What is wrong with slavery?

[pchams]

In olden times, slaves were garnered through war. Instead of killing everyone, a victorious army would take slaves.
Some rose to positions of great power and influence, as did Narcissus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Claudius_Narcissus), a former slave of the Emperor Claudius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius).
This has happened throughout history, and only in recent times has become unethical.

We are contemporarily arrogant thinking that our way is the way.
Survival of the fittest is the way of the streets even this day.
Who are we to question our own evolution?

[Professor Yaffle]

Ooh, aren't you controversial...

[This Guy]

So, this is a serious question?

You really want to be told why restricting someones freedom, making them work for you for no more than room and board (however shabby both may be), and with no reasonable hope of escaping their bondage and taking any children they may have and placing them in the same situation, is wrong?

:confused:

[joobz]

how does slavery and survival of the fittest relate to each other?


What evolutionary advantage is there in slavery and the passage of genes?

[Twiler]

Why shouldn't we just do what seems right to us? Keeping slaves doesn't seem moral to me.

And those of the past would disagree, but it's still my view. I can choose not to dismiss the misery of others as being 'evolution'.

[TX50]

So, this is a serious question?

You really want to be told why restricting someones freedom, making them work for you for no more than room and board (however shabby both may be), and with no reasonable hope of escaping their bondage and taking any children they may have and placing them in the same situation, is wrong?

:confused:

It isn't quite as simple as that. Believe it or not, there are many slaves
who actually prefer that way of life since food, board and employment is
guaranteed. This was true in ancient times too. When the alternatives
aren't too enticing, many are happy to remain in thrall.

[This Guy]

It isn't quite as simple as that. Believe it or not, there are many slaves
who actually prefer that way of life since food, board and employment is
guaranteed. This was true in ancient times too. When the alternatives
aren't too enticing, many are happy to remain in thrall.

Yes, there are exceptions to every rule.

Are you then claiming that because a few prefer to be slaves that it's OK to enslave others?

If so, I would disagree. I doubt that is your point though.

[Richard Masters]

In olden times, slaves were garnered through war. Instead of killing everyone, a victorious army would take slaves.
Some rose to positions of great power and influence, as did Narcissus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Claudius_Narcissus), a former slave of the Emperor Claudius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius).
This has happened throughout history, and only in recent times has become unethical.

We are contemporarily arrogant thinking that our way is the way.
Survival of the fittest is the way of the streets even this day.
Who are we to question our own evolution?

A lot of things, just as with everything else.

If you mean slavery like 1800s slavery, the main thing that was wrong with it was that it was based on race.

[joobz]

It isn't quite as simple as that. Believe it or not, there are many slaves
who actually prefer that way of life since food, board and employment is
guaranteed. This was true in ancient times too. When the alternatives
aren't too enticing, many are happy to remain in thrall.
Preference is meaningless when speaking of slavery. Slaves didn't have a choice to be or not to be slaves.

[fishbob]

What is wrong with slavery?

Slaves don't much like it.

[RandFan]

We are contemporarily arrogant thinking that our way is the way.Not necassarily so. I don't see this as axiomatic.

Survival of the fittest is the way of the streets even this day.
Who are we to question our own evolution?Leaving aside the naturalistic fallacy. Modern western societie by just about every measure (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html)
are getting less and less violent and more and more people are leading healthy and productive lives. The mortality rate is improving and people have more and more free time to be with their families. Scandinavia went from being poor to one of the highest rated nations for quality of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index) in a short time. People want to be free. Yes, I agree with Maslow's Hierarchy of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs), it's important to first have food and shelter before you need freedom but the problems are primarily political. We don't need to turn to slavery. That's just idiotic.

[pchams]

how does slavery and survival of the fittest relate to each other?


What evolutionary advantage is there in slavery and the passage of genes?
That one is easy.
The conquerers pass on their genes. As it has always been.

[RandFan]

Slaves don't much like it.A study was done once to determine why slaves ran away from the plantation (duh). It was determined that it was a defect of some slaves (can you say confirmtion bias).

[Twiler]

That one is easy.
The conquerers pass on their genes. As it has always been.

So, the diversity of the gene pool decreases. That isn't good.

[joobz]

That one is easy.
The conquerers pass on their genes. As it has always been.
Hardly. Slaves also pass on thier genes. try again.

[pchams]

So, this is a serious question?

You really want to be told why restricting someones freedom, making them work for you for no more than room and board (however shabby both may be), and with no reasonable hope of escaping their bondage and taking any children they may have and placing them in the same situation, is wrong?

:confused:

Many people already do this in my country (Canada).
Unless you can afford, and be intelligent, and diligent enough to go to higher education, you are basically stranded. Unless you have an exceptional entreprenuerial talent.

[pchams]

Hardly. Slaves also pass on thier genes. try again.
and?....
How has this addressed the idea of the ethic of slavery.

[joobz]

Many people already do this in my country (Canada).
Unless you can afford, and be intelligent, and diligent enough to go to higher education, you are basically stranded. Unless you have an exceptional entreprenuerial talent.
But people have that ability to move beyond thier surroundings. it may be difficult, but it happens. A slave never has the opportunity to be anything other than a slave.

[Roadtoad]

1.) I would not appreciate someone else determining what my training and utility should be.

2.) I would not appreciate someone else determining whether or not I receive medical care, based upon my market value and further utility towards an owner.

3.) Nor would I appreciate someone else determining which skills and abilities I possess will be utilized to the full, based upon their determination of market value.

4.) I do not want my children living in bondage, nor would I want my wife held in bondage.

5.) I do not want my children sold as property, nor my family broken up for the sake of marketability.

6.) I do not wish to be "mated" to someone simply to produce offspring for market, and utilized for selective breeding to produce more marketable offspring.

7.) I do not wish for anyone else to be utilized in such a fashion, as it demeans me every bit as it does them.

8.) It is my belief, based upon historical evidence, that when an individual has personal liberty, the marketplace is better off, as are individuals. As a result, so is the nation.

Other than that, hey, whatever floats your sinking boat.

[joobz]

and?....
How has this addressed the idea of the ethic of slavery.
YOu attempted to make an evolutionary argument for slavery, and I'm still waiting to hear it.

Evolution selects traits and behaviors that permit the genes to be passed on. You need to explain why slavery does this.

[pchams]

So, the diversity of the gene pool decreases. That isn't good.
We can't decide what is good. We don't know.

[Roadtoad]

*Sigh*

Oh, joy. Another troll to ignore... :oldroll:

[Twiler]

We can't decide what is good. We don't know.

So, we don't know if conquerors passing on their genes is good.

[quarky]

If I had slaves, I'd be really nice about it. Two of each type would do.
They would work on Wall St.
They would barely notice their enslavement.

Certainly, all slavery isn't equal.

[Roadtoad]

So, we don't know if conquerors passing on their genes is good.

Well, it's great if you're a conqueror, but much the same can be accomplished with success in business, politics, or entertainment. You don't have to engage in military conquest and take slaves to pass on your genes.

Given that we've observed in nature that biodiversity tends to help species succeed, I would think the same would be true when discussing the human animal as well. By the same token, inbreeding tends to be destructive to certain animals, and is demonstrably a bad idea.

Consider what happened to the Irish Setter. They wound up being so inbred, the resultant puppies were so stupid they'd get lost at the end of the leash. There were similar problems with Saint Bernards, literally being bred over the back fence. They wound up with problems like hip displaysia, and wound up suffering badly because of it.

Sorry, I think the whole business of slavery is demonstrably barbaric, demonstrably cruel, and genuinely abhorrent. Given the extraordinary means required to keep another human being restrained for the duration of their life in a manner like livestock, I think we're better off ending that particular institution. Permanently.

Not to mention that we're better off doing without those who advocate it.

[RandFan]

Not necassarily so. I don't see this as axiomatic.

Leaving aside the naturalistic fallacy. Modern western societies by just about every measure (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html) are getting less and less violent and more and more people are leading healthy and productive lives. The mortality rate is improving and people have more and more free time to be with their families. Scandinavia went from being poor to one of the highest rated nations for quality of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index) in a short time. People want to be free. Yes, I agree with Maslow's Hierarchy of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs), it's important to first have food and shelter before you need freedom but the problems are primarily political. We don't need to turn to slavery. That's just idiotic.

How has this addressed the idea of the ethic of slavery. Please forgive my ego but could you address my post?

[This Guy]

Many people already do this in my country (Canada).
Unless you can afford, and be intelligent, and diligent enough to go to higher education, you are basically stranded. Unless you have an exceptional entreprenuerial talent.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that these folks you speak of aren't chained at night, are able to sever the relationship at will, and that their children are not automatically placed in this state of bondage (which I'm guessing is some form of domestic work in exchange for room and board and perhaps a bit of money).

If I'm correct, there is little comparison to true slavery.

[Cavemonster]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that these folks you speak of aren't chained at night, are able to sever the relationship at will, and that their children are not automatically placed in this state of bondage (which I'm guessing is some form of domestic work in exchange for room and board and perhaps a bit of money).

If I'm correct, there is little comparison to true slavery.

Yes, but I do think there is a valid point that today we have situations where individuals have little hope or opportunity of prospering.

While not as abhorrent as true slavery, I do think we should be working as a world to eliminate those situations as well.

[pchams]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that these folks you speak of aren't chained at night, are able to sever the relationship at will, and that their children are not automatically placed in this state of bondage (which I'm guessing is some form of domestic work in exchange for room and board and perhaps a bit of money).

If I'm correct, there is little comparison to true slavery.
I guess we have to define slavery. Not that I want to digress into semantics, but perhaps this is the exercise.

I'm not a troll, I've been on this forum for quite a while, so I won't address the ad hom.

RandFan, I'll address your post shortly.

Please don't think I'm endorsing anything. I'd like to address the idea that people today think their ethic is somehow superior.
ex. Slavery

[This Guy]

Yes, but I do think there is a valid point that today we have situations where individuals have little hope or opportunity of prospering.

While not as abhorrent as true slavery, I do think we should be working as a world to eliminate those situations as well.

I think there is much being done toward that end. Bearing in mind the large number of people in the world that are below what would be considered the poverty level, it will take a long time, I think, to rid the world of the poor. But with programs like Habitat For Humanity, and the many other programs that try to assist the poor around the world, I believe we are at least leaning in the right direction. And of course, all things considered, we can only do so much at a time.

So, I agree with you! But there is at least something being done to try and remedy the situation. We may not live to see it, but perhaps someday the gap between the poorest and the richest will not be so wide, and many fewer will be on the bottom of the pile. I hope so anyway :)

[CORed]

A lot of things, just as with everything else.

If you mean slavery like 1800s slavery, the main thing that was wrong with it was that it was based on race.

I have to disagree that that was the main thing that was wrong with it. Certainly that slavery in the 1800's was based on race was an important thing that was wrong with it, but slavery is just plain wrong, whatever the basis is for deciding who are slaves and who are masters.

[padego]

Many people already do this in my country (Canada).
Unless you can afford, and be intelligent, and diligent enough to go to higher education, you are basically stranded. Unless you have an exceptional entreprenuerial talent.

Being Canadian I'm just wondering what part of the country you're from and what brings you to this conclusion.

[plumjam]

pchams, I recommend that before you go shooting your mouth off you make an effort to really educate yourself by watching two award winning documentaries on the subject. Roots and Spartacus.

[RandFan]

I'd like to address the idea that people today think their ethic is somehow superior.
ex. SlaveryPerhaps but I don't really care all that much. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong question what we know and why we know it. I don't mind that you want to discuss a controversial subject. I'm here for you. Let's discuss.

That said, we can quantify the utility of various moralities. Modern Western civilization has significantly reduced homicide, increased mortality rates, provided greater free time to more and more people and significantly increased quality of life.

If you take as a premise that the greater the quality of life for more people means greater morality then modern society has it won hands down. Slavery? We don't need it.

When I lost my job once I had to move with my wife and family into my mother-in-laws house. She was fairly reasonable but we had to live by her rules. We weren't slaves but we worked real hard to save up our money to get a first and last so we could have our own apartment for one very simple reason.

We wanted to be free.

Can you understand that? People don't want to be under someone elses thumb. They want to be as free as possible. And we know by experience that slavery doesn't solve social problems it only creates worse ones. We know that Scandinavia has very high quality of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index) and they do it with out slaves.

So please, by all means, discuss and debate. When we are finished with the ethics of controlling the lives of other people we can move on to whether or not the earth is flat.

Oh, one last thing, I'd love to test your theory. You are hereby invited to be my slave for one year. I will provide you with room and board. Let me know. It's my theory that the only people who will argue in favor of slavery are the ones who are not in any danger of being a slave.

[Wowbagger]

And, yes, I think the question is a serious one, deserving a serious answer. Here is my attempt:

This has happened throughout history, and only in recent times has become unethical.
Before recent times, much of slavery was justified through arguing that castes are either "natural" or "god-given".

It wasn't until recent times, when sciences, such as anthropology, were demonstrating that you couldn't really judge one's abilities or intellect based on what "caste" they happen to come from. Therefore, by extention, it makes sense to open equal opportunities of freedom, to everyone.

Science has a way of changing worldviews, like that.

[temporalillusion]

Many people already do this in my country (Canada).
Unless you can afford, and be intelligent, and diligent enough to go to higher education, you are basically stranded. Unless you have an exceptional entreprenuerial talent.

Having limited choices is not slavery.

I am also from Canada and would also like to know where this goes on.

[Ladewig]

I am willing to follow John Rawl's "Veil of Ignorance" argument that slavery is undesirable in a society. Very roughly speaking, imagine that you are going to design a society from the ground up. You get to decide if institutions like slavery will exist, if education is available to all people, if men and women will be given the same rights, and all the other factors that define a functioning civilization. The catch is that you must provide this description before you learn what race, sex, caste, ethnic group, or religion you will have.

When faced with this thought exercise, virtually all rational people avoid adding legalized slavery to the society that they will step into.

[Roboramma]

Survival of the fittest is the way of the streets even this day.
Who are we to question our own evolution?

I have to say I absolutely hate it when these ideas are brought into moral arguments. It's just so ridiculous.

Who are we to question our own evolution? Ourselves! We need nothing more than to care about ourselves in order to question what is an is not a moral act. Evolution doesn't come into it at all.

[angelsaramark]

You are right. It isn't wrong per se unless we are prepared to undo the entire world order.

[Lonewulf]

and?....
How has this addressed the idea of the ethic of slavery.

"And"? It dealt with one of your claims. Are willing to retract your claim?

Let's go back and section off your argument in this thread, to avoid another pathetic "and?", shall we?

In olden times, slaves were garnered through war. Instead of killing everyone, a victorious army would take slaves.

Simplistic view of history. You could only come to this conclusion for all of the "olden times" if you had a very dim understanding of history.

Yes, some slaves were garnered through war. And some were born into it. And some were put into it through the state for not paying all of their debts (Rome had a big problem with this, and Caesar worked to correct the issue of a majority populace of slaves in the Roman Empire). Not to mention that slavery in the 1800's U.S. was an issue more about race than about conquering, but you did say "olden times", which I can only assume means before the 1800's.

Either way, right from the first couple of sentences, you're already getting things wrong (or rather, not entirely correct).

Some rose to positions of great power and influence, as did Narcissus, a former slave of the Emperor Claudius.Some. And most didn't.

This has happened throughout history, and only in recent times has become unethical.Oh, I'm pretty sure that there were cultures "back in the day" that weren't exactly friendly to the idea of slavery, but that's not really that important.

We are contemporarily arrogant thinking that our way is the way.

Having a moral worldview does come across as arrogance to those that do not care to share it. Just like some people might come off as arrogant to prevent wife burning, honor killings, lynching *******, or attempting to prevent widespread slaughter and outright genocide, to those that want to do all those things.

The funny thing about this level of morality is, not only would I be perfectly happy to be "arrogant" to people like you, I'd also know that my idea of morality came with a direct social benefit. Slavery has too much cost, for too little benefit, in a utilitarian sense.

Survival of the fittest is the way of the streets even this day.

Too simplistic a concept, and demonstrably false.

Are you aware of the term "welfare"?

Who are we to question our own evolution?

I think you're mistaking social "evolution" with biological evolution.

By your argument, one could defend polluting the environment until all the human race was destroyed by saying... "who are we to question our own evolution?"

[Beerina]

In olden times, slaves were garnered through war. Instead of killing everyone, a victorious army would take slaves.
Some rose to positions of great power and influence, as did Narcissus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Claudius_Narcissus), a former slave of the Emperor Claudius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius).
This has happened throughout history, and only in recent times has become unethical.

We are contemporarily arrogant thinking that our way is the way.
Survival of the fittest is the way of the streets even this day.
Who are we to question our own evolution?


The way...for what?


I submit "the way", in the sense in which you use it means nothing more than "such that some people can gain comfort at the expense of others via physical force."


And the rational person would realize that isn't true, and that better can be had in a free society with a powerful economy.


Indeed, civilization is the taming of the animal instinct to "take what the other guy has", itself a sad consequence of a reality where it's easier to steal the hard work of others than to do that hard work yourself. (Slavery would be the ultimate example of this.)

But if that tendency is reigned in and outlawed, and people can be secure in their property that they develop from predators, then marvelous things happen in improving the quality of life for everyone.

[rocketdodger]

We are contemporarily arrogant thinking that our way is the way.
Survival of the fittest is the way of the streets even this day.
Who are we to question our own evolution?

If you were as smart as you think you are, you would realize that slavery is disappearing primarliy because of natural selection. As in, given the current state of human progress, the free societies are clobbering all the other ones economically, intellectually, and culturally.

So by asking "who are we to question our own evolution" you are in fact questioning our own evolution.

Any other bright ideas?

[slingblade]

I need a decent slave. Come to my house, pchams, and be mine. You can work a 60 hour week and turn all your pay and benefits over to me; then when you come home, you can do everything here and see to my comfort. If you have a family, I'll be selling them and keeping the money. I just need one slave. You get a cot on the back patio, and most of the leftovers I or the dog don't want. Of your clothes and personal effects, you can keep one pair of shoes, and two plain outfits. The rest, I'm selling and keeping the money.

You get minimal medical/dental care, and you pay it back by working double-shifts and still doing all your chores at home.

You will be set free by your death.

Packed yet? I'm waiting.

[Richard Masters]

I have to disagree that that was the main thing that was wrong with it. Certainly that slavery in the 1800's was based on race was an important thing that was wrong with it, but slavery is just plain wrong, whatever the basis is for deciding who are slaves and who are masters.

Are you sure? Indentured servitude worked well for a lot of immigrants to the U.S. Not necessarily different from having, say, very demanding parents, joining the military, or prostitution due to economic need.

Of course, I'm not justifying slavery on the whole; just pointing out its benefits when it is not necessarily indefinite.

[Fiona]

I have to say I absolutely hate it when these ideas are brought into moral arguments. It's just so ridiculous.

Who are we to question our own evolution? Ourselves! We need nothing more than to care about ourselves in order to question what is an is not a moral act. Evolution doesn't come into it at all.


I am so glad you said that: I couldn't agree more

[slingblade]

Are you sure? Indentured servitude worked well for a lot of immigrants to the U.S. Not necessarily different from having, say, very demanding parents, joining the military, or prostitution due to economic need.

Of course, I'm not justifying slavery on the whole; just pointing out its benefits when it is not necessarily indefinite.

Indentures usually have a time limit, yes, somewhat less than the life of the indentured. Something like, say, 7 years or 20?

General questions to anyone who might know, out of curiosity and for comparison's sake:

Were many who sold themselves into an indenture taught a trade, or were they more, less, or equally as likely to end up as a scullery or all-work, learning little more than how to bake bread or polish silver, which they might have learned anyway at home, for free?

Did indentured persons have certain liberties as a rule that slaves were not permitted? For instance, freedom of movement from the master's home, say to go into town and have an ale once in a while? To own some property, such as their clothes, or jewelry, books, personal items?

Were indentured servants allowed to have had or to receive some sort of even informal education; by that, I mean were most indentured servants kept illiterate under the law, as American slaves in particular were kept?

Could indentures be sold to others, or were they usually contracted with one master alone?

If an indentured servant could marry, and have children, did the master own the family, too? Could the family be sold off, or made to serve the master, or were they free persons? Could an indentured servant consider marriage to his master's daughter, perhaps?

My opinion only, I think it is one thing to choose (or if you're a child, have your parents choose) to bond you to a master for a certain period, and another to be taken by force and made to submit for the rest of your life to the will of anyone who could afford to puchase you. I don't have nearly the moral qualms about indenture that I have with slavery.

[Dancing David]

In olden times, slaves were garnered through war. Instead of killing everyone, a victorious army would take slaves.
Some rose to positions of great power and influence, as did Narcissus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Claudius_Narcissus), a former slave of the Emperor Claudius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius).
This has happened throughout history, and only in recent times has become unethical.

We are contemporarily arrogant thinking that our way is the way.
Survival of the fittest is the way of the streets even this day.
Who are we to question our own evolution?

I assume that others have addressed the 5 false arguments in your post.

You certainly are WRONG about evolution.

[Dancing David]

Indentures usually have a time limit, yes, somewhat less than the life of the indentured. Something like, say, 7 years or 20?

General questions to anyone who might know, out of curiosity and for comparison's sake:

Were many who sold themselves into an indenture taught a trade, or were they more, less, or equally as likely to end up as a scullery or all-work, learning little more than how to bake bread or polish silver, which they might have learned anyway at home, for free?

Did indentured persons have certain liberties as a rule that slaves were not permitted? For instance, freedom of movement from the master's home, say to go into town and have an ale once in a while? To own some property, such as their clothes, or jewelry, books, personal items?

Were indentured servants allowed to have had or to receive some sort of even informal education; by that, I mean were most indentured servants kept illiterate under the law, as American slaves in particular were kept?

Could indentures be sold to others, or were they usually contracted with one master alone?

If an indentured servant could marry, and have children, did the master own the family, too? Could the family be sold off, or made to serve the master, or were they free persons? Could an indentured servant consider marriage to his master's daughter, perhaps?

My opinion only, I think it is one thing to choose (or if you're a child, have your parents choose) to bond you to a master for a certain period, and another to be taken by force and made to submit for the rest of your life to the will of anyone who could afford to puchase you. I don't have nearly the moral qualms about indenture that I have with slavery.


Wow indenture is just as broad a topic as slavery!

This book Many Thousands Gone
http://www.amazon.com/Many-Thousands-Gone-Centuries-Slavery/dp/0674002113

Is somewhat dry but also very short, it talks about the changes in salvary in the north american area, many slaves had a free day each week, and they could profit from their labor. But as the agricultural industry of the southern US rose, this form of slavery was replaced.

Indenture is a strange one as well, and in many cases just as bad as slavery.

[Dancing David]

I remember in sociology a theory that slavery needs a high economic profit to benefit, and that it is hard to maintain outside of that profit.

Pchams, will you sell yourself into sexual bondage?

In game theory slavery is a dangerous proposition, the chances that you will be a slave are rather substantial (especially if you are a debt/bond slave).

So how is it natural selection if a small minority control the economic resources and force others off the land (the enclosue acts for example), would it have be just of the British to make slaves of those they forced off the land into slavery?

[Bluefire]

The standard for what is right or wrong would reasonably be: what is good for human life and prospering. So a morality can be in this sence "objectively better" or "objectively worse" than another depending on how conducive it is to a prosperous life.

For the slave it is obvious why slavery is wrong: He dos not have the freedom to do the most with his life.

What may not be as obvious at first glance is that it is better also for us nonslaves that slavery isn't being considered "right" :
Nonslaves are more productive than slaves. Partly because a nonslave can adjust their activity to their wants and talents, and have more motivation when they get to keep the fruits of their labor. We others get a share in this increased production through the normal economic mechanisms of trade and division of labor. And I have not even began touching on any possible social frictions created by slavery.

So my answer to you is : The reason slavery is wrong is that a slave society is not as conducive to human life and prospering as a nonslave society. This holds both if you look at it from a utilitarian perspective at the society as a collective, and if you look at the selfish interests of the single individuals (slaves and nonslaves).

[quarky]

Slaves have a way of 'turning' on their masters.

We're even becoming enslaved to our machines.

[thatguywhojuggles]

To the person who made the opening post:

I accept your offer to become my slave. Got plenty of work around here for you and you can live out in the shed.

[Doubt]

If you were as smart as you think you are, you would realize that slavery is disappearing primarliy because of natural selection. As in, given the current state of human progress, the free societies are clobbering all the other ones economically, intellectually, and culturally.

So by asking "who are we to question our own evolution" you are in fact questioning our own evolution.

Any other bright ideas?

Thanks for saving me the effort of writing that.

Except that I disagree with the notion that social progress should be described as something other than evolution.

[antik1]

nothing's wrong if slave wants to be slave and if master give slave an salery for his job

[Lonewulf]

nothing's wrong if slave wants to be slave and if master give slave an salery for his job

The whole point of slavery is that the slave doesn't have a choice, though.

What if the slave that wanted to be a slave realized that he couldn't handle it, and wanted to quit? If unable to quit, then that pretty much ruins whatever point you were trying to make.

Wait a minute... slave wants to be a slave, gets a salary, and can quit. Sounds a lot like a job. Maybe the 1800's sweatshop labor, but hey, if it worked, it worked, right?

[LibraryLady]

Forgive me because I only skimmed this thread so this might have already been asked.

I am assuming that this means you would volunteer to be a slave?

[Lonewulf]

I don't think the OP really volunteered to be a slave. He just thinks that the "lesser" opponents should be made slaves.

So if we defeat someone in combat, they become slaves. Makes sense, right?

I wonder who we should declare war on to harvest slaves... maybe we can go back to putting those damn ******* to work!


Or not.

[Wowbagger]

Some of you are coming up with good answers. But, most of you are not addressing the issue of "why now?" Why only in recent centuries is slavery recognized as so immoral? What has changed?

As I stated, earlier in this thread: It was science! Science was breaking down the notion that castes are either "god given" or "natural" or otherwise justifiable.

You could almost say that athropology is the unsung hero of the civil rights movement!

[Lonewulf]

Some of you are coming up with good answers. But, most of you are not addressing the issue of "why now?" Why only in recent centuries is slavery recognized as so immoral? What has changed?

As I stated, earlier in this thread: It was science! Science was breaking down the notion that castes are either "god given" or "natural" or otherwise justifiable.

You could almost say that athropology is the unsung hero of the civil rights movement!

Science has also demonstrated that being from another race does not make you the equivalent of a gorilla... although I'd also call that common sense.

Personally, I think that machines had a decent overall effect overall. To have a slave, you need to provide lodgings, food, water, and various other necessities to keep him alive (much less productive!) Now, instead of needing slaves to take care of huge loads of crops, we use machinery to do the work of hundreds.

[Safe-Keeper]

Survival of the fittest is the way of the streets even this day.
Who are we to question our own evolution?When you drop an object, it falls straight down at the speed determined (to my knowledge) by its weight, mass and shape. It's very likely been this way since the universe started. So what's with the parachute? You're supposed to fall to your death if you're dumb enough to jump out of a flying plane. Who are we to question the laws of nature?

[INRM]

I can't believe any person would ask this question this day and age...

Denying a person's freedom and basic human rights, restricting their education to prevent them from realizing they are slaves, taking away any reasonable hope for them escaping (via physical restrictions and by restriction of education) their slavery, should they escape and be recaptured, they would be brutally tortured if not killed, making them work with no renumeration, potentially subjecting them to brutal beatings for failure to work hard enough (which is entirely up to the opinion of the slavemaster) and for who knows what other reason, taking away their kids and forcing them to work as slaves as well and subjecting them to exactly the same horrors is NOT moral or ethical.

[Wowbagger]

Science has also demonstrated that being from another race does not make you the equivalent of a gorilla... although I'd also call that common sense. Common sense to us. But, not necessarily something someone would know intuitively.

There were some early athropologists who were very bright, but had assumed only "black" men evolved from apes, not the so-called "pure white" men (to use their terminology).

Even if you acknowledge that all humans share a common ape-like ancestor, there was (and still is) some bias against certain races. Some assume people of certain races can't be as intelligent as others. Science has persistently knocked these biases down.

Personally, I think that machines had a decent overall effect overall. To have a slave, you need to provide lodgings, food, water, and various other necessities to keep him alive (much less productive!) Now, instead of needing slaves to take care of huge loads of crops, we use machinery to do the work of hundreds. Yes, machines, and other economic factors, were definately significant contributors. They are the reason slavery is not considered viable, today.

And, it could be true that if, for some reason, we were never able to build such machines, we might likely go back to slavekeeping mentalities.

But, I suspect the drive to build so many machines, in the first place, emerged out of the recognition that slavery was cruel.

So, to summarize: Slavery was first considered cruel through the science of anthropology (and other social and biological sciences), but remained a sustainable mentality (i.e. it was more than "just a fad"), through economic gains brought about by the science of machine engineering.

Perhaps improvements made to the general democracy of ideas also helped.

[RandFan]

I need a decent slave. Come to my house, pchams, and be mine.Oh no you don't. I have first dibbs. :) But I've only requested him a year. You can have him after that.

[slingblade]

nothing's wrong if slave wants to be slave and if master give slave an salery for his job

You haven't described slavery. You've described employment.

[RandFan]

You haven't described slavery. You've described employment.:) I think that was the point. We are all slaves to something. So long as we have some say so in chosing our taskmaster I'm fine with that. We should always be free to say "take this job and shove it".

Then again, I'm an independant contractor.

[ScepticMike]

In modern parlance we are all slaves to our lifestyles, mortgages etc. But I guess that isn’t whats meant.

Slavery existed in the world until much later than most people realise, it was outlawed in China in 1910 and Korea in 1930. It was only abolished in the Arabian Peninsula in the early 1960’s. In countries with poor human rights records, the forced labour of political prisoners probably continues to this day and could be assumed to be slavery. To advocate the use of slavery it would be useful if it were clear in what form slavery is being advocated. Are we talking about cheap or free labour, the loss of personal liberty or the loss of all rights as a person?

In its earlier form, slavery meant the total loss of rights as a person and the slave became the property of the owner even to the point that the owner had the right to destroy the property if he wished. Even in Roman times it was recognised that it was not a just situation but accepted it because it was generally acceptable to society at that time. Any offspring of the slaves automatically became the property of the owner of the parent slaves. In Medieval times serfs were often little better than slaves.
Over the centuries, laws relating to slaves evolved as human knowledge and consciousness evolved to the point where it is no longer socially acceptable. Sociological evolution is as inevitable as human evolution but happens far faster.
I cannot see the practice of slavery as ethical or moral, nor does it fit in with societies modern concept of human rights, but leaving that aside what purpose would there be?
In my mind, the key question is what benefits would there be to reintroducing slavery? It hasn’t proved to be an effective cure for crime or war. Perhaps the answer is economic, would a slave workforce be more productive than a fairly paid worker? Also, would it be practical to enforce slavery without more militaristic and undemocratic states? I agree with Bluefires view that a non-slave workforce would be more productive. As the world moves further into knowledge economies, the practicality of slave labour must be lessened.
Practically, can democracy and slavery co-exist in one society?

[ScepticMike]

The economic question is quite simple: Can the employer / Owner make more profit out of efficiency than the incremental cost of paid workers? An employer pays a worker a wage and the worker feeds and houses himself as well as looking after his own retirement and healthcare. in the case of a slave, an Owner has to pay a capital cost to acquire the 'asset', feed house, clothe and take care of healthcare. I doubt the cost of free workers is orders of magnitude larger than the cost of owning a slave.

[This Guy]

The economic question is quite simple: Can the employer / Owner make more profit out of efficiency than the incremental cost of paid workers? An employer pays a worker a wage and the worker feeds and houses himself as well as looking after his own retirement and healthcare. in the case of a slave, an Owner has to pay a capital cost to acquire the 'asset', feed house, clothe and take care of healthcare. I doubt the cost of free workers is orders of magnitude larger than the cost of owning a slave.

I doubt slaves had yearly medical/dental exams, and I dare say not much went into their 401K's ;)

We can find many cases of slave owners being most beneficent toward their slaves. However, I suspect on a percentage basis, the number would be fairly small. In many cases the slaves were at best viewed to be "worth" what they could produce. If the cost of maintaining that production was more than would be returned in a reasonable period of time, I doubt the "investment" in health care was made. If a suitable replacement could be bought for a few hundred dollars, and be put right to work, why invest in medical care and wait for the "property" to be able to start producing again?

I suspect that if the cost of slave ownership were adjusted to todays dollars, and compared to say the average cost/employee of GM, there would be a very significant difference in favor of the GM employee.

The cost for clothing and housing, I'm sure were minimal. They didn't have indoor pools and saunas, and not many designer jeans were worn ;)

I suspect food cost was the biggest expense, and considering most slaves (in the US anyway) were used on farms, I'm sure that was a relatively small dollar amount. Even today, if slaves were a common "item" I suspect they would be viewed much as those of the past viewed them. As lesser people. Not deserving (nor likely to be appreciative of) the better things.

And the mere idea of considering a human as a product of production, I find quite disgusting. That's just my reaction to the words I just typed. Not part of my answer to your post :)

[Silentknight]

In olden times, slaves were garnered through war. Instead of killing everyone, a victorious army would take slaves.
Some rose to positions of great power and influence, as did Narcissus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Claudius_Narcissus), a former slave of the Emperor Claudius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius).
This has happened throughout history, and only in recent times has become unethical.

The fundamental problem with your claim is that the lesser of two evils is still evil.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I might like to give this slavery thing a try. How much does it pay?

[RandFan]

I suspect that if the cost of slave ownership were adjusted to todays dollars, and compared to say the average cost/employee of GM, there would be a very significant difference in favor of the GM employee.But even if we accept this, the benefit of paying employees cannot be denied. I'm glad you brought up GM because Henry Ford believed that satisfied employees were more likely to be more productive (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/060103) and of course the more money that is being paid to employees the more money that is moving through the economy. Society benefits significantly by having productive workers who are contributing to the market. They don't need to beaten or punished. No resources need to be used to track them. There are no protests or social disorder.

Slavery could simply not be justified in a modern western society.

[ScepticMike]

I suspect that if the cost of slave ownership were adjusted to todays dollars, and compared to say the average cost/employee of GM, there would be a very significant difference in favor of the GM employee.

You would have to look at the cost of workers across the world. GM slaves would probably be more expensive than those in the East:)

I doubt it would be long before the various departments of the US and EU governments started to regulate the slave industry adding cost to it.

And the mere idea of considering a human as a product of production, I find quite disgusting. That's just my reaction to the words I just typed. Not part of my answer to your post :)

The concept of a person as an object devoid of rights is repulsive to me whether it is as a slave or in an oppressive environment. That's an emotional value based judgement though.

[Cavemonster]

Another main point is that, at this point in history, only formerly destitute nations can advance through the sheer brute force of cheap labor. Looking at the advantage historically, it will become less and less beneficial.

What really will power the economy of any country in the long term, is innovation. For that innovation, you need the largest possible number of people with the leisure to pursue education, and the lure of being able to benefit from their ideas and work.

Slavery takes a chunk of population and removes the opportunity and incentive for them to add anything other than their day's labor. This robs the nation of any number of potential innovators.

[RandFan]

Slavery takes a chunk of population and removes the opportunity and incentive for them to add anything other than their day's labor. This robs the nation of any number of potential innovators.Great point. This can't be overstated. As Julian Simon says, the greatest asset to humanity is the human mind. At the risk of godwyning the thread, Hitler sought to kill all of the Jews. Among them were some of the most brilliant minds of the time including Einstein.

I can only imagine how many great minds languished in the fields of slavery. And let's add to that the oppression of women. How many great thinkers and innovators were denied their opportunity to contribute to humanity simply because they were born female?

Slavery, isn't simply immoral, and it is immoral, it's really, really stupid.

[quarky]

That slavery is repugnant to most is a good sign.

However, we are more oblivious to the legal alternative to slavery which functions globally and is racist. Working hard for a dollar a day isn't quite freedom.

There's a lot of people trapped in something that's only slightly better.

[Roadtoad]

One of my heroes, (and yes, I do have them), was born a slave in Maryland. Escaping to freedom, he educated himself, and after hearing William Lloyd Garrison speak, he became an abolitionist himself. He became a newspaper publisher and editor, wrote one of the most highly regarded autobiographies ever written by an American, and ultimately worked for the rights of women, native Americans, and immigrants.

Yes, there was a benefit to slavery. It produced Fredrick Douglass. But at what cost? Frankly, I would guess that Douglass, given his nature, would have worked for the rights of the downtrodden regardless of his background.

[rocketdodger]

Except that I disagree with the notion that social progress should be described as something other than evolution.

Did I?

That wasn't my intent. My intent was to describe why, in the context of evolution, certain social behavior is much more fit.

In particular, free societies are more productive in almost every way that counts. They exceed other societies, all else being equal, in culture, economy, and intellect. This extra productivity is a huge fitness advantage in certain conditions -- such as the conditions of the last 200 or so years.

Anyone who has played Civilization knows this!

[ScepticMike]

What really will power the economy of any country in the long term, is innovation. For that innovation, you need the largest possible number of people with the leisure to pursue education, and the lure of being able to benefit from their ideas and work.


Agreed. Innovation is critical in a knowledge economy and historically innovation has been stifled under oppressive regimes even where the community was not subjected to slavery.

Imagine what Microsoft’s products would be like if they were designed and built by slaves....... Hmmm, maybe a bad example....

[shuize]

Like Slingblade, I sometimes wonder if those who tried to argue that slavery really wasn't so bad would have been willing to subject themselves to it as well. But here we have a perfect opportunity to find out. What do you say, Pchams? Care to give it a go? Or are you just trolling?

[ScepticMike]

Working hard for a dollar a day isn't quite freedom.

There's a lot of people trapped in something that's only slightly better.

Slavery may be legally dead but opression and expliotation are alive an well. perhaps the subject of another thread.

[Trakar]

Sorry if I've missed it in passing, as I did rather quickly skim the thread so far, I did see Slingblade, I believe touch upon it, but perhaps it would be best to define exactly what is meant by "slavery" before we can really weigh in on the pros and cons. There are quite a few types, forms and degrees of slavery. And the type that predominated in Early American history wasn't the only or even typical form that slavery has taken over the course of history.

[LibraryLady]

The fact that the original poster, pcham, has not participated in this thread for three days leads me to think he might not be all that interested in these replies.

[RandFan]

Sorry if I've missed it in passing, as I did rather quickly skim the thread so far, I did see Slingblade, I believe touch upon it, but perhaps it would be best to define exactly what is meant by "slavery" before we can really weigh in on the pros and cons. There are quite a few types, forms and degrees of slavery. And the type that predominated in Early American history wasn't the only or even typical form that slavery has taken over the course of history.What difference does it make? If by slavery you mean the constraints of life then, perhaps, you should start another thread. But, to be fair, why don't you provide a definition and then try and justify it or oppose it? I don't think anything that one person forces on another is justifiable. Perhaps political systems like capitalism fit that definition and that is worth discussing but we don't know until you make an argument.

Simply stating there are many forms of slavery tells us nothing and does not advance the discussion.

[Roadtoad]

The fact that the original poster, pcham, has not participated in this thread for three days leads me to think he might not be all that interested in these replies.

Hence my noting that this was a troll post.

[Belz...]

This has happened throughout history, and only in recent times has become unethical.

You mean like religion, lack of hygiene, witch medecine and "character"-based justice ?

[Dancing David]

The fact that the original poster, pcham, has not participated in this thread for three days leads me to think he might not be all that interested in these replies.

Perhaps they are now aware of what being a slave is about...

[Roadtoad]

Regardless, LL's central point remains.

Personally, I think this was an attempt at trolling. Pchams was looking to get a reaction. Three pages later, he/she/it has one. It might not be the one expected, but it was a reaction, nonetheless.

I guess it's a stage we go through when we first get on the net, or we join a new board. The whole idea is to make a splash: "Look at me! Here I am!"

If he'd come here seriously interested in a discussion about slavery, there were other ways to introduce the subject. It seems to me that wasn't the point. So, what we got was a hit and run post, and off we went to the races.

Oh, well.

[Lonewulf]

Hit and run posters bore me.

I can't quite tell if this particular person is necessarily a hit and run poster, though.

[quarky]

There are degrees of enslavement.
To see it as so well defined is to ignore its lesser forms.

We are so not over the concept.
We have accepted the fact of other people being less worthy than us.
We are dependent on their labor.

We gladly accept policies that enable the continuation of the exploitation.

let's call it schamvery?

there have never been more slaves than there are today.

[joobz]

There are degrees of enslavement.
To see it as so well defined is to ignore its lesser forms.
Without a description of how you define this, your statement is meaningless.

We are so not over the concept.
We have accepted the fact of other people being less worthy than us.
Who's "We", Kimosabe?

We are dependent on their labor.

We gladly accept policies that enable the continuation of the exploitation.

let's call it schamvery?

there have never been more slaves than there are today.
Oh, so you are trying to equate modern labor inequality(regarding illegal immigrant I assume) with owning another person.

1.) Labor inequity isn't new and is a continuing struggle. You do know why unions originally formed? right? Your alluding to "worst now than before" is simply wrong. I suggest looking back to the robber barons and company stores.

2.) No immigrant is required to come here and work. They are free to come or go. Slaves can not make that choice. They are bound to who owns them.

3.) Immigrants have access to medical care that is basically free. (this isn't a exact policy, but in practice is what happens. My brother works with hospitals to provide means of obtaining health care for illegal immigrants). SLAVES wouldn't have such access.

4.) "people" aren't ok with the current inequality system. Addressing of the abuse labor practices IS an issue and one that will be dealt with.

[Lonewulf]

There are degrees of enslavement.
To see it as so well defined is to ignore its lesser forms.

We are so not over the concept.
We have accepted the fact of other people being less worthy than us.
We are dependent on their labor.

We gladly accept policies that enable the continuation of the exploitation.

let's call it schamvery?

there have never been more slaves than there are today.

Meaningless rhetoric is meaningless.

[RandFan]

There are degrees of enslavement.
To see it as so well defined is to ignore its lesser forms.

We are so not over the concept.
We have accepted the fact of other people being less worthy than us.
We are dependent on their labor.

We gladly accept policies that enable the continuation of the exploitation.

let's call it schamvery?

there have never been more slaves than there are today.I think slavery is useful as a comparison but I'm not sure how helpful it is to call someone a slave. It might be difficult to quit your job but you can do it without being prosecuted or hunted down and killed. It is possible in many western nations to work more than one job and save up and purchase your own business. It's possible to get additional education to move ahead.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not stating that those facts are answers to systemic problems associated with poverty as so many right-wing pundits are eager to offer as a sop. I think we do need to address poverty and of course that includes America.

It's just that I don't personally see that using the term of slavery for rhetorical purposes has any practical use. But that's not to say you don't have a point. I think you do.

[pchams]

It was a bit of a troll post. However, I only asked a question, and questioned an answer.
Randfan, and Slingblade, line up behind my wife and children.

Slavery is alive and well in many forms in the world as far as I can see, and i"m trying to understand it.
Sexual slavery in the western world is not well defined.

[arthwollipot]

In olden times, slaves were garnered through war. Instead of killing everyone, a victorious army would take slaves.There was a reason why the Romans needed a constant supply of new slaves.

[leonAzul]

In olden times, slaves were garnered through war.

And now it's called jail.

:-/

[slingblade]

Randfan, and Slingblade, line up behind my wife and children.


Uh.....no.

[RandFan]

Randfan, and Slingblade, line up behind my wife and children.I think that trivializes a very serious issue. I realize that it might have seemed like we were being cheeky but we were trying to make a point. I can't speak for Slingblade but I'm sure she would agree that our point wasn't to make light of slavery.

It's easy to sit there and find some justification for something as pernicious as slavery but when it's you that will have to endure being the property of another suddenly it's not as easy to justify.

Your obligations and responsibility to your wife and daughter simply don't equate. You made choices that led to those responsibilities. People who are property of others don't typically have that luxury.

[arthwollipot]

To summarise:

What is wrong with slavery?
It removes the right of self-determination.

[RandFan]

To summarise:

What is wrong with slavery?
It removes the right of self-determination.:)

Yes! I seriously doubt it could be said anymore succinctly.

[leonAzul]

To summarise:

What is wrong with slavery?
It removes the right of self-determination.

And to not put so fine a point on to it, it is an inalienable right, that is to say, a right that is not granted, but rather that it is a right that obtains from the status of being human.

There, I must admit, I have zero tolerance. I shall not live for the sake of another, nor shall I suffer another to live for the sake of me!

[quarky]

Without a description of how you define this, your statement is meaningless.

Who's "We", Kimosabe?

Oh, so you are trying to equate modern labor inequality(regarding illegal immigrant I assume) with owning another person.

1.) Labor inequity isn't new and is a continuing struggle. You do know why unions originally formed? right? Your alluding to "worst now than before" is simply wrong. I suggest looking back to the robber barons and company stores.

2.) No immigrant is required to come here and work. They are free to come or go. Slaves can not make that choice. They are bound to who owns them.

3.) Immigrants have access to medical care that is basically free. (this isn't a exact policy, but in practice is what happens. My brother works with hospitals to provide means of obtaining health care for illegal immigrants). SLAVES wouldn't have such access.

4.) "people" aren't ok with the current inequality system. Addressing of the abuse labor practices IS an issue and one that will be dealt with.

I was thinking more of the sweat-shops in 3rd world countries and U.S. protecterates.

[Roadtoad]

One of the problems with getting cute with phrases such as "slave" and "slavery" is that it dilutes the meaning, and the accompanying horror, of the definition. Arth defined the term beautifully, and succinctly, (and it's worth the nom for pith, even if it isn't intended to be funny), defining the term for anyone who chooses to examine it.

I get the same sense of disgust when people toss around terms like "Nazi," mainly because I've known Holocaust survivors, and know through them the true violence inherent in the term. Frankly, when I hear that word, I want the person being called a "Nazi" to be deserving of the insult, not simply someone who disagrees with Barbara Boxer. I don't want such phrases diluted; I want the poison to be in full force, so we don't forget what people like that did.

In the same vein, I'm reminded of one incident involving Rush Limbaugh. I think most folks know I don't have a whole lot of respect for the Bloated Bastard of Broadcasting, but there was one instance where he showed some true mettle.

Some years ago, Edwin Edwards was running for Governor of Louisiana against David Duke. Edwards was a known crook, while Duke was fairly unknown at the time, (unless you'd been paying attention). Limbaugh was telling his listeners in Louisiana to vote for Edwards.

At one point, a listener called in complaining about this to Limbaugh. "Dance with the one that brung you," he told Limbaugh.

Rush blew his cork. He reiterated why he opposed Duke. Duke, he said, was a Klansman, a Nazi, a racist thug, who would destroy Conservatism in this country. He opposed nearly everything Duke stood for, save for lower taxes, and he was actively supporting Edwards for the seat instead of a divisive character like Duke.

Duke lost, of course. To my mind, Limbaugh bought himself a few years out of any Purgatory that might exist.

The same situation exists with "slavery." That's a very specific term, and it should be used appropriately, since we've been learning that a century and a half since the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, there are those in this country who are still bringing slaves into this country. It's done quietly, it's never open, but it's genuine slavery nonetheless. That it continues in this country, as it has, unabated, in other parts of the world, is a human disgrace.

I understand that "it's the way of the world." That does not make it right. If anything, that it is perpetuated demonstrates just how little progress we have made as a species.

If you want to talk about exploited workers, fine. But call them that. A slave has no rights, no property, no hope. Their lives are not even their own. An exploited worker can at least say, ":rule10 this," and walk away.

[Toke]

Slave reaching high positions?
Chinese eunuchs got high positions in court too.

Somehow, I do not find it attractive.

There is a sliding scale from slavery, to indenture, to wage slavery with company/farm store

[slingblade]

The OP specifically asks what's wrong with slavery. The title echoes it. Not indenture or wage slavery, but slavery.

In my imagination, I will happily smack the next person who belabors a thread with wondering why we always have to define our terms, since everyone knows what that term means.

@Toke, I'd say, opinion only, the "sliding scale" you show reflects changes in morality, laws, economics, and other factors. I imagine all the things you list still exist, openly and hidden, in most of the world. They ought not exist, I think, and I agree with RT that we have not come very far, collectively, to have not yet eliminated all of it.

Asking what is wrong with slavery directly relates to the premise held by some that all morality comes only from god. If god is shown to uphold immorality, the premise is unsound.

p1: If god exists; (an entire argument in itself; must be established)
p2: and if all morality comes only from god; (depends absolutely on p1 being established)
p3: and if god upholds/condones slavery: (verified in the text ascribed to p1)

c: then slavery is moral.

I fail to see how one can hold p1 and p2 without holding p3 and the conclusion.

[Toke]

Ok, my scale was off topic.

And theologist keep redefining the word of good to keep slightly behind society*.
*The danish state church.
I have asked respectable theologist in the family, and gotten something vague about picking and chosing.

Literal christians are in trouble, they have to defend slavery.
Plus alot of other stuff.

[RandFan]

In my imagination, I will happily smack the next person who belabors a thread with wondering why we always have to define our terms, since everyone knows what that term means.Define "everyone"?

:boxedin:

[slingblade]

Define "everyone"?

:boxedin:


lol


"Slavery's bad!"

Define slavery.

"Uh! Why??? Everyone knows what slavery is!"








...apparently not. :D


(I meant by my earlier comment that it is good, and usually necessary, to establish/define our terms from the outset.)

[quarky]

I went off a bit, yes.

(I'm over that now)

[uruk]

That one is easy.
The conquerers pass on their genes. As it has always been.

Usually to the slaves. See Thomas Jefferson.

[uruk]

Oh yea. Everybody here knows that slavery still goes on in several countries.

You can google incidences here in the U.S. where a few rich people were bust by having an foriegn child as a house slave.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/
http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2004/
http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_today/index.html

Slavery does make fiscal sense if not moral sense. Otherwise it would not still be occuring today.

[quarky]

Freed slaves were more productive working in factories. I'd agree it was economics at play more than moral outrage.

[Nogbad]

In olden times, slaves were garnered through war. Instead of killing everyone, a victorious army would take slaves.
Some rose to positions of great power and influence, as did Narcissus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Claudius_Narcissus), a former slave of the Emperor Claudius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius).
This has happened throughout history, and only in recent times has become unethical.

We are contemporarily arrogant thinking that our way is the way.
Survival of the fittest is the way of the streets even this day.
Who are we to question our own evolution?

There is much in what you say and I may have a golden opportunity for you :)

(you are reasonable fit, good teeth etc.,?)

[Toke]

There is much in what you say and I may have a golden opportunity for you :)

(you are reasonable fit, good teeth etc.,?)

Would he have to give up the family jewels?

[Third Eye Open]

What is wrong with slavery?

I don't want to be a slave.

[Lonewulf]

Do unto others, as you would have done unto you.

Pretty simple.

[Malerin]

To summarise:

What is wrong with slavery?
It removes the right of self-determination.

Where does this "right of self-determination" come from?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Objectively, absolutely nothing.

Your own values will determine how you view it as right or wrong.

[RandFan]

Where does this "right of self-determination" come from?Do you value self-determination?

History proves that the best way to ensure that you never become a slave is to enshrine as a right self-determination. History also demonstrates that societies are more productive and more healthy if they don't have slaves. History has also demonstrated that enshrining as a right self-determination increases social cohesion. It's just a very, very good thing by any and all reasonable standards. So societies evolve to grant the right to self-determination because of the utility of it and because of the golden rule.

That's where. And BTW, we can trace the evolution of social morality. God certainly never decreed the right to self-determination.

[Malerin]

Do you value self-determination?

History proves that the best way to ensure that you never become a slave is to enshrine as a right self-determination.

Or you are a member of the slave-owning class. Southern whites never had to worry about being enslaved.

History also demonstrates that societies are more productive and more healthy if they don't have slaves. History has also demonstrated that enshrining as a right self-determination increases social cohesion. It's just a very, very good thing by any and all reasonable standards. So societies evolve to grant the right to self-determination because of the utility of it and because of the golden rule.

That's where. And BTW, we can trace the evolution of social morality. God certainly never decreed the right to self-determination.

Sounds like utilitariainism. The Romans were around for a long time.

[RandFan]

Or you are a member of the slave-owning class. Southern whites never had to worry about being enslaved. There is no such thing as an absolute gurantee (see history).

Sounds like utilitariainism.In part yes, of course. Damn great stuff.

The Romans were around for a long time.I'm not arguing absolutes, and BTW, there is no such thing as utopia. There are give and takes to any social system.

That said, to be sure, the Romans were not able to provide the maximum utility to the maximum number of people (slaves were themselve automatically excluded). I can't imagine modern societies would want whatever benefits the Romans might have had at the high costs of slavery today. It doesn't make any sense. The Romans had to spend a lot of resources putting down uprisings and revolts. Why should we mess with that? We now know that content workers are far more productive and contribute to all levels of society than slaves. And of course, since our moral conscience has evolved, a modern society that practiced slavery would have to deal with a much larger segment of society that would revolt (see Vietnam protests).

It's demonstrable that society is better without slavery regardless of what Rome might or might not have done.

Oh, BTW, why didn't the Bible recognize self-determination? Why didn't ancient societies do so?

Is it because morality is an evolving concept? Is it because as science has advanced our circle of humanity has also enlarged? Is it because we can see the very real benifits to society of democracy and rights for all people? I would have to say yes.

[RandFan]

IIRC, it's been said that few things are more powerful than an idea whose time has come. In the past it was difficult, given the dynamics of the times, to see beyond exploiting other people as slaves. It took a long time but humans have come to see that perhaps the most pernicious and stupid ideas is slavery.

Self-determination is probably the most powerful idea of all time.

For those who haven't read I recommend: The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror. (http://www.amazon.com/Case-Democracy-Freedom-Overcome-Tyranny/dp/1586482610)

[Tsukasa Buddha]

History proves that the best way to ensure that you never become a slave is to enshrine as a right self-determination.

I'd say history proves the best way to ensure that you never become a slave is to have the bigger gun.

History also demonstrates that societies are more productive and more healthy if they don't have slaves.

And why should I care about some abstract notion of "society"? And don't you know society doesn't exist? Only individuals do.

History has also demonstrated that enshrining as a right self-determination increases social cohesion.

If history told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?

History also shows many other things that increase social cohesion, like a state religion (See: Spanish Inquisition).

It's just a very, very good thing by any and all reasonable standards.

I prefer unreasonable standards, thank you very much.

So societies evolve to grant the right to self-determination because of the utility of it and because of the golden rule.

Still with these society thingies, eh?

And evolution does not always bring about a desired vector.

In part yes, of course. Damn great stuff.

Damn great hedonism is what utilitarianism is.

Besides, you haven't shown who gives the right of self determination, or why it is a "right", or why slavery is wrong (The question of the OP). You've just established usefulness within your own system.

And you have yet to define the "right of self-determination". Depending on one's definition, it can either be an unrealistic dream destined to be violated, or can fit perfectly within a system of slavery.

For those who haven't read I recommend: The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror. (http://www.amazon.com/Case-Democracy-Freedom-Overcome-Tyranny/dp/1586482610)

Now now, let's not bring Israel/Palestine into this :p .

And for the record, I am not playing devil's advocate, and I never have been playing devil's advocate. This is an issue between me, my pastor, and my family. I have a wide stance, you see...

[AkuManiMani]

What is wrong with slavery?

Are you implying that its okay to enslave you?

If so it sounds like a really sweet deal. I could use a house keeper right about now but I cant afford one; slave labor is just what I need. How generous of you to offer :rolleyes:

[AkuManiMani]

I'd say history proves the best way to ensure that you never become a slave is to have the bigger gun.

Or convince the people with the guns that its a good idea to listen to you.



And why should I care about some abstract notion of "society"? And don't you know society doesn't exist? Only individuals do.

Society is the organizing factor that limits and influences the behaviors of individuals and groups of individuals. You cant get much done without influencing the society around you. Sociological and political forces exists whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.



If history told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?

History doesn't tells us to do anything anymore than archeology tells us to do anything. History just tells us what was and, by extension, what can be expected given certain sociological conditions.

History also shows many other things that increase social cohesion, like a state religion (See: Spanish Inquisition).

Didn't you just say societies don't exist? There was no state, and not state religion. There was no Inquisition; just a bunch of individuals who happened to wear similar costumes, practiced similar customs and happened to think torturing and killing people for not believing the same myths as them was a good idea. Clearly their behavior and motive were made in isolation and had no socialogical correlation with each other :rollseyes:


Still with these society thingies, eh?

And evolution does not always bring about a desired vector.

The evolution of societies is shaped by the beliefs, goals, and intentions of the individuals that comprise them. In a very real sense, the evolution of societies is more Lamarckian than Darwinian. A constitutional republic is what the Revolutionary Founders of America intended and that's pretty much what was created.

Damn great hedonism is what utilitarianism is.

Besides, you haven't shown who gives the right of self determination, or why it is a "right", or why slavery is wrong (The question of the OP). You've just established usefulness within your own system.

And you have yet to define the "right of self-determination". Depending on one's definition, it can either be an unrealistic dream destined to be violated, or can fit perfectly within a system of slavery.

I'm having a hard time understanding how you can possibly think that the right of self-determination is compatible with slavery [or that hedonism is identical with utilitarianism, for that matter]. By its very nature, slavery is the violation of a person's right to self-determination. Imposing slavery is not 'self-determination' because you are forcibly coercing that actions of another.

[RandFan]

I'd say history proves the best way to ensure that you never become a slave is to have the bigger gun.But we know this is false. Even Rome fell.

And why should I care about some abstract notion of "society"? And don't you know society doesn't exist? Only individuals do. BS. You might tell yourself that you believe it but you know better. Go rob a bank and tell the judge that.

If history told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?History has shown that jumping of a bridge leads to death. If jumping off a bridge led to some benefit, damn straight I would, hell, what good is reason if we don't use it? The point is that history demonstrates that jumping off bridges typicall leads to bad things. THAT'S the point of history.

History also shows many other things that increase social cohesion, like a state religion (See: Spanish Inquisition). I don't claim absolutes. Only that we can look back and see what worked and what didn't. The "social cohesion" you claim was tenuous and it had drawbacks and DIDN'T give maximum benefit for maximum citizens.

I prefer unreasonable standards, thank you very much. I can see that.

Still with these society thingies, eh?Of course. Given anthropology and history I can't find a reason not to.

And evolution does not always bring about a desired vector. Never said that it did. Still with the strawmen?

Damn great hedonism is what utilitarianism is.Not from a societal perspective. No.

Besides, you haven't shown who gives the right of self determination, or why it is a "right"...The "who" is society the "why" is rather complex and I can't give you an exact and thorough explanation (see moral, ethical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics) and legal philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/law-phil.htm).)


...or why slavery is wrong (The question of the OP). This is rather disingenuous. I've stated plainly why it is wrong. But I'll happily summarize.
Humans are (generally) born with the ability to feel empathy.
Humans are (generally) born with reciprocal altruism (see Dawkins' The Selfish Gene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene) and Game Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory)).
Humans are (generally) born to treat with compassion and altruistically those that belong to their in-group.
Humans are (generally) born with the ability to reason.
Humans are social animals. It is demonstrable that the benefit of society is likely to increase the benefit for the individual (see Social Capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital)). In short, you would not have all of the wonderful modern gadgets and benefits of society if it weren't for society which is why you blithely utilize social benefits (computers, Internet, electricity) to question the value of society to the individual. I'd take you more seriously if you moved into the wilderness and became a hermit.
Anthropology and biology (most specifically genetics) had amply demonstrated that we all, biologically, belong to the same group, human.
Given the above premises it is natural that rights would arise in society and evolve to better improve the lives of individual citizens because citizens benefit society and society benefits citizens. Not completely. No one is making that argument.

You've just established usefulness within your own system.No (see above).

And you have yet to define the "right of self-determination". Depending on one's definition...I haven't defined "self" either. I haven't defined "yet", "you", "have" or many other words. I don't see the point.

...it can either be an unrealistic dream destined to be violated, or can fit perfectly within a system of slavery.If the premise is maximum benefit for all then it can't. Given reciprocal altruism, empathy and the scientific fact that all humans as a starting point belong to our in group then no, it really can't.

If you look at Pinker's A History of Violence (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html) you can see a clear benifit to modern social ethics. Homicides and other social violence has decreased by every measure and in degrees that most of us simply can't comprehend.

[Lonewulf]

If history told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?

Is this satire?

This has to be satire.

It's satire, right?

[Malerin]

But we know this is false. Even Rome fell.

BS. You might tell yourself that you believe it but you know better. Go rob a bank and tell the judge that.

History has shown that jumping of a bridge leads to death. If jumping off a bridge led to some benefit, damn straight I would, hell, what good is reason if we don't use it? The point is that history demonstrates that jumping off bridges typicall leads to bad things. THAT'S the point of history.

I don't claim absolutes. Only that we can look back and see what worked and what didn't. The "social cohesion" you claim was tenuous and it had drawbacks and DIDN'T give maximum benefit for maximum citizens.

I can see that.

Of course. Given anthropology and history I can't find a reason not to.

Never said that it did. Still with the strawmen?

Not from a societal perspective. No.

The "who" is society the "why" is rather complex and I can't give you an exact and thorough explanation (see moral, ethical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics) and legal philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/law-phil.htm).)


This is rather disingenuous. I've stated plainly why it is wrong. But I'll happily summarize.
Humans are (generally) born with the ability to feel empathy.
Humans are (generally) born with reciprocal altruism (see Dawkins' The Selfish Gene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene) and Game Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory)).
Humans are (generally) born to treat with compassion and altruistically those that belong to their in-group.
Humans are (generally) born with the ability to reason.
Humans are social animals. It is demonstrable that the benefit of society is likely to increase the benefit for the individual (see Social Capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital)). In short, you would not have all of the wonderful modern gadgets and benefits of society if it weren't for society which is why you blithely utilize social benefits (computers, Internet, electricity) to question the value of society to the individual. I'd take you more seriously if you moved into the wilderness and became a hermit.
Anthropology and biology (most specifically genetics) had amply demonstrated that we all, biologically, belong to the same group, human.
Given the above premises it is natural that rights would arise in society and evolve to better improve the lives of individual citizens because citizens benefit society and society benefits citizens. Not completely. No one is making that argument.

No (see above).

I haven't defined "self" either. I haven't defined "yet", "you", "have" or many other words. I don't see the point.

If the premise is maximum benefit for all then it can't. Given reciprocal altruism, empathy and the scientific fact that all humans as a starting point belong to our in group then no, it really can't.

If you look at Pinker's A History of Violence (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html) you can see a clear benifit to modern social ethics. Homicides and other social violence has decreased by every measure and in degrees that most of us simply can't comprehend.

I don't want to speak for Tsukasa, but my feeling is that you're saying slavery is wrong in the same sense that filling up your car with water is wrong- it doesn't work. I don't think anyone will dispute that societies with slavery are more inefficient. But the same holds true for societies that eat too much meat (like America) or societies where 1/3 of the population is obese (again, America)- it harms the environment to raise all that beef, rampant obesity puts an unnecesary strain on a health care system, and meat is an inefficient use of food resources. Does that mean it's immoral to be fat or have a steak dinner?

What I want to know is why is slavery morally wrong? Where does the "ought" in the following claim come from: people ought not enslave each other.

[RandFan]

I don't want to speak for Tsukasa, but my feeling is that you're saying slavery is wrong in the same sense that filling up your car with water is wrong- it doesn't work.It doesn't work well but to come to this conclusion you had to intentionally ignore much of what I wrote. I didn't simply say it was because it didn't work. I said that the fact that it doesn't work very well is one reason humans have come to see it as immoral. It's a small part of why we have come to see it that way. If slavery were very efficent we might still see slavery as moral but I doubt it.

I don't think anyone will dispute that societies with slavery are more inefficient. But the same holds true for societies that eat too much meat (like America) or societies where 1/3 of the population is obese (again, America)- it harms the environment to raise all that beef, rampant obesity puts an unnecessary strain on a health care system, and meat is an inefficient use of food resources. Does that mean it's immoral to be fat or have a steak dinner?It could very well be. Perhaps it should be. Morality isn't so simple as A therefore B. There is personal conscience, social conscience, personal reason and social reason (what we reason together). There is history and our shared observations of the world and our impact of ourselve to society and the environment. Unfortunately we often have conflicting goals and motivations. When logging in the North West was significantly curtailed in the 80's it put a lot of people out of work. Is it moral to deprive people of their work? Not all answers are so easily answered. We need to balance the needs of individuals and society.

What I want to know is why is slavery morally wrong?I don't know how I can be any more clear. It's as if you are saying, but why is the world round? Morality isn't a single thing or an objective fact. It's not a priori. We have to reason it out and work it out. We rely on moral philosophers and social activists to move our paradigm (zeitgeist).

It's morally wrong because it is bad for society and it offends our sense of right and wrong given that we now know that previous in-groups were arbitrary.

Where does the "ought" in the following claim come from: people ought not enslave each other.Moral "oughts" come from us, from our observation of history, from reason, from understanding evolutionary psychology and from our society. From moral philosophers and thousands of years of moral reasoning and testing and analyzing and debating and finding out what works and learning and understanding the human condition and understanding that just because some people look different doesn't make them different.

To get to the Moon humans had to stand on the shoulders of giants. To travel to the moon it took more than a simple single step. To get to our current set of "oughts" we also had to stand on the shoulders of giants. As it relates to slavery our "oughts" came from giants like like Harriet Tubman, John Brown, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Levi Coffin to name just a few. As it relates to civil rights we stand on the shoulders of giants like Martin Luther King, Robert Watts, *Gandhi and Malcolm X.

Moral "oughts" come from us.

*Gandhi was ironically racist against Blacks.

[quarky]

Some ant species enslave other ant species workers.
Its a very strange ability, involving being able to emit special pheremones that have no purpose other than fooling the other ants.

Its seems immoral, in a way, yet the enslaved workers can't reproduce anyway, and they don't have to work more than their masters. Its the colony that gets robbed, because it had an investment in those missing workers.

Yet both species continue to survive...with no obvious benifits or loses to the individuals.

[slingblade]

That's great. When the first Harriant Tubman comes about and leads those ants to their freedom, let us know. Then we might consider the analogy somewhat apt.

[quarky]

That's great. When the first Harriant Tubman comes about and leads those ants to their freedom, let us know. Then we might consider the analogy somewhat apt.

Well, i'm certainly not trying to justify slavery. I thought it was interesting that non-humans dable in it too. With the ants, we can look at it with less emotion.

[slingblade]

We can look on it with no emotion. The analogy isn't apt. It neither justifies nor refutes human slavery; it's pretty much a non-sequitur to this discussion.