Is Slavery Wrong?

@prothero,

NoOne wrote:

The United States is notorious for myself as it is here that I am forced to work out my life for nothing, while being called a free man.

You aren't forced to work. You could choose to live as a bum, living off spare change... and scraps from garbage bags. You then could be the free man you've always dreamed of being. Free from showers, too.

Slaves, generally, are forced to work, usually beaten or killed if they didn't.

You're not a slave, you just don't like what you're doing with your life. Big difference.

@prothero,

He's free to stow away to Somalia or eastern Congo -- there are no laws there, so nothing is forced. And if he has the option to get up and go somewhere, like to sneak over the border into Mexico, then he's not really a slave right because no one is going to go after him.

Part of the controversy that led to the Civil War was over whether slaveholders had the right to claim slaves who had escaped to states in which there was no slavery. In other words, they were considered property that an owner would go after. As for my grandparents I needn't remind you of what happened to people who tried to escape.

So if NoOne has the freedom to escape the United States -- if he so chose -- he is therefore entirely advantaged over people who traditionally merit the label slave. And if he chooses to stay here despite his perception of being a slave, then he's a slave only to pusilanimity or sloth.

@prothero,

he is right about how the system sucks overall though

produce! consume! die! and they try to make you feel guilty about not liking something so contrived. it's utter shite if you ask me

@prothero,

On what basis does one declare "slavery is wrong"?
Science?
Reason Alone?
Social Convention?
Intuition, Religon, Spirituality?
I fail to find any purely rational or scientific (even evolutionary) basis for morality?

@prothero,

prothero wrote:

On what basis does one declare "slavery is wrong"?

Morality.

Quote:

I fail to find any purely rational or scientific (even evolutionary) basis for morality?

OH! Well, it appears you're going to have a problem understanding then.

Certainly it can be argued that acknowledging and valuing morality is rational, reasonable. Asking for a scientific basis is just silly, though, as morality has absolutely nothing to do with science.

But most importantly, prothero, you're going to have a hard time contributing to this thread if you don't even choose to acknowledge morality in general. Start with one of the over-arching morality/ethics threads, and I'll discuss this with you in greater detail (I don't want to derail this thread currently).

@xris,

xris;92957 wrote:

Its not an academic question when you consider how many millions find themselves in actual slavery. There are more slaves now than any other period of history. Those poor souls would dearly love the freedom we take for granted, your proposed ideas on slavery are mere restrictions in freedoms that could be overcome with just a bit of revolution, on our part.

Thats because there are WAY more people now =)

I dont see how a bit of revolution on our part could free people of slavery. In our own country maybe, but we would need to interfere with other countries to free people worldwide.

Didymos Thomas;93021 wrote:

While I generally agree with you, Aedes, remember that slavery is not a ubiquitous institution. Slavery in many times and places has been contingent upon the choices of the slave - for example in Africa, certain sorts of theft could put a person in slavery for a few years. Of course, that variation on the practice was wildly different and far more humane than what developed across the Atlantic under European cultural and moral oversight...

I heard in Rome slaves could have things of their own and even buy their own freedom, so they werent much under the common citizen. Neither had political rights, if I recall well.

richrf;93048 wrote:

It is these kind of events that make me wonder why do some people value slavery (for whatever reason) and why some humans abhor it? This is the kind of question that makes me dig deeper into the nature of humans.

Humans are always disagreeing. Some people value abortion, some abhor it =)

josh0335;93065 wrote:

With the advances in technology, why would we need slavery anyway? Machines can do all the labour we can think of so what does that leave slaves to do?

Slaves wont wave planks with things written on then while you are trying to govern then, citizens will =)

Off course slaves will jump from quiet to homicidal, while citizens will complain before getting homicidal. Depends of whenever you want safety or peace in your government =)

NoOne;93066 wrote:

The United States is notorious for myself as it is here that I am forced to work out my life for nothing, while being called a free man.

If you were a great dragon in a world winhout civilization, you would be forced to eat ever so oftenly, and still be called a free dragon =)

odenskrigare;93074 wrote:

he is right about how the system sucks overall though

produce! consume! die! and they try to make you feel guilty about not liking something so contrived. it's utter shite if you ask me

I think the human world became too complex to humans, so we are unable to prevent ourselves from doing stupid things. Just look at the economy crisis: That wouldnt happen if economy wasnt so complex that no human can fully understand and know what will happen.

I think human slavery is wrong, unless you are far more intelligent than a human and is slaving then for their own good, that is, you govern then better than any government they could chose for thenselves.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;93079 wrote:

Certainly it can be argued that acknowledging and valuing morality is rational, reasonable. Asking for a scientific basis is just silly, though, as morality has absolutely nothing to do with science.

But most importantly, prothero, you're going to have a hard time contributing to this thread if you don't even choose to acknowledge morality in general. Start with one of the over-arching morality/ethics threads, and I'll discuss this with you in greater detail (I don't want to derail this thread currently).

You are reading me quite wrong. I started the thread. I have a strong sense about ethics and morality. I just do not think reason, science, evolution or empiricism can withstand critical examination as the basis of morality.
Compassion is the basis of morality not reason- Schopenhauer
I will get back to you.

@manored,

manored;93080 wrote:

Humans are always disagreeing. Some people value abortion, some abhor it =)

Yes, so the question I ask myself, why do humans harbor these different feelings. Where did it come from? Why do some embrace slavery and others do not?

Rich

@prothero,

prothero wrote:

I started the thread.

Then I have a strong feeling you wish to discuss much more than what your thread title implies.

Quote:

I just do not think reason, science, evolution or empiricism can withstand critical examination as the basis of morality.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "basis of" now. One can argue how the valuing and acknowledgment of morality in a culture is reasonable. Since

Evolution? Why are you bringing this up?
Empiricism? Why are you bringing this up?
Science? Why are you bringing this up?

Since when does morality have to stand up to critical scientific examination? That's ridiculous. How would you even go about such a thing? Unless you're just speaking about exploring morality in humanity (social sciences)? It sounds like you mean something different, though.

Just what about evolution, empiricism, or science do you wish to discuss in relation to morality?

@Krumple,

Krumple;92923 wrote:

Can I say that many of us are still slaves. Maybe not in the traditional sense but we are now under a newer, more sinister, well disguised version that is just as oppressive as ever. Is it only I who sees it?

I was thinking the same thing.

Firstly im a slave for my employer and then for my country.

@ahmedjbh,

ahmedjbh;93113 wrote:

I was thinking the same thing.

Firstly im a slave for my employer and then for my country.

Just for clarification purposes, what Aedes and I were referring to was slaves in the traditional sense (Lincoln's reference).

Sure, I think most of us are "slaves to the wage".

@ahmedjbh,

ahmedjbh;93113 wrote:

I was thinking the same thing.

Firstly im a slave for my employer and then for my country.

I think that you would agree that there is a qualitative difference between being a slave of the type that Lincoln was referring to and a slave of the type of are talking about. While I may have some empathy for anyone who is a slave of their employer, I seem to have much more hurt from thinking of the slaves who were forced across the ocean in those death cabins. There seems to be a qualitative difference, and it is interesting to observe that one might harbor such differences within themselves - philosophically speaking.

Rich

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;93116 wrote:

Sure, I think most of us are "slaves to the wage".

yeah sux

I vowed I wouldn't let it happen to me

I'm going to be a professor and/or entrepreneur eventually

lol

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;93119 wrote:

yeah sux

I vowed I wouldn't let it happen to me

I'm going to be a professor and/or entrepreneur eventually

lol

Watch with the entrepreneur bit - you could soon find yourself a slave to a business you regret even starting in the first place!

@prothero,

I always find it very unsettling when I am reading Roman and Greek writers to think that their whole society was based on slavery. No matter how badly we get treated at work in any modern Western society we still have rights. Slaves had no rights - they could be killed, sexually abused, whipped or whatever. Probably the only protection they had was if they were highly skilled they were too valuable to waste. Kind of like owning a car - it was yours to do with as you pleased, but you might not want to ruin something you paid for.
I find it difficult to understand the mindset of people who could write reams about democracy, ethics and right behaviour then go and beat their slave.

@xris,

xris;92957 wrote:

Its not an academic question when you consider how many millions find themselves in actual slavery. There are more slaves now than any other period of history. Those poor souls would dearly love the freedom we take for granted, your proposed ideas on slavery are mere restrictions in freedoms that could be overcome with just a bit of revolution, on our part.

Its not really anything abnormal that there are more slaves now than any other point in history, there are exponentially more people than at any point in history. No one here that I know of condones slavery or even has a neutral opinion of it. While I agree that slavery is wrong, it is not immoral to discuss it in the abstract or use it as a metynomical reference to aspects of one's existence. However, using inflated and misleading statistics to emotionalize a legitimate topic is simply derailing the topic at hand.

@prothero,

prothero;93084 wrote:

I just do not think reason, science, evolution or empiricism can withstand critical examination as the basis of morality.
Compassion is the basis of morality not reason- Schopenhauer

The above are the basis of compassion:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

@Krumple,

Krumple;92923 wrote:

Can I say that many of us are still slaves. Maybe not in the traditional sense but we are now under a newer, more sinister, well disguised version that is just as oppressive as ever. Is it only I who sees it?

How does one keep slaves from rebelling?

Convince them they are free.

@Aedes,

Aedes;93138 wrote:

The above are the basis of compassion:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

thirteen page article, I have not had time to read it yet but
I would say that compassion is the first perception that leads to ethical impluse or moral behavior. After identifying with the sufferer on an emotional level one would use reason, science and the other faculties in an effort to relieve the suffering. If one does not feel the empathy or compassion, then one will not make the effort.

I think empathy and compassion are innate impulses or perceptions in most people (sociopaths excepted). They are not the result of rational analysis and certainly not the result of scientific investigation. One can be trained or socialized to ignore or disregard the empathetic impulse.

@Zetherin,

Zeth, I see you have no problem speaking on things you have absolutely no knowledge of, you are much to much the modern philosopher for me.

Philosophy Forum

Is Slavery Wrong?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know