Why is slavery wrong?

[Skepdick]

Who of us takes themselves the more seriously Gus?

Oh! Oh! The one-upmanship game! I know how to play that one...

I take you less seriously than you take yourself.

[uwot]

Oh! Oh! The one-upmanship game! I know how to play that one...

I take you less seriously than you take yourself.

That's not a strong gambit, me old sausage. The best you can hope for is a draw

[Sculptor]

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?

Easy
Premise equality under the law.
Categorical imperitive: as I would not want to be enslaved no one ought to be enslaved.
Sadly you do not believe in any kind of equality, and so may not share my view point.
But there is nothing objective here.
My premises: equality under the law, and the categorical imperitive are OPINIONS.

[Immanuel Can]

Did you read the rest of my post??

Absolutely. It was just a vague "appeal to authority" fallacy, referring to Hare, with a fair number of red herrings thrown in. The only premise on which your whole argument really rested was the one in red.

This is your cheap trash.

Have a nice day.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's not a strong gambit, me old sausage. The best you can hope for is a draw.

Hmmmm. You make a solid point Wee Willy. What then is the best route to total annihilation?

[henry quirk]

sculptor,

Premise equality under the law.
Categorical imperitive: as I would not want to be enslaved no one ought to be enslaved.

But there is nothing objective here.
My premises: equality under the law, and the categorical imperitive are OPINIONS.

so slavery isn't wrong 'cept as the bulk of folks say it is

okay: thanks for the answer

Sadly you do not believe in any kind of equality



I wonder how you arrived at that

I believe each man belongs to himself; the life, liberty, and property of each is his and his alone; I believe every man knows he is his own and knows it's wrong that he be leashed; I believe what is permissible between and among men is bounded by this inherent self-possession

I believe men are equal in the most fundamental way: each is a person with, as I say, a natural right to himself

[uwot]

That's not a strong gambit, me old sausage. The best you can hope for is a draw.

Hmmmm. You make a solid point Wee Willy. What then is the best route to total annihilation?

Just keep talking.

[Sculptor]

sculptor,

Premise equality under the law.
Categorical imperitive: as I would not want to be enslaved no one ought to be enslaved.

But there is nothing objective here.
My premises: equality under the law, and the categorical imperitive are OPINIONS.

so slavery isn't wrong 'cept as the bulk of folks say it is

Correct
There - that wasn't too hard to say was it?

okay: thanks for the answer

Sadly you do not believe in any kind of equality



I wonder how you arrived at that

It's the shit you say

I believe each man belongs to himself; the life, liberty, and property of each is his and his alone; I believe every man knows he is his own and knows it's wrong that he be leashed; I believe what is permissible between and among men is bounded by this inherent self-possession

Yes, exactly my point. You eschew any kind of community and your responsibility to your fellow man.
Most slavers would have said pretty much exactly the same thing.

I believe men are equal in the most fundamental way: each is a person with, as I say, a natural right to himself

But you are talking bollock because what you say above makes your word just empty shit.

[henry quirk]

sculptor,

so slavery isn't wrong 'cept as the bulk of folks say it is

There - that wasn't too hard to say was it?

easy to say: impossible to believe...I don't believe it, and neither do you

[Alexis Jacobi]

Here is the edited down version. The full version was just too long . . .

Still: no answer to the question

It is not inconceivable to me that in some place where slavery is practiced -- everything would depend on the conditions and the sort of relationship that the slave had to his owners or controllers -- there may exist a sufficiently symbiotic relationship as to function, within human social norms, reasonably well. But I suppose that when I contemplate this condition I am thinking, perhaps, of the conditions of slavery that existed in say Greece when a slave was also (from what I read) a member of the family or sufficiently close to allow for the human element to operate -- which would make the enslaved condition more or less acceptable to those enslaved.

But on the other side of that coin I am pretty sure that enslaved people though they may grow accustomed to their condition -- because perhaps they see no possibility of changing it -- are likely down-trodden people. I am thinking of very low-status people in India for example that are life-long servants of well-to-do families and who are bossed around like slaves. If they are not actual slaves they are close enough to be seen as oppressed in their harsh *employment* condition. And the original ideological underpinning for the strict caste-divisions in India was rationalized by reference to 'karma'. It was the 'karma' of the low-born, or the servant, or the conquered class, or the slave, to have been fated to 'take birth' in those circumstances. And so it was a low-born's duty (dharma) to accept his fate and to fulfill it to the best of his ability. To live one's 'dharma' would appear to us like apathetic acceptance (of what fate had doled out). But within the ancient Hindu system, now changing of course, correctly fulfilling one's dharma-duty was the way to get out of the karma of that low birth. (Betterment in some other incarnation).

You likely know that in pre-Medieval and Medieval times there was the notion of *the three estates*. And a similar sort of existential logic applied:

The three Medieval estates were the Clergy (those who prayed), the Nobility (those who fought) and lastly the Peasantry (those who labored). These estates were the major social classes of the time and were typically gender specific to men, although the clergy also included nuns.

If ever you read The Laws of Manu you will discover that they had a rather complex way of organizing their conceptions about how the social order should be constructed and maintained. In their ethical system they realized that all life is terribly cruel. They defined a natural philosophy called 'the law of the fishes' (similar to our notion of 'dog-eat-dog'). They observed natural systems and they realized the larger beasts consume the smaller beasts in a terrifying system which was, of course, mirrored in the human world. One society attacks and conquers an adjacent one in a never-ending cycle. It seems to me that the Rishis 'saw' pretty well and pretty clearly. And they also saw that in any human cultural system there would be hierarchies. There had to be an agricultural class and they had to have their own, special and particular, social systems, mores, rules & regulations as well as ethics. And this was true for all the various classes, from the Sudras (workers) all the way up to the Brahmins (priest and administrative class).

The social order was established and each class had its peculiar deities, religious practices and obligations, cultural traditions, and literally a *place* worked out for them.

What I found interesting about the kingly class, the aristocratic class, and the warrior class that the king controlled, was that that warrior class had a difficult 'dharma' because they were the ones that had to defend the frontiers of the kingdom and engage in (of course) terrible violence to fulfill their role. And within this system those actions -- defending and expanding when necessary the kingdom -- brought very 'heavy karma' down on them. But it was through the intersession of the priest-class that they were ritually and morally cleansed and purged of their deeds, and the service they offered to the kingdom was a form of spiritual sacrifice. Through their actions, of course, the kingdom was established and maintained, and this left the other classes to fulfill their various roles -- and in this way society functioned.

It is curious to examine social models like this to see how people organized themselves. And how they 'justify' and 'rationalize' (often through application of metaphysical notions) the systems they create and live in.

So the way I look at things, and I extend this to *our world*, is to recognize that hierarchies exist, that they will always exist, and that to one degree or another one must accept (mustn't one?) the condition into which one was born. I do recognize 'duty' and also 'dharma':

Dharma (Hinduism) : an individual's duty fulfilled by observance of custom or law. 2 Hinduism and Buddhism. a : the basic principles of cosmic or individual existence : divine law. b : conformity to one's duty and nature.

So it does occur to me that one must 'know who one is' but also know 'who one is not' and must serve as best one can the role assigned, apparently, by fate. Put another way if all the hierarchical systems with their limits are questioned, or rebelled against, the social order would be in chaotic shambles.

And yet within our own systems there seems to be constant struggle for more 'equity'. For more balance. So we look with very jaundiced eyes at, say, the caste system of ancient India. It offends our sensibilities. And when we find ourselves in social situations where older-style hierarchies still exist, we naturally encourage the lower-orders to rebel and clamor for their 'rights'.

So is it possible, within the ethical system I recognize and define, to defend slavery? I think all systems assign roles and that we are not really *free*. The closer we examine our situation the more we can clearly see that we live under all sorts of conditions. This seems true. But does a constrained social (and economic) condition mean that one must live in misery? I think that is where 'enlightened society' has a role. So there was a time when being a mechanic, let's say, was one's 'condition'. But within that condition one had respect, self-respect, a surrounding community, social mores, do's-and-don't, and quite literally 'one's place'. One could look upon it as 'oppression' but at the same time one could also see it as a satisfactory station, and one could do one's best in it. Social and economic orders are constructed in this way.

The spiritual element is also highly relevant. That is, to see oneself and literally to *be* a member of a spiritual body. It would make all the difference in the world the degree to which that sense of connection fulfilled one.

But in my own view truly abject slavery must be understood as operating against metaphysical norms. Especially so when that condition is permanent. But on the other hand, and when one examines the American South, there was a distinct class of 'emancipated slaves' who were artisans and small business owners. The notion of 'emancipation' within the system itself was not unknown. And some have proposed that if the War had not intervened that, in time, the system of slavery would have transformed by itself to some sort of emancipated apprenticeship. It could not have continued. But it still would have remained a tiered society of that there seems little doubt.

I often say that it is our *anthropology* that has undergone evolution and transformation. The former way of defining man was too limited and often quite wrong. There is no such thing as 'a natural slave'. It seems true that under the right conditions all people, with the exception perhaps of some isolated groups, can advance similarly. So the former anthropology was based incorrectly.

If there is a way to establish a universal argument against enslavement in the abject sense, it can only be done through the Christian ethic (as I see things). Because the Christian ethic necessarily regards the *soul* and the *person* as sacrosanct. I have not encountered a similar ethic in other traditions. So it is not surprisng that the movement to liberate slaves and to see slavery as deeply wrong seems to have originated in Christian culture.

[henry quirk]

Alexis,

you like to bury the lede, don't you?

in my own view truly abject slavery must be understood as operating against metaphysical norms.

yep

I am pretty sure that enslaved people though they may grow accustomed to their condition -- because perhaps they see no possibility of changing it -- are likely down-trodden people.

There is no such thing as 'a natural slave'.

As I say: 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.

So the way I look at things, and I extend this to *our world*, is to recognize that hierarchies exist, that they will always exist, and that to one degree or another one must accept (mustn't one?) the condition into which one was born.

water always finds its level and men, left to their own devices, do as well...unnatural systems and hierarchies always give way (or are made to give way)

If there is a way to establish a universal argument against enslavement in the abject sense, it can only be done through the Christian ethic (as I see things). Because the Christian ethic necessarily regards the *soul* and the *person* as sacrosanct.

I think mebbe Christianity gave words to, and a voice to, that argument, by way of love your neighbor as yourself taught by the right man in the right place and time, but the assertion itself I am not not an animal to be traded or used, I'm a man, I'm sumthin' more, and I have a right to myself has been on the table for no less than 50,000, and probably closer to 100,000, years (split the difference at 75,000 years) when the proto-human animal became the human being thru ensoulment

[henry quirk]

Alexis,

a non-relevant (to the thread) thought or two...

The spiritual element is also highly relevant. That is, to see oneself and literally to *be* a member of a spiritual body. It would make all the difference in the world the degree to which that sense of connection fulfilled one.

as a deist, it's natural for me to understand my relationship with The Creator (insofar as it is a relationship) as spare and solitary...I have no holy book, no holy men, no holy place to converge on or in with others...one area of sympathy I find with Christianity is thru sad, heartsick, Soren's notion God wants communion with you, not a community or a church or a congregation, but with the solitary, the single, the one...it's an idea that, it seems to me, gets little play in the era of megachurch (and mega-everything)...it's a trick of *the devil to so reduce one and so inflate many, to say enough with goin' into your room and closin' the door behind you to pray alone, come to this public space, watch the performance, and get yourself some of that spotlight




*just a placeholder for all that's wrong

[Dontaskme]

Very few prisoners would dream of escape if they knew that there was nothing outside of the prison.

[henry quirk]

Very few prisoners would dream of escape if they knew that there was nothing outside of the prison.

In that circumstance: they'd be plottin' to kill the warden and his guards. If Hell is all you got: overthrow the Devil.

[Immanuel Can]

...one area of sympathy I find with Christianity is thru sad, heartsick, Soren's notion God wants communion with you, not a community or a church or a congregation, but with the solitary, the single, the one...it's an idea that, it seems to me, gets little play in the era of megachurch (and mega-everything)...

Soren rocks.

He would have been dead against the era of "megachurches," which are usually far more "mega" than "church," for sure. Then there are the words of the Founder..."I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance." (Luke 15:7)

1:99. It's the genuine relationship with that lone "1" that concerns the Creator, not the numbers game. The megachurches would do better spiritually if they remembered that.

All of the 99 are actually just "lone 1s": they just don't know it.