Why is slavery wrong?

[Alexis Jacobi]

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

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

The full post is on the Christianity thread.

[RCSaunders]

sculptor,

You are, as usual, confused.

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

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

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

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

okay...still not seein' your answer

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

mebbe so...and your answer is?

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

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

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

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

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

Why is slavery wrong?

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

mayhap the structure of the question offends you

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

Is slavery wrong?

there you go: yes or no

easy-peasy

Glad you like easy questions. Here is one for you:

When you ask, Why is slavery wrong?, or, Is slavery wrong?, what is it slavery would be wrong for?

It's like asking, "is using antibiotics wrong?" It's an impossible question to answer until you specify, "wrong for what?" If the objective is curing a bacterial infection an antibiotic might be exactly right, but if the objective is curing a viral infection an antibiotic is wrong.

The pyramids of Egypt and the great wall of China, considered wonders of the world, would have been impossible without slavery. Just considering those monuments as the objectives, slavery was the right means (because at the time it was the only one) to accomplish those projects.

"Is slavery wrong," cannot be answered until, "wrong for what purpose," is specified.

[Just in case you wonder, I regard the pyramids, the great wall of China and all other slave produced artifacts of the world monuments to human ignorance and depravity.]

[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.

After reading...sludge.

I see you won't deal with the issue at all. Think you've found an "out" and you're going to take it.

Okay.

(But in point of fact, if you want Henry's definition, it's in the message immediately below this one. So let's "unsludge" by using that.)

[henry quirk]

rc,

what is it slavery would be wrong for?



slavery is one man claimin' possession of, ownership of, another

slavery would be, is, wrong for everything, anything, everyone, any one, no matter the purpose

But why is slavery wrong, Henry? Why is it wrong for one man to lay claim to another?

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).


Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).


Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

After reading...sludge.

I see you won't deal with the issue at all. Think you've found an "out" and you're going to take it.

Won't deal with the issue at all?> You are the one who is trying to muddy the issue with the term 'slavery' in its loosest and widest sense.

Btw, have you done and presented a thesis in a Masters or PhD degree before. If so, you would have understood the need for a precise and specific Problem Statement rather than a loose one.

Okay.

(But in point of fact, if you want Henry's definition, it's in the message immediately below this one. So let's "unsludge" by using that.)

Point is I have been sticking to the context of Henry's OP, i.e. 'chattel slavery' which is what Henry is talking about in his above post and elsewhere.
You are the one who is going off tangent.

In any case, whenever I discuss about slavery with morality it is mostly with reference to chattel slavery. If I deviate from that then I will qualify.

[Immanuel Can]

...you would have understood the need for a precise and specific Problem Statement rather than a loose one.

The requisite definition was provided by Henry, just below my last message.

You're still weaseling...and I'm not buying. You know what the question is: you just have no answer, apparently.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...you would have understood the need for a precise and specific Problem Statement rather than a loose one.

The requisite definition was provided by Henry, just below my last message.

You're still weaseling...and I'm not buying. You know what the question is: you just have no answer, apparently.

What??

After your groping around without understanding the context of the OP, I have now directed you to the specific issue.
I was addressing this specific all along in this thread while you are still wrestling your muddy sludge.

[Immanuel Can]

...muddy sludge.

There's none.

Take Henry's definition, and move forward. And stop making excuses.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...muddy sludge.

There's none.

Take Henry's definition, and move forward. And stop making excuses.

I had been doing that [Henry's perspective re his OP] all along while you were way off topic with a loose and widest sense of 'slavery'.

[Immanuel Can]

...muddy sludge.

There's none.

Take Henry's definition, and move forward. And stop making excuses.

I had been doing that...

Not yet, you haven't. But here's your chance:

Why is slavery (Henry's type) wrong?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There's none.

Take Henry's definition, and move forward. And stop making excuses.

I had been doing that...

Not yet, you haven't. But here's your chance:

Why is slavery (Henry's type) wrong?

I have already provided the answers in the various post in this thread, where I have been banging on why 'chattel' slavery is wrong.
You were blinded to them when you were in your muddy bath.
Suggest you read them again and give your counters on why my answers were wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

Suggest you read them again...

It doesn't take long. Just answer.

How do you know slavery is wrong?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Suggest you read them again...

It doesn't take long. Just answer.

How do you know slavery is wrong?

Nope it is not a kindergarten type or ABC answer as evident from my posts in this thread.
I know what I am talking about, it is only when I am free that I can compile them for future reference.

Besides mine and Henry's views, note RM Hare's article on Why Slavery is Wrong from the utilitarian perspective where he weighed [with evidences, facts and arguments] the utility of owning slaves against freeing humans from slavery.

In any case by default of your theological approach [based on an illusory God] to morality, you are likely to deflect whatever rational answers that I had provided.

Btw, your theistic Christian God did not condemn slavery outright but rather condoned slavery in the Bible. This is why in the past, many Christians had supported their clinging to slavery based on verses from the Bible until secular laws kicked their asses.

[Immanuel Can]

Suggest you read them again...

It doesn't take long. Just answer.
How do you know slavery is wrong?

Nope it is not a kindergarten type or ABC answer...

Yep, it's very easy.

If you haven't got a short answer, if you can't put it concisely, then you have no answer at all...just a lot of jargon to hide the lack of an answer.

[henry quirk]

VA,

mine and Henry's views

while it's gratifyin' you're sympathetic to my position (cuz here, in-forum, so few are) you must remember: I'm a particular and peculiar kind of moral realist

my notions of ownness are founded in natural law-natural rights which, of course, is part & parcel with my own particular and peculiar deism

so: while I admire your attempts to ground the wrongness of slavery in man's genes or psychology, the deep, universal intuition of ownness I write about isn't grounded, cant't be grounded, it seems to me, in the material or configurations of material

as I reckon it: man is sumthin' more than matter, mind is sumthin' other than brain-action, and intuitions of ownness are recognitions of (moral) reality