The UN Declaration on Slavery is an Absolute Moral Law

[TheVisionofEr]

"'Ought' from 'Is' is Possible

Agree?"

The point of the distinction in Hume is somewhat obscure. However, under the most powerful legible meaning of the distinction I disagree (so far as I remain thinking under that distinction). Is is causal, ought is subjective. The causal raises its head at the invisible and non-existing gate of the inner being of each of us. A sound from the street of a car whirring by reaches the boarder and passes into introspection. If this boarder is understood as a passage into the ear and towards the brain, the is is totalized and the ought rashly ceases to have a meaning.

Whereas is is said with respect to causal relation, and ought is said with respect to evaluation. Is is observation of external nature or objective in the connected sense of experimental facts. Ought is said with respect to the ethos and the gods, to the autonomous work of the "ego arbiter" as Cicero called it, or subjectivity as it is now understood most popularly.

The distinction is made in principle and a priori is not to be contradicted by any example including the one given. The condition of slavery might be given an objective or extrospective definition. Where, though, is the region of reality called "ought" to be found?

It's clear some people will say slavery ought not to be, and this is an empirical condition of those people linked to their neurons and so forth, but, where is the ought?

Ought might be understood as parallel to a modal analysis? Or, is it a general or universal category inclusive of all things?

[Sculptor]

I believe Article 4 on Slavery from the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) is an absolute moral law;

• Slavery in international law is governed by a number of treaties, conventions and declarations. Foremost among these is
  the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) that states in Article 4:
  “no one should be held in slavery or servitude, slavery in all of its forms should be eliminated.”
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_i ... tional_law

The above is an absolute moral law [an ought] as a guide only, i.e. not enforced.
This absolute moral law [ought/should] on slavery is abstracted from empirical experiences [is] of mankind.
Note absolute moral laws are never political based legislature laws.
Besides the UN is not God.

Note my related argument to support the above.
'Ought' from 'Is' is Possible

Agree?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245

No.
It's not absolute. It is simply normative.
There are not moral absolutes.

[Scott Mayers]

I believe Article 4 on Slavery from the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) is an absolute moral law;

• Slavery in international law is governed by a number of treaties, conventions and declarations. Foremost among these is
  the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) that states in Article 4:
  “no one should be held in slavery or servitude, slavery in all of its forms should be eliminated.”
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_i ... tional_law

The above is an absolute moral law [an ought] as a guide only, i.e. not enforced.
This absolute moral law [ought/should] on slavery is abstracted from empirical experiences [is] of mankind.
Note absolute moral laws are never political based legislature laws.
Besides the UN is not God.

Note my related argument to support the above.
'Ought' from 'Is' is Possible

Agree?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245

What would you call one without inheritance who requires any means to work to pay for rent? That is, is it not 'slavery' to force those without ownership to be required to be in service to others based upon supply and demand principles?

What about parents with children who both opt to work but hire a (baby)sitter or Nanny at relatively reduced pay?

The term 'slavery' often implies the older means of requiring employees to live at premises provided by the employer. This was done even up to WWII era and to some indirect means of those who work in remote locations, like mining, oil rigs, or the military. Basically, anyone required to work technically would be a 'slave' anywhere. Is nature itself unfairly enslaving us to any struggle to survive?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe Article 4 on Slavery from the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) is an absolute moral law;

• Slavery in international law is governed by a number of treaties, conventions and declarations. Foremost among these is
  the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) that states in Article 4:
  “no one should be held in slavery or servitude, slavery in all of its forms should be eliminated.”
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_i ... tional_law

The above is an absolute moral law [an ought] as a guide only, i.e. not enforced.
This absolute moral law [ought/should] on slavery is abstracted from empirical experiences [is] of mankind.
Note absolute moral laws are never political based legislature laws.
Besides the UN is not God.

Note my related argument to support the above.
'Ought' from 'Is' is Possible

Agree?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245

No.
It's not absolute. It is simply normative.
There are not moral absolutes.

There is no such thing as absolutely absolute - totally unconditional.
There is the claim of absolutely absolute moral laws but this is attributed to come from a God.
Since God is an impossibility to be real - there are no absolutely absolute moral laws.

Within the Philosophy, absolute moral laws within the framework of morality only [not others] is a possibility as justified via empirical evidences.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe Article 4 on Slavery from the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) is an absolute moral law;

• Slavery in international law is governed by a number of treaties, conventions and declarations. Foremost among these is
  the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) that states in Article 4:
  “no one should be held in slavery or servitude, slavery in all of its forms should be eliminated.”
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_i ... tional_law

The above is an absolute moral law [an ought] as a guide only, i.e. not enforced.
This absolute moral law [ought/should] on slavery is abstracted from empirical experiences [is] of mankind.
Note absolute moral laws are never political based legislature laws.
Besides the UN is not God.

Note my related argument to support the above.
'Ought' from 'Is' is Possible

Agree?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245

What would you call one without inheritance who requires any means to work to pay for rent? That is, is it not 'slavery' to force those without ownership to be required to be in service to others based upon supply and demand principles?

What about parents with children who both opt to work but hire a (baby)sitter or Nanny at relatively reduced pay?

The term 'slavery' often implies the older means of requiring employees to live at premises provided by the employer. This was done even up to WWII era and to some indirect means of those who work in remote locations, like mining, oil rigs, or the military. Basically, anyone required to work technically would be a 'slave' anywhere. Is nature itself unfairly enslaving us to any struggle to survive?

Slavery is a very loose term.

In this UN case, the reference to 'slavery' is 'Chattel Slavery', where one human is 'owned' by another as a chattel which can be traded and is deprived of all basic human rights.

[Scott Mayers]

Slavery is a very loose term.

In this UN case, the reference to 'slavery' is 'Chattel Slavery', where one human is 'owned' by another as a chattel which can be traded and is deprived of all basic human rights.

Yes, slavery is a very loose term. That is my point.

Your more precise definition is still not any more clear. If one is born without inheritance and require to earn their living in our mostly capitalistic world, many people are enslaved no different than 'chattel'. The terms are just altered in self-deception or ill intent to hide this.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Slavery is a very loose term.

In this UN case, the reference to 'slavery' is 'Chattel Slavery', where one human is 'owned' by another as a chattel which can be traded and is deprived of all basic human rights.

Yes, slavery is a very loose term. That is my point.

Your more precise definition is still not any more clear. If one is born without inheritance and require to earn their living in our mostly capitalistic world, many people are enslaved no different than 'chattel'. The terms are just altered in self-deception or ill intent to hide this.

Why are you so suspicious of any 'bad' intention on my part?
Let's not get into ad hominen.

Note this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
Note Chattel Slavery therein.

[Scott Mayers]

Your intent has not even crossed my mind. It just appears that you are propping up the idea against slavery when the concept itself is fuzzy. No one asserts nor believes in supporting 'slaves'. When any group asserts these kind of ideals as inbred in humanity, they are biased in some way without recognizing it. I definitely don't see how any morality is absolute to Nature itself.

The Confederates of the American South, for instance, interpreted their system of keeping 'slaves' is to be interpreted as merely providing workers who happen to be of the Black Africans, employment. They were blind to their racism because they believed that the 'right' to own lands itself justifies the authority of those in thier domain and believed that given the ease of subjugation was representative of the LACK of 'willingness' as something genetically linked. That the people were chained and sold is indifferent than today's expectation to pay some people less than others for their labor. Many who have things still presume that the poor are poor because they just don't WANT to succeed. And that the effect of large pluralities of some racial identity is linked to impoverishment is itself coincidental.

It is 'coincidental' but gets more racist when one side (leftwingers) presumes the identity of some particular group's "culture" is as essentially genetic in a 'good' way, where the opposite (the right) believes it is 'bad'. Either extreme is missing the logic that one's IDENTITY in some genetic way is not associated to one's CULTURE, but almost always holds the strings of power by the majority on all political sides.

[Scott Mayers]

(con't from last post)

From,

Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property.[1] A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration. Many scholars now use the term chattel slavery to refer to this specific sense of legalized, de jure slavery. In a broader sense, however, the word slavery may also refer to any situation in which an individual is de facto forced to work against their own will. Scholars also use the more generic terms such as unfree labour or forced labour to refer to such situations.[2] However, and especially under slavery in broader senses of the word, slaves may have some rights and protections according to laws or customs.

Slavery existed in many cultures, dating back to early human civilizations.[3] A person could become enslaved from the time of their birth, capture, or purchase.

The latter point that slavery was accepted in past cultures was more due to a belief that BOTH one's parent's good AND their bad behaviors are passed on rightfully to their children (heritage/inheritance). Today, many think that it is appropriate to inherit positive behaviors of their parents/ancestors but inappropriate to inherit the negative ones. THIS is the contradiciton and why I think "slavery" as a term is relative to what some people think is only the negative entrapments of their own 'kind', whatever that kind might mean.

[Scott Mayers]

Example: Here in Canada, many in power believe that any form of prostitution is 'slavery of the genetic class, women'. As such, when they point to normal voluntary cases of prostitution, they assert this as "Sex Trafficking".

This assumes both that the genetic class 'women' are enslaved and that some outsider class, here by implication, 'men as a genetic class' or, ...to excuse why women are also "pimps", "the Patriarchy" as some culture imposed upon those women who behave in kind to men.

The coincidental fact that women are the vast majority of prostitutes seem to make prostitution as an occupation as something ABOUT 'culture OF specific SEXUAL orientation'. Women as a class by those against this 'culture' think that the act of prostitutions is a FALSE negative stereotype of women's preference and that a TRUE positive stereotype of women that should be noticed in fairness is that these people are 'victims'.

That this example CAN be abusive and involve slavery (as "Sex Trafficking") is not about one's sexual genetic associations but to how the demand of men to be prostitutes is LESS successful because it is not a popular demand by women as much as by men on average.

Example: Many "Aboriginals" in every country around the world can be thought of as 'enslaved' as a genetic class. Many believe that the cause is related to racism. But the contemporary statistical reality that biases them genetically as a class is coincidental in that there will always be some plurality that has a stronger representation of economic bias simply because people believe it a natural 'right' to pass on economic inheritance in favor or their own families, and extended relations. While racism does occur, the suggested 'fix' for this by those thinking this class is being discriminated on inappropriately by some negative stereotype falsely presumes that society just needs to present them as having positive stereotypes instead.

The Aboriginals who embrace this idea then 'trap' (enslave) their own into conforming to the presumed 'positive' culture while many of the non-Aboriginals then believe that they are enslaving themselves for the negative stereotypes as confirmed by the reparations. Then these non-Aboriginals feel 'enslaved' to any tax burdens that are granted to enlighting the Aboriginal 'culture'.

If we could just notice that the past presumed that we inherit BOTH the good and bad behaviors of our ancestry, then we might be able to start focusing on looking at the real issue causing the logical class, the POOR, to be 'enslaved' by economic beliefs about the 'positive' beliefs of economic inheritance that those on top get but get to pass debt upon the general population unnoticed. The actual 'cause' of poverty then can be seen to be about how the wealthier believe it is not faulty to pass on inheritance to their children without limits.


The first example is a faulty presumption that the slavery of the genetic class, women is due to the culture of prostitution. For those who may not be able to get voluntary sexual encounters by women may falsely assume that the slavery of the genetic class, homley men, is due to the culture of Religious people's bias to paying for sexual services.

The second example is a faulty presumption that the slavery of the genetic class, aboriginals is due to the culture of colonialism by Europeans. Also for this one, there is a counter faulty assumption that the slavery (via burdening taxes) of the genetic class, owners, is due to the culture of laziness by aboriginals spoiled by social assistant projects

[Veritas Aequitas]

(con't from last post)

From,

Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property.[1]
A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration.
Many scholars now use the term chattel slavery to refer to this specific sense of legalized, de jure slavery.

In a broader sense, however, the word slavery may also refer to any situation in which an individual is de facto forced to work against their own will. Scholars also use the more generic terms such as unfree labour or forced labour to refer to such situations.[2] However, and especially under slavery in broader senses of the word, slaves may have some rights and protections according to laws or customs.

Slavery existed in many cultures, dating back to early human civilizations.[3] A person could become enslaved from the time of their birth, capture, or purchase.

The latter point that slavery was accepted in past cultures was more due to a belief that BOTH one's parent's good AND their bad behaviors are passed on rightfully to their children (heritage/inheritance). Today, many think that it is appropriate to inherit positive behaviors of their parents/ancestors but inappropriate to inherit the negative ones. THIS is the contradiciton and why I think "slavery" as a term is relative to what some people think is only the negative entrapments of their own 'kind', whatever that kind might mean.

Note I highlighted what I meant by 'slavery.'
It is ridiculous to state 'slavery is absolute wrong' without any specific definition of what we meant by 'slavery'.
Thus my reference to 'chattel slavery'.
This is the critical basis to establish the absolute moral law, i.e "Slavery is absolutely wrong" where 'slavery' in this case refer specifically to 'chattel slavery'.

Once we have justified and grounded on an absolute moral law of 'slavery' we can then work on other forms of slavery, i.e. to define them precisely and established they are wrong in relation to the ultimate moral absolute law on slavery.

From there we can established 'chattel slavery' and all forms of slavery as defined are absolutely wrong.

It is from the absolute moral laws on slavery as a fixed guiding post that humanity can put ethics of slavery into practice or adapted by politics to work on.
Without an absolute moral law of slavery to strive towards, there is no target, no basis and no effective approaches for improvements toward the abolishment of all forms of slavery [as defined] in time.
The approaches will include the cultivation and improvement of mirror neurons and other neural connectivity to trigger ALL humans to be naturally adverse to slavery [as defined].

[Scott Mayers]

(con't from last post)

From,

Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property.[1]
A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration.
Many scholars now use the term chattel slavery to refer to this specific sense of legalized, de jure slavery.

In a broader sense, however, the word slavery may also refer to any situation in which an individual is de facto forced to work against their own will. Scholars also use the more generic terms such as unfree labour or forced labour to refer to such situations.[2] However, and especially under slavery in broader senses of the word, slaves may have some rights and protections according to laws or customs.

Slavery existed in many cultures, dating back to early human civilizations.[3] A person could become enslaved from the time of their birth, capture, or purchase.

The latter point that slavery was accepted in past cultures was more due to a belief that BOTH one's parent's good AND their bad behaviors are passed on rightfully to their children (heritage/inheritance). Today, many think that it is appropriate to inherit positive behaviors of their parents/ancestors but inappropriate to inherit the negative ones. THIS is the contradiciton and why I think "slavery" as a term is relative to what some people think is only the negative entrapments of their own 'kind', whatever that kind might mean.

Note I highlighted what I meant by 'slavery.'
It is ridiculous to state 'slavery is absolute wrong' without any specific definition of what we meant by 'slavery'.
Thus my reference to 'chattel slavery'.
This is the critical basis to establish the absolute moral law, i.e "Slavery is absolutely wro..are absolutely wrong.

It is from the absolute moral laws on slavery as a fixed guiding post that humanity can put ethics of slavery into practice or adapted by politics to work on.
Without an absolute moral law of slavery to strive towards, there is no target, no basis and no effective approaches for improvements toward the abolishment of all forms of slavery [as defined] in time.
The approaches will include the cultivation and improvement of mirror neurons and other neural connectivity to trigger ALL humans to be naturally adverse to slavery [as defined].

Sure. I understand your sentiment.

I disagree with 'universal' morality as existing or shared among all people. The term, 'slavery', itself is a derogatory word implying that it exists, existed, or can be pointed to with clarity. Given the U.N. Declaration is made up by those who believe intrinsically in culturally biased definitions, it tends to presume some significance of this as some means to disclude some 'Nations' to play a role by some imposed authoritarian understanding of what slavery looks like....and thus is not 'universal'.

For instance, is Israel, as a member state, not itself enslaving the Palestinians by setting intentional settlements in clever ways to prevent the Palestinians and their Muslim religion from free movement, communications among them? Does Communist countries impose 'slavery' on its citizens when it creates laws that limit individual couples to have as many children as they deem fit of their own independent accord? Are "women" enslaved if they wear religious garb of a religion that defines women on cultural lines? Is prostitution 'slavery'?

Words such as "slavery" and "freedom" are too fuzzy and are relative to one's perspective. The U.N. is about GROUPS of people and often treat inclusion of the word, "Nation" to imply cultural signficance, such as when speaking about conserving "Aboriginal" interests, or treating the class, "women" or "men" as unified by some cultural identity shared in kind.

Nature itself doesn't care for what is "free" and is in fact dependent upon the necessity of "slavery" if one considers we enslave at least some other living being if only to survive. The best that a declaration of common moral interest can do is to speak in terms of RELATIVE agreements, like the classical "liberal" definition that defines optimal significance to the individual to have as much 'freedom' for each other as long as such freedom doesn't impose upon another of the same.

I prefer the words on morality to speak in relative terms rather than as absolutes. Otherwise, such declarations about "human rights" are bound to be defined in cultural classifications rather than logical ones.

[Veritas Aequitas]

(con't from last post)

From,
The latter point that slavery was accepted in past cultures was more due to a belief that BOTH one's parent's good AND their bad behaviors are passed on rightfully to their children (heritage/inheritance). Today, many think that it is appropriate to inherit positive behaviors of their parents/ancestors but inappropriate to inherit the negative ones. THIS is the contradiciton and why I think "slavery" as a term is relative to what some people think is only the negative entrapments of their own 'kind', whatever that kind might mean.

Note I highlighted what I meant by 'slavery.'
It is ridiculous to state 'slavery is absolute wrong' without any specific definition of what we meant by 'slavery'.
Thus my reference to 'chattel slavery'.
This is the critical basis to establish the absolute moral law, i.e "Slavery is absolutely wro..are absolutely wrong.

It is from the absolute moral laws on slavery as a fixed guiding post that humanity can put ethics of slavery into practice or adapted by politics to work on.
Without an absolute moral law of slavery to strive towards, there is no target, no basis and no effective approaches for improvements toward the abolishment of all forms of slavery [as defined] in time.
The approaches will include the cultivation and improvement of mirror neurons and other neural connectivity to trigger ALL humans to be naturally adverse to slavery [as defined].

Sure. I understand your sentiment.

I disagree with 'universal' morality as existing or shared among all people. The term, 'slavery', itself is a derogatory word implying that it exists, existed, or can be pointed to with clarity. Given the U.N. Declaration is made up by those who believe intrinsically in culturally biased definitions, it tends to presume some significance of this as some means to disclude some 'Nations' to play a role by some imposed authoritarian understanding of what slavery looks like....and thus is not 'universal'.

For instance, is Israel, as a member state, not itself enslaving the Palestinians by setting intentional settlements in clever ways to prevent the Palestinians and their Muslim religion from free movement, communications among them? Does Communist countries impose 'slavery' on its citizens when it creates laws that limit individual couples to have as many children as they deem fit of their own independent accord? Are "women" enslaved if they wear religious garb of a religion that defines women on cultural lines? Is prostitution 'slavery'?

Words such as "slavery" and "freedom" are too fuzzy and are relative to one's perspective. The U.N. is about GROUPS of people and often treat inclusion of the word, "Nation" to imply cultural signficance, such as when speaking about conserving "Aboriginal" interests, or treating the class, "women" or "men" as unified by some cultural identity shared in kind.

Nature itself doesn't care for what is "free" and is in fact dependent upon the necessity of "slavery" if one considers we enslave at least some other living being if only to survive. The best that a declaration of common moral interest can do is to speak in terms of RELATIVE agreements, like the classical "liberal" definition that defines optimal significance to the individual to have as much 'freedom' for each other as long as such freedom doesn't impose upon another of the same.

I prefer the words on morality to speak in relative terms rather than as absolutes. Otherwise, such declarations about "human rights" are bound to be defined in cultural classifications rather than logical ones.

When you prefer "relative" then you are playing with a moving goal post, i.e. moving all the time, especially when you are right on target, it moves away and you shoot blank.

If you understand the need for efficiency in problem solving, you will understand there is a need for something fixed to work with from the start.
In the case of morality we need to start with the highest possible good as a guide, as a guide only.
Then we rely on the highest good to work on practical ethics.

In the case of slavery, I have justified why 'slavery is absolute wrong' as a highest good to act as a guide to reduce all forms of slavery within humanity.

The test is whether adopting 'slavery is absolutely wrong' as an absolute moral law works or not.

Note the UN is not insisting 'slavery is wrong' as a moral law within any specified moral framework.

I claimed 'slavery is morally wrong' as an absolute moral law but it has to be embedded as a GUIDE in an efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics - not discussed here.

You seem to have a personal dislike for 'slavery is morally wrong' but have no basis, justifications nor hypothesis on how you would resolve the problem of slavery.

The best that a declaration of common moral interest can do is to speak in terms of RELATIVE agreements, like the classical "liberal" definition that defines optimal significance to the individual to have as much 'freedom' for each other as long as such freedom doesn't impose upon another of the same.

How can you measure what is optimal within relative agreements, where there are so many subjective views per person or per group.

As I had suggested we need to start with the highest or the ideal good as a guide and manage its gap from reality and the practical.

[Scott Mayers]

Sure. I understand your sentiment.

I disagree with 'universal' morality as existing or shared among all people. The term, 'slavery', itself is a derogatory word implying that it exists, existed, or can be pointed to with clarity. Given the U.N. Declaration is made up by those who believe intrinsically in culturally biased definitions, it tends to presume some significance of this as some means to disclude some 'Nations' to play a role by some imposed authoritarian understanding of what slavery looks like....and thus is not 'universal'.

For instance, is Israel, as a member state, not itself enslaving the Palestinians by setting intentional settlements in clever ways to prevent the Palestinians and their Muslim religion from free movement, communications among them? Does Communist countries impose 'slavery' on its citizens when it creates laws that limit individual couples to have as many children as they deem fit of their own independent accord? Are "women" enslaved if they wear religious garb of a religion that defines women on cultural lines? Is prostitution 'slavery'?

Words such as "slavery" and "freedom" are too fuzzy and are relative to one's perspective. The U.N. is about GROUPS of people and often treat inclusion of the word, "Nation" to imply cultural signficance, such as when speaking about conserving "Aboriginal" interests, or treating the class, "women" or "men" as unified by some cultural identity shared in kind.

Nature itself doesn't care for what is "free" and is in fact dependent upon the necessity of "slavery" if one considers we enslave at least some other living being if only to survive. The best that a declaration of common moral interest can do is to speak in terms of RELATIVE agreements, like the classical "liberal" definition that defines optimal significance to the individual to have as much 'freedom' for each other as long as such freedom doesn't impose upon another of the same.

I prefer the words on morality to speak in relative terms rather than as absolutes. Otherwise, such declarations about "human rights" are bound to be defined in cultural classifications rather than logical ones.

When you prefer "relative" then you are playing with a moving goal post, i.e. moving all the time, especially when you are right on target, it moves away and you shoot blank.

If you understand the need for efficiency in problem solving, you will understand there is a need for something fixed to work with from the start.
In the case of morality we need to start with the highest possible good as a guide, as a guide only.
Then we rely on the highest good to work on practical ethics.

In the case of slavery, I have justified why 'slavery is absolute wrong' as a highest good to act as a guide to reduce all forms of slavery within humanity.

The test is whether adopting 'slavery is absolutely wrong' as an absolute moral law works or not.

Note the UN is not insisting 'slavery is wrong' as a moral law within any specified moral framework.

I claimed 'slavery is morally wrong' as an absolute moral law but it has to be embedded as a GUIDE in an efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics - not discussed here.

You seem to have a personal dislike for 'slavery is morally wrong' but have no basis, justifications nor hypothesis on how you would resolve the problem of slavery.

I am first and foremost in distaste of the way culture is used to define what is or is not 'good'. And your own assumption of something 'universal' is logically reduced to, "No one should be permitted to accept bad behavior imposed upon themselves by others." This is no doubt agreeable but is still dependent upon what one means by 'bad behavior'. This is subjective and would only act as a 'preable' etiquette asserting the obvious but makes you question why it needs to be said at all.

It reminds me of how I once opted to fight a tresspassing fine in court and had to 'swear' to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". The only functioning means of this is for the sake of the judge (or potential jury) to learn of whether one is a 'good Christian' given we can either opt to swear on the bible or not. The act of choosing not to accept the ettiquette of using some magical spell that binds me to cooperation has a hidden agenda of more specificity than it appears to be on the surface of the act.

That morality IS relative by default of how you might interpret something as being 'absolutely good' begs the need for saying it at all. Since it IS relative regardless, asserting some preconditioning statements that require official interpretation of words that SEEM agreeable is just as suspect of some intentional agenda of interest. Then those who happen to get the power to be the ones declaring such statements get the precedence of intepreting what it actually means in practice by all potential newcomers.

It would be more sincere and safe to merely assert that nature has no moral preferences but that those of such a commitee are in hope of finding some minimal common grounds of appeal that is understood as 'tentative' and dependent upon some negotiating criteria of its members.

Note that the United States first amendment was designed by its founders in a way that spoke of 'freedom of speech' to assure that emotional censorship by those with absolute beliefs about morality don't take precedence in the making of laws. Their choice of wording to this was to exclude the power of law making to be in respect of any specific religion. A belief in any absolute moral is itself a form of religion in that old sense. Today, the evolved term for this is "culture". In essence, these are just any 'artificial" conceptions based upon one's emotional sense of pride.

Thus, the U.N. Declaration, as preferentially unbiased as you might think it is, it is biased to the Western ideals that include Capitalism as its founding principles and so interprets things like 'slavery' as being limited in ways that don't override it. I also think it is biased knowing that its particular Canadian author comes from a system that believes in intrinsic censorship by cultural terms. People aren't slaves because they are merely 'poor' but if they are poor AND belong to some heritage classification, whether that be something privileged to be passed on as a benefit in terms of economics or to something presumed to be genetically linked instead.

The best that a declaration of common moral interest can do is to speak in terms of RELATIVE agreements, like the classical "liberal" definition that defines optimal significance to the individual to have as much 'freedom' for each other as long as such freedom doesn't impose upon another of the same.

How can you measure what is optimal within relative agreements, where there are so many subjective views per person or per group.

As I had suggested we need to start with the highest or the ideal good as a guide and manage its gap from reality and the practical.

You define them tentatively within the actions of the convention without constitutionalizing anything. If the U.N. was sincere, shouldn't all countries be admitted by default, regardless of their differences of opinion about what is or is not 'moral'? The mere dismissal of certain member countries suffice to prove that some bias exists that makes those who first create the organization and define its constitution as hiding some secret agenda.

If this is not merely about the U.N., then such statements don't constitute anything external to some pre-designated idea of what 'slavery' means.

May I also point out something about the Judao-Christian book of Genesis that actually derived a similar meaning without religious connotations in its origin? When "God" created the Earth, the Heavens, and each set of distinct things as a prequel to reality, it keeps saying at the end of each 'creation' that he saw that it was "good'. Now I believe the originators were likely being inclusive an secular. Thus "God" would actually be interpreted something like, "the Source" or "Nature". The added 'good' to each statement was constituting that the people DID believe in some common idea of Nature as being biased in favor of something understood to be ONLY 'good'. But it begged why this needed to be stated unless they had some alternate belief and motive of expected compliance that others thought differently about any moral virtue of Nature as being.

And though the original meaning of 'good' in that document (which is where the evolved word, "God", comes from later) seemed universal, it actually went against those who believed in a prior diestic*, dual, 'two' or more sided moral source of humanity, interpretating that morality was merely 'relative' and people had to negotiate what it means in context to specific contracts and laws.

* Diest == Theist but was pronounced differently. Oddly, the term "theist" now refers to a human-centric being or essence that defines even the monotheistic 'go(o)d'. That was why Akhenaten, Tut(moses) father, was interpreted as being intolerant as he attempted to consolidate virtue of interpretation to be absolutely of ONE unified morality. That he symbolized as the nature of the perfect 'solid' as representing a unified container and source of all things as represented by the sun, he assumed moral distinctions have to also be of ONE ethical origin. Note the name "Solomon" as coming from "sol" as in solar and shows where 'solo' evolved similarly. The original title that became a personified literal person is actually, "Sol amen" ....the single final word on creation and its assignment to being ONLY 'good' rather than a relative virtue.

[Veritas Aequitas]

.......
I prefer the words on morality to speak in relative terms rather than as absolutes. Otherwise, such declarations about "human rights" are bound to be defined in cultural classifications rather than logical ones.

When you prefer "relative" then you are playing with a moving goal post, i.e. moving all the time, especially when you are right on target, it moves away and you shoot blank.

If you understand the need for efficiency in problem solving, you will understand there is a need for something fixed to work with from the start.
In the case of morality we need to start with the highest possible good as a guide, as a guide only.
Then we rely on the highest good to work on practical ethics.

In the case of slavery, I have justified why 'slavery is absolute wrong' as a highest good to act as a guide to reduce all forms of slavery within humanity.

The test is whether adopting 'slavery is absolutely wrong' as an absolute moral law works or not.

Note the UN is not insisting 'slavery is wrong' as a moral law within any specified moral framework.

I claimed 'slavery is morally wrong' as an absolute moral law but it has to be embedded as a GUIDE in an efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics - not discussed here.

You seem to have a personal dislike for 'slavery is morally wrong' but have no basis, justifications nor hypothesis on how you would resolve the problem of slavery.

I am first and foremost in distaste of the way culture is used to define what is or is not 'good'. And your own assumption of something 'universal' is logically reduced to, "No one should be permitted to accept bad behavior imposed upon themselves by others." This is no doubt agreeable but is still dependent upon what one means by 'bad behavior'. This is subjective and would only act as a 'preable' etiquette asserting the obvious but makes you question why it needs to be said at all.

You missed my point.
I am not referring to good-in-general where "one man's meat is another man's poison."

When I refer to the highest ideal good, it is with reference to certain elements like 'killing another human being', slavery, genocides, mass rapes, etc.
For example, there is no compromise for genocides, mass rapes, and the likes. 'Chattel Slavery' is one of these special categories which cannot be relatively acceptable.

It reminds me of how I once opted to fight a tresspassing fine in court and had to 'swear' to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". The only functioning means of this is for the sake of the judge (or potential jury) to learn of whether one is a 'good Christian' given we can either opt to swear on the bible or not. The act of choosing not to accept the ettiquette of using some magical spell that binds me to cooperation has a hidden agenda of more specificity than it appears to be on the surface of the act.

That morality IS relative by default of how you might interpret something as being 'absolutely good' begs the need for saying it at all. Since it IS relative regardless, asserting some preconditioning statements that require official interpretation of words that SEEM agreeable is just as suspect of some intentional agenda of interest. Then those who happen to get the power to be the ones declaring such statements get the precedence of intepreting what it actually means in practice by all potential newcomers.

It would be more sincere and safe to merely assert that nature has no moral preferences but that those of such a commitee are in hope of finding some minimal common grounds of appeal that is understood as 'tentative' and dependent upon some negotiating criteria of its members.

Note that the United States first amendment was designed by its founders in a way that spoke of 'freedom of speech' to assure that emotional censorship by those with absolute beliefs about morality don't take precedence in the making of laws. Their choice of wording to this was to exclude the power of law making to be in respect of any specific religion. A belief in any absolute moral is itself a form of religion in that old sense. Today, the evolved term for this is "culture". In essence, these are just any 'artificial" conceptions based upon one's emotional sense of pride.

Thus, the U.N. Declaration, as preferentially unbiased as you might think it is, it is biased to the Western ideals that include Capitalism as its founding principles and so interprets things like 'slavery' as being limited in ways that don't override it. I also think it is biased knowing that its particular Canadian author comes from a system that believes in intrinsic censorship by cultural terms. People aren't slaves because they are merely 'poor' but if they are poor AND belong to some heritage classification, whether that be something privileged to be passed on as a benefit in terms of economics or to something presumed to be genetically linked instead.

The UN Declaration on slavery focus with preferential to 'chattel slavery' where humans are captured by other humans [in various ways] to be used or traded.
I don't how can such 'chattel slavery' be biased.
'Chattel slavery' [as demonstrated] is universally wrong in whatever the circumstances.

The best that a declaration of common moral interest can do is to speak in terms of RELATIVE agreements, like the classical "liberal" definition that defines optimal significance to the individual to have as much 'freedom' for each other as long as such freedom doesn't impose upon another of the same.

How can you measure what is optimal within relative agreements, where there are so many subjective views per person or per group.

As I had suggested we need to start with the highest or the ideal good as a guide and manage its gap from reality and the practical.

You define them tentatively within the actions of the convention without constitutionalizing anything. If the U.N. was sincere, shouldn't all countries be admitted by default, regardless of their differences of opinion about what is or is not 'moral'? The mere dismissal of certain member countries suffice to prove that some bias exists that makes those who first create the organization and define its constitution as hiding some secret agenda.

If this is not merely about the U.N., then such statements don't constitute anything external to some pre-designated idea of what 'slavery' means.

I stated the UN Declaration of Slavery is an Absolute Moral Law but it is a work-in-progress at present towards an efficient framework and system of morality and ethics.
Whether the UN Model will be successful or not, we will have wait and see, but at least it is work-in-progress at present.
However for the UN Model to be successful, it need to include many other features in the future to be an efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

May I also point out something about the Judao-Christian book of Genesis that actually derived a similar meaning without religious connotations in its origin? When "God" created the Earth, the Heavens, and each set of distinct things as a prequel to reality, it keeps saying at the end of each 'creation' that he saw that it was "good'. Now I believe the originators were likely being inclusive an secular. Thus "God" would actually be interpreted something like, "the Source" or "Nature". The added 'good' to each statement was constituting that the people DID believe in some common idea of Nature as being biased in favor of something understood to be ONLY 'good'. But it begged why this needed to be stated unless they had some alternate belief and motive of expected compliance that others thought differently about any moral virtue of Nature as being.

And though the original meaning of 'good' in that document (which is where the evolved word, "God", comes from later) seemed universal, it actually went against those who believed in a prior diestic*, dual, 'two' or more sided moral source of humanity, interpretating that morality was merely 'relative' and people had to negotiate what it means in context to specific contracts and laws.

* Diest == Theist but was pronounced differently. Oddly, the term "theist" now refers to a human-centric being or essence that defines even the monotheistic 'go(o)d'. That was why Akhenaten, Tut(moses) father, was interpreted as being intolerant as he attempted to consolidate virtue of interpretation to be absolutely of ONE unified morality. That he symbolized as the nature of the perfect 'solid' as representing a unified container and source of all things as represented by the sun, he assumed moral distinctions have to also be of ONE ethical origin. Note the name "Solomon" as coming from "sol" as in solar and shows where 'solo' evolved similarly. The original title that became a personified literal person is actually, "Sol amen" ....the single final word on creation and its assignment to being ONLY 'good' rather than a relative virtue.

This is off tangent re the highest good.
Note my reference above to the essential elements of the highest good which should be justified and grounded to what should be universal to all human beings.

It is asked, which sane normal human being would want to be enslaved?
You? your family members, friends, associates, show me anyone who would agree to be enslaved?