me if you see it differently. (Also do you mind much if I call you Wee Willy? It is with affection of course).

[attofishpi]

My willy wees.

[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.

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.

If something is wrong, it is not ad hominem to point it out. if someone can see no objective reason they should not use coercive force against others, I regard that as a mental defect. You don't have to agree with that. I certainly don't expect you to, or care whether you do. You have to live with yourself, I don't--thank God! (It's just an expression.)

If you cannot understand that human nature excludes being able to be fully satisfied as a human being living as a parasite or predator rather than a productive self-sufficiet individual, you can't. I'm sorry for you.

[RCSaunders]

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 reason why I feel that what you state is incomplete is because 1) in the so-called natural world creatures have no compunction about using other creatures totally and utterly against their will. There is no 'psychology' is nature but what you actually mean is I think something different. You mean conscience. So the person you refer to has to be aware of a psychological flaw but the necessary question is: And where does that come from?

There is absolutely no reason why many many humans may have no compunction whatever against using other humans "against that other human being's will for [their] own gain or pleasure". To say something different is to see this world through an idealistic lens.

Again, in nature, where is the "fully competent, viable [----] being". I don't think that being exists. All beings are either parasite or predator or a combination thereof. And Nature does not think about any of this.

See, I read what you write and I have to say "Your ideas did not come out of a vacuum". It seems to me that whether you are aware of it your thinking can only be defined as Occidental and Christian. This is why I refer to all of us as *outcomes* of what has informed us.

I am intrigued by your assertion that a fully competent, viable human being exists. How did you arrive at even the sense that such is possible? not to say necessary, good and attainable?

Believe what you want. It does become a little tiresome when other's think they know my own thinking better than I do. I have no idea why so many people care that I do not (and never have) bought any of the collectivist anti-individual ideas that dominate the beliefs of most people. I certainly don't care if they believe they are not competent to live their lives totally by their own wits and work; if they believe that they are probably right.

Nevertheless, there are some that can never be satisfied with anything less than the best they are capable of achieving and being and would rather die than live a second-hand life dependent on others. It's something you'll never understand.

[Lacewing]

Movements that overturn what they define as 'old orders' and 'established hierarchies' involve themselves in modes of attack.

Christianity did this, right?

there are, always, ranges of motives that come to play their part. So, these things need to be carefully and judiciously gone through.

Have you done this in regard to the motives of Christianity?

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.

Right. So how can those of Christian belief do this? How can they disprove/invalidate themselves? Rather, mustn't they become even more distortedly embedded in a process/agenda of making up rationalizations for their beliefs?

Who can we rely on? And do we consider that 'balanced perspective' to have validity?

Well, it's certainly not valid to focus on only one section and path of humankind's lengthy history, is it?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Christianity did this, right?

What did Christianity do? Can you actually talk about what those early Christians did? Why they did it? Can you talk about what they opposed and took a stand against and why?

In relation to those I describe (very very generally) as 'destructive' and 'undermining' I notice that all I see in what they do is to undermine. I regard it as juvenile, largely. I see very little, if any, concomitant construction.

And as I have said -- in your case you only refer to something different, something better, but you never define it except very generally. I assume because it is all fuzzy for you.

But you are not alone! So many people are attracted to these actions and activities. Why?

Have you done this in regard to the motives of Christianity?

Well, unlike you I have spent years examining what Christianity is and was. So yes, I can actually talk coherently (within my scope) of what Christianity proposed and also why it took hold as an existential movement and ethics.

Right. So how can those of Christian belief do this? How can they disprove/invalidate themselves? Rather, mustn't they become even more distortedly embedded in a process/agenda of making up rationalizations for their beliefs?

By availing themselves of 'master metaphysicians', of course. So I would say that if you ever were able to get sufficiently outside of yourself, and you in my opinion cannot do this, you would be in a far better position to perform a comparative analysis. Not the hack-job some on this thread are enacting, but a thorough, responsible analysis that holds water (ie is not a leaking vessel).

Well, it's certainly not valid to focus on only one section and path of humankind's lengthy history, is it?

In your case you'd actually have to gain a real grounding in ideas, in history, to be able to make the broad and commanding statements you desire to make.

You have heard that a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step, right?

[Lacewing]

Christianity did this, right?

What did Christianity do?

'Overturned what they defined as 'old orders' and 'established hierarchies' -- which is what you are selectively applying only to those you want to invalidate. Overturning 'old orders' is what humankind does as it evolves and creates anew. Do you really deny that Christianity has done this? Do you have to make a big argument of 25 paragraphs to answer or evade a simple and obvious question?

There will always be those who think evolution or change is for better or worse. If you want to offer a truly unbiased perspective, you should be able to challenge the same issues, accusations, and glorifications for all sides... rather than in a way that suits your biased arguments.

how can those of Christian belief do this?

By availing themselves of 'master metaphysicians', of course.

Ah yes, those who support their argument -- while disregarding all those who don't. Very clever, and not at all transparent.

So I would say that if you ever were able to get sufficiently outside of yourself, and you in my opinion cannot do this, you would be in a far better position to perform a comparative analysis.

That's exactly what I think about you!

Well, it's certainly not valid to focus on only one section and path of humankind's lengthy history, is it?

In your case you'd actually have to gain a real grounding in ideas, in history, to be able to make the broad and commanding statements you desire to make.

I do just fine. I don't need to be like you, nor believe and speak the way you do.

Awareness and truth are much more diverse than you are.

[Immanuel Can]

If something is wrong, it is not ad hominem to point it out.

Of course not. But it is always ad hominem to accuse people of mental illness simply because they have the temerity to ask you a question.

You don't know what they really think. What you know is that they are asking you to justify what YOU think. And to go ad hominem instead of responding is not relevant to giving evidence that you have good reasons.

It's also a little silly and a little transparent to do that: it strongly suggests that the speaker hasn't got a real answer, one based on reasons and evidence. For otherwise, he'd have referred to them, instead.

So, if you can bring yourself to do it, let's drop the spurious deflections about "mental illness" and deal directly with the question.

How do you justify your claim that slavery is wrong?

[Sculptor]

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

That is called choice.

What alternative choices do these people have?

They can choose to not take a out a mortgage or have children.
They could even choose inssurection against the state and install a egalitarian republic.

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.

The sad irony of many black slaves at the end of the American Civil war is that they were turned over to share croppers. Without land ownership they were forced to pay rent of their homes (such as they were) and had to pay a share of their crop to their old masters.
But not being slaves meant that many of them took to the highway northwards.

In ancient Rome many slaves became more wealthy than their owners and were encouraged to buy their manumisson. However the vast majority of slaves in the ancient world had short lives dying in lead/silver mines or chained to the oars of a bireme.

[Alexis Jacobi]

There will always be those who think evolution or change is for better or worse. If you want to offer a truly unbiased perspective, you should be able to challenge the same issues, accusations, and glorifications for all sides... rather than in a way that suits your biased arguments.

Here you are, again, making a theoretical recommendation.

What you are indicating here, when decoded, is that you cannot distinguish what is creative and destructive and better and worse. You put them all on the same plane. But to make assessments and decisions requires real backgrounding.

You also imply that we do not have ways and means to make accurate and coherent assessments about what is creative and what is destructive. And my sense about you is that you live within intellectual fuzz.

You use a formulaic mold of argument. You seem to do this because you have found that you can. You avail yourself of it and then situate yourself in the center of a controversy which you do not know enough about. You certainly cannot resolve it. In fact you have not entered the domain of argument. Ultimately, I do not think you really care enough one way or another.

You also imply that I do not know enough, or have not examined enough, the 'other side of the argument' -- and here you are wrong. Anyone who has read Nietzsche (and you surely have not) and read even superficially those commentators who take stances against Christian belief (you do not seem to have read anyone nor you do not seem to read) knows the other side of the coin.

I do not get the impression that you really do. Your argumentation is shallow. You have one post [one message] that you repeat time and again.

[Sculptor]

What did Christianity do?
'Overturned what they defined as 'old orders' and 'established hierarchies' -- which is what you are selectively applying only to those you want to invalidate. Overturning 'old orders' is what humankind does as it evolves and creates anew. Do you really deny that Christianity has done this? Do you have to make a big argument of 25 paragraphs to answer or evade a simple and obvious question?

Christianity did not overthrow any old orders. far from it. It simply insinuated its way into the existing heirarchies.
And the Old Order continued.
The only visible difference is that instead of throwing christians to the lions they did so to pagans.

[Lacewing]

What you are indicating here, when decoded, is that you cannot distinguish what is creative and destructive and better and worse.

In regard to what exactly?

But to make assessments and decisions requires real backgrounding.

More importantly, it requires awareness... not contrived, self-serving arguments.

my sense about you is that you live within intellectual fuzz.

No, you do.

You use a formulaic mold of argument.

Questioning absurdity? Do you see absurdities in what people believe? Do you always need to write an essay about it, citing supposed authorities, to call it what it is? You're wasting time and energy... and much of it is focused on proving yourself right.

Ultimately, I do not think you really care enough one way or another.

Of course, I care. But I don't take it all as seriously as you seem to, and I'm having fun.

In all of your volumes, what do you imagine you have resolved?

You also imply that I do not know enough, or have not examined enough, the 'other side of the argument'

I'm suggesting that your claims of 'errors/downfalls' can be used to challenge your own preferred notions. All you would have to do is answer when asked -- but you skip over it to claim I'm not presenting a proper argument.

Your argumentation is shallow. You have one post [one message] that you repeat time and again.

That claim reveals your shallowness.