Why is slavery wrong?

[Veritas Aequitas]

No normal person [the majority] at present in modern times would accept these justifications.

Apparently, some do. If nobody did, slavery would not exist. But as it is, it's more widespread than at any time in history.

But even if the majority all thought that was true, that would indicate nothing about the rightness or wrongness of the belief in question. At one time, all the people in the world -- the total majority, therefore -- agreed that the Earth is flat. Did that make it flat?

You are really blinded by confirmation bias and thus blind to the following;

While some form of slavery was common throughout human history, the specific notion of chattel slavery described above reached its modern extreme in the Americas.[18]
Beginning in the 18th century an abolitionist movement saw slavery as a violation of everyone's right as a person ("all men are created equal"), and sought to abolish it.
This movement was successful; the last Western country to abolish slavery, Brazil, did so in 1888.[19]
The last third-world country to abolish slavery, Mauritania, did not do so until 1981
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Chattel_slavery

The above implied Slavery [chattel re my point] is legally wrong in all sovereign nations around the world.
If you don't agree you can start a business to sell and trade chattel slaves in any country in the world to test the claim 'slavery is NOT morally wrong'.
Show me your proofs or where there are countries that legally approve chattel slavery?
If you cannot, then the current legal state of chattel slavery conclude that 'Slavery is wrong' legally. QED!

On the question on why the Slavery is morally wrong, I have already given you various explanations.

Btw, there is no way you can even prove slavery is theistically* wrong. * Grounded on an illusory God anyway!
Note,
How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery
https://time.com/5171819/christianity-s ... k-excerpt/

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a paper [I've read] justifying 'Why Slavery is Wrong' from the utilitarian perspective.
I agree with most of it but I believe it is insufficient.

What is Wrong with Slavery
R. M. Hare
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2264930

Utilitarianism therefore, unlike some other theories, is exposed to the facts.
The utilitarian cannot reason a priori that whatever the facts about the world and human nature, slavery is wrong.
He has to show that it is wrong by showing, through a study of history and other factual observation, that slavery does have the effects (namely the production of misery) which make it wrong.
This, though it may at first sight appear a weakness in the doctrine, is in fact its strength.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why is Slavery Wrong?

Slavery can broadly be described as the ownership, buying and selling of human beings for the purpose of forced and unpaid labour.

Slavery is one of the things that everyone agrees is unethical. In fact there is such general agreement that most people would probably say that 'slavery is wrong just because it's wrong'.

Even those who practice slavery don't usually try to defend it - they make excuses or attempt to avoid being caught; which suggests that they know that they are doing wrong.

Why is slavery wrong?
Although slavery does seem 'obviously wrong' it's worth listing some of the reasons why it's wrong.

Slavery increases total human unhappiness
The slave-owner treats the slaves as the means to achieve the slave-owner's ends, not as an end in themselves

Slavery exploits and degrades human beings

Slavery violates human rights: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly forbids slavery and many of the practices associated with slavery

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 1, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 3, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms
Article 4, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Slavery uses force or the threat of force on other human beings

Slavery leaves a legacy of discrimination and disadvantage

Slavery is both the result and the fuel of racism, in that many cultures show clear racism in their choice of people to enslave

Slavery is both the result and the fuel of gender discrimination

Slavery perpetuates the abuse of children

[uwot]

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.

Indeed. The whole forum is trembling. Well done for making it to the second book of the bible. Frankly, that's as far as most people get. All you can take from Exodus is that god acknowledges slavery is personally undesirable. If that same god later tells you what to do with your own slaves, he clearly has nothing against the institution. As you say:

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.

Isn't it funny how parochial religions are?

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).

You clearly haven't heard of Kirk Douglas. Slavery was a risk as much as slaves were booty of war. In this people seem to have accepted the Golden Rule.

The anti-slavery movement arose out of Christian philosophy and ethics as these progressed. Please correct me if you see it differently.

While no doubt there have always been those whose moral values inhibit slavery, the abolitionist movement took hold where and when the industrial revolution was most advanced. Cross that with population growth and even paid workers were becoming obsolete. Britain at the time could easily afford the moral high ground against its upstart former colony whose economy depended on cotton for the mills the Luddites hoped to smash.

(Also do you mind much if I call you Wee Willy? It is with affection of course).

Aw Gus, you know I don't give a fuck what you think.

[uwot]

...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.

Can you put a cardigan on a baked bean? I feel sure Mr Can wears a cardigan.

[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.

Can you put a cardigan on a baked bean? I feel sure Mr Can wears a cardigan.

Ooo noo, I sometimes wear a cardigan in winter - shit it gets as cold as 15C here in winter. The blokes at my previous previous job used to have a larf about it. I really like 8 out of 10 cats does countdown - Jon or John I think his name is proudly wears a cardigan.

So.

..um cardigans are cool.

[attofishpi]

No normal person [the majority] at present in modern times would accept...

By 'normal' people, are you talking about the mass majority of simple folk. The ones that spend their evening sat on a couch eating fast food and watching the next 'greatest idol' or 'big brother' or 'I am a celebrity get me out of here' etc..etc.. etc...

When does this 'normal' majority of people become something that is worthy of being anything more than JUST paid slaves? They have no interest in furthering their knowledge, they more often than not don't provide the best by way of education for their offspring, in fact - much of their offspring end up with other relatives and foster care, since they find sexual partners around the corner.

Quite simply - THE MASS MAJORITY - what you deem as NORMAL people are borderline trash since they don't educate themselves to better there offspring - they are too busy with their delinquent habits, and so the cycle continues.

Summed up by So What? - highlighted in red.

So What? Ministry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85cTaoohLtY

Your'e in, there is a war on.

..still believe you, kill "philosophy"..


You've became a...risk
..risk
..risk
..risk
..risk
..kill "philosophy"
..assassin


(This thrill-seeking became the one great thing in your life, piling on thrill on another until... the murder. Kill for the love of killing.)
(kill philosophy)
Kill for a thrill. The thrill-seeker comes from all walks of life... comes from the home... the home where the parents are too busy to train their children respect..
..respect
..respect
..respect
..respect
..respect
..respect
..respect
..respect
..respect
..respect
..respect



(¡Qué! ¡Qué! ¡Qué! ¡Qué!)
Scum sucking depravity debauched!
Anal fuck-fest, thrill Olympics
Savage, scourge, supply and sanctify
So what? (So what?) So what? (So what?)
So what? (So what?) So what? (So what?)
(¡Qué! ¡Qué! ¡Qué! ¡Qué!)

(Thrill-seeker. Kill "philosophy")
(Assassin)
(Assassin)
(Assassin)
(Assassin)
(Assassin)
(Kill me.)
(Assassin)
(¡Qué! ¡Qué! ¡Qué! ¡Qué!)
You said it!
Sedatives supplied become laxatives
My eyes shit out lies
I only kill to know I'm alive
So what? (So what?) So what? (So what?)
So what? (So what?) So what? (So what?)
(¡Qué! ¡Qué! ¡Qué! ¡Qué!)

..risk
..kill "philosophy".


(Kill for a thrill.)
(Assassin)
(Some people think newspapers exaggarate juvenile crime, or that it's confined mostly to large cities. Juvenile deliquencies on the rise... thus apparent something has gone wrong with the environment. Adults create the world children live in. Juvenile delinquency is always rooted in adult delinquency, and in this process parents play the key role. When children grow up among adults who refuse to recognize anything that is fine or good or worthy of respect...)
..respect
..respect
..respect
..respect
..respect

(¡Qué! ¡Qué! ¡Qué! ¡Qué!)
So what, it's your problem to learn to live with
Destroy us, or make us saints
We don't care, it's not our fault that we were born too late
A screaming headache on the brow of the state
Killing time is appropriate
To make a mess and fuck all the rest, we say, we say
So what? (So what?) So what? (So what?)
So what? (So what?) So what?
(¡Qué!)

..respect
..respect
..respect

Kill "philosophy".
(Assassin, assassin)
(Assassin, assassin)
(Assassin, assassin)
(Assassin)
(Kill "philosophy".)
(Kill me.)
(Assassin)
(Kill me.)
(Kill.)
(Assassin)
(Kill me.)
(Kill.)
(Assassin)
(Kill me.)
(Kill.)
(Assassin)
(Kill "philosophy".)
(Kill me.)

Now I know what is right!!!!
I'll kill them all if I like!!!!
I'm a timebomb inside!!!!

No one listens to reason

It's too late and I'm ready to fight!!!!
(So what?) (So what?) I'm ready to fight!
(So what?) (So what?) I'm ready to fight!
(So what?) (So what?) I'm ready to fight!
(So what?) (So what?) I'm ready to fight!
(So what?) (So what?) I'm ready to fight!
(So what?) (So what?) I'm ready to fight!
(So what?) (So what?) I'm ready to fight!
(So what?) (So what?) I'm ready to fight!

[Lacewing]

Where I notice 'absurdities' (your word and sense here) is related to a different problem. It is the loss of capability to define *what is real* in the metaphysical sense. My thesis, and the core idea I work with, has to do with what happens to a person and to a people when they lose the capability of defining that.

So, your story is that people have 'lost the capability' of defining in the way that you do, and there is nothing else useful that could be at work that you don't understand.

I can discern evidence in what you write that clues me in to what I call a 'general condition'. I see that general condition as a state of loss, of lack, of non-relationship to both the metaphysic and also to *our paideia*. You present me with a case of postmodern quagmire (perhaps for want of a better word).

Ah, so you see evidence where you expect to, and that helps to reinforce the limits of your viewpoint.

That you ridicule authority is a sign that you are associated with modern trends

No one has ridiculed authority throughout history?

(I referred often to Robert Bork's book Slouching Toward Gomorrah) and to irresponsible and impetuous tendencies to break off relationship with the higher orders of ideas. People have worked their whole life in gaining entrance to these understandings. That is what *authority* is about, defining and defending (and explaining) that territory.

I have acknowledged the value and truth I see, but I see value and truth elsewhere too. I do not explain it in terms that suit you, but you are clearly fixated on things being a certain way.

What is absurd, in a way, is that you keep vocalizing an empty platform.

There is no platform -- it's not that there's something empty. Maybe what is absurd is that you need a platform, else you cannot make sense of anything.

But not taking seriously those things that really must be taken seriously -- that is a mistake.

And you think that you are doing that, and others should do likewise.

Now that has been proven historically. It is part of all wisdom-traditions. Children are often incapable of taking seriously what must be taken seriously. And the same is true for children who will not grow up when they become adults.

How about adults who are wrapped up in make-believe? Have they grown up? Are we to take seriously what they claim is serious? You know, there are a lot of ways to look at this. And your way is not some kind of achievement we must all seek.

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

Do you mean what I believe myself to be resolving for myself?

No, what have you concluded about truth and reality that most of us can agree on? You claim to have the right knowledge and the right methodology for communicating it, yet it is not common to find specific agreement, is it? So, is that everyone else's failure, or might the Universe work in more ways than you do?

I do not deny that there are elements of truth in the issues you point out (as I've said), but it is your tunnel-vision focus and your projections that are demonstrating your limitations.

I am paying attention to what is going on all around us in our present. And the degree to which we lose a capacity to see and understand what is going on

So are a lot of other people who have different perspectives and come to different conclusions.

If one is not working through ideas and gaining better understanding and greater clarity, what is the use? Ideas are communicated between people who feel a vital need for clarity. There must be a hearer though. And a seer.

We have different languages. Just because someone doesn't do it just like you, does not mean that they are not seeing and hearing. In my community, we have shared understandings and we talk about what we are perceiving and how we are responding. There is a lot going on, on all sorts of 'levels'. It seems most reasonable to me that it must be seen and understood from a diverse range of perspectives. Anyone who claims that it must be seen as they see it, is wrong.

I have to resolve ideas when I am face-to-face with you. You set me to work in that sense. Because you are in a really strange place (and you do not seem to grasp this nor to care).

It is not strange for those who understand it. It is totally natural and it works well! I can see that it is unfathomable to some people -- I'm just surprised that so many of them are on this philosophy forum, where I anticipated more open minds than religious ones.

[Lacewing]

Most concepts fly over Lacewings head, but she's always ready and willing to misquote so that whatever you have to say is completely out of context,

Please list this bounty of concepts and where I've misquoted, or else acknowledge that you are ready and willing to be a liar.

and is one of those atheists that think they have the right to go around spouting everyone that has a degree of faith are delusional.

It's not that people who have a degree of faith are delusional, it's that their own words and inconsistencies may betray some as delusional...especially when they use their theism to make absurd 'knowing' claims that apply to others. Then they act like holy victims when someone points it out.

From my experience Lacewing attempts to be a militant style atheist (especially with respect to Christianity, but simply doesn't have the intellectual capacity to even comprehend what having a rational debate on a philosophy forum entails).

Militant? Intellectual capacity and rational debate according to you?

..and it's all rather strange since she considers herself an atheist, yet speaks of her spiritualism

It's not strange at all, Atto. I don't believe in a god, but I see everything as spiritual.

To consider such a thing, and then attack other people that consider such things as being from the divine as delusional fantasists is rather disgusting in my opinion.

Are you forgetting the disgusting and delusional extremes you have gone to on this forum? That is what has inspired my responses. Let's not pretend it's about your 'faith'. We are all spiritual beings, and I confront those (one to another) who present themselves as uniquely informed.

[Lacewing]

From my experience Lacewing attempts to be a militant style atheist (especially with respect to Christianity, but simply doesn't have the intellectual capacity to even comprehend what having a rational debate on a philosophy forum entails).

Now, now . . . No need to be so rash . . .

I'd rather have a rash than to ever have to bother with LW again.

It wouldn't be surprising.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So, your story is that people have 'lost the capability' of defining in the way that you do, and there is nothing else useful that could be at work that you don't understand.

You are asserting a pure theoretical once again.

I would not say necessarily as I do, in a strict personal sense, and as you know I refer to European paideia as our patrimony. Sorry to keep repeating that word. If you understood what was referred to, you'd be in a better position to understand what my assertion is and also why I lay stress on it. It is a truer fact that I am not so much stressing a strict religious viewpoint as I am trying to define a larger field of *essential concerns*. But in no sense do I deny the extreme relevance of Christian idealism -- but i think you have picked this up.

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. This is my thesis. All that I can suggest is that you take it or leave it. But if you *take it* you would have to make a genuine effort to understand it.

I feel we have got to this point. And I gather you know who I think the *victor* is!

[RCSaunders]

... what are you doing on this thread?

Answering the question the OP asked.

Not yet, you haven't. You've just repeatedly tried to insult anybody who even asked the question. But you've done zippo to answer it.

The problem is your misunderstanding of what, "wrong," means. Nothing is just, "wrong." There is no intrinsic or inherent right or wrong. Before one can answer the question of whether something is right or wrong, you have identify right or wrong for what?

When I say something is wrong, in an ethical sense, I mean wrong as a guiding principle for human chosen behavior with an individual's successful enjoyment of his own life as the objective. That principle is determined by the requirements of one's own nature as a human being.

Nothing is right or wrong if there is no objective or purpose to be achieved or fulfilled. Nothing matters if there is nothing at stake. You never identify what purpose, objective, or goal your so-called, "moral values," pertain to. It is obviously not the successful life of individual human beings in this world. It's why you cannot say why slavery is wrong. Individual human life apparently has no value for you on its own.

To make my view clear, for anyone who chooses their own life and living it as well as possible for his own enjoyment and success as a human being, slavery is wrong because it will make his own successful life impossible reducing him to something less than human--a predator or parasite, (as already explained here).

You may not like that answer. Collectivists and religionists usually don't like it, because they like to place the objective of human values outside the life of the individual, in, "society," or, "God," or, "nature," for example. For those who believe the ultimate purpose or objective of an individual's life is something other than the individual's own life, right and wrong will be determined by whatever they believe the purpose of one's life is, and will probably not be able to find anything wrong with slavery or any other form of oppression of individuals, so long as their view of the ultimate purpose of values (God, society, mankind, civilization, nature, or the future of humanity) is fulfilled. Any view that places values outside individual human beings ultimately justifies any atrocity perpetrated against individuals.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

[Immanuel Can]

Nothing is just, "wrong." There is no intrinsic or inherent right or wrong.

Then that's your answer.

Slavery is not, according to you, in any objective sense, "wrong." And people who enslave others are not "wrong." If it 'works' for some purpose they have, it's just fine: is that your position?

[RCSaunders]

Nothing is just, "wrong." There is no intrinsic or inherent right or wrong.

Then that's your answer.

Slavery is not, according to you, in any objective sense, "wrong." And people who enslave others are not "wrong." If it 'works' for some purpose they have, it's just fine: is that your position?

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.

If I quoted you, "people who enslave others are not wrong," and asked if that was you position it would be exactly what you are doing. You know my answer is that there is, "right," and, "wrong," because there is an objective purpose which determines what is right and wrong.

Please do not respond with any more of your dishonest lies. I don't care if you lie about me, but I do care that others might be deceived by your lies and I just refuse to be part of that.