The Morality of Slavery

[Beady]

A few years ago I got into an online discussion with a blow-hard who insisted that slavery was wrong, simply and absolutely (that wasn't the reason he was a blow-hard -- among other things, he also claimed that freedom of speech was given by God because it said so in the Constitution). He claimed that every religious leader and philosopher in history had said so, and named as examples - I kid you not - Socrates, Jesus, Mohammed, Confucious, and a few others. Some I could refute directly and easily, others I asked him for citations; he replied by saying I was too smart for him and then, I guess, put me in his kill file.

Anyway, that set me to wondering. I know that slavery wasn't widely considered immoral until comparatively recently, but when/what was the earliest recorded condemnation? I mean slavery as an institution, not individual slaveholders or groups, or even nations. When was slavery first held to be universally and subjectively wrong?

[Beerina]

Good question. I know that in ye olden dayes, if your city-state lost the war with a neighbor, they killed the men and enslaved the women and children.

At that point, you were just a slave. It was your new lot in life. There was no racism involved.

The racism didn't really start up until philosophy had pretty much declared slavery was wrong all by itself. At that point, slave owners needed a reason, and, hey, they're inferior mentally is a good enough reason. (Not that it actually would be, even if it were true. But it sufficed for the time. Some founding fathers believed in inferiority of certain races, even as they declared slavery was wrong.)

So it would depend on what you mean by a condemnation. An ancient philosopher declaring it wrong, or much more modern politics which are inextricably interlinked with politics of race?

And one wonders if there were any political movements to end slavery prior to the en-racism-ification of it. Like in ancient Greece somewhere.

[ImaginalDisc]

Edit: Oops. I was completely wrong about Aristotle. Aritstotle seemed to support it as natural.

[thaiboxerken]

Slavery isn't much different than paying minimum wage.

[Dogdoctor]

I am sure that people thought slavery was wrong as long as slavery existed. The question is when was the idea first recorded.

[thaiboxerken]

Probably long before recorded history, as soon as one man decided he could force the weaker to do his bidding.

[TragicMonkey]

My feeling is that the first slaves might have had some ideas about the ethics of slavery. But probably nobody was interested in hearing them.

[ceo_esq]

Anyway, that set me to wondering. I know that slavery wasn't widely considered immoral until comparatively recently, but when/what was the earliest recorded condemnation? I mean slavery as an institution, not individual slaveholders or groups, or even nations. When was slavery first held to be universally and subjectively wrong?

Part of the difficulty in this is that "slavery" is sometimes used to refer to some pretty widely varying social institutions, not all of which had a great deal in common with our default conception (usually, racial enslavement of the sort seen in the New World). There are some very old condemnations recorded, some more broadly directed than others, and I'll see if I can dig a few up from the file.

[ceo_esq]

Here's text from a 1537 attack on slavery, Sublimus Dei (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm):

The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction ... invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God's word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith.

...

Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare ... that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

[Godmode]

I would guess that slavery was considered wrong the very first time a man forced someone else to be his slave. By the slave at least.

[Beady]

I would guess that slavery was considered wrong the very first time a man forced someone else to be his slave. By the slave at least.

There have been a few comments of this sort. But when did the institution of slavery become considered by the actual or potential slave-owners to be immoral?

Dogdoctor, I believe you are wrong; to cite Carl Sagan, in Cosmos, none of the ancient authors represented in the Great Library of Alexandria, not one, is known to have condemned slavery.

ceo_esq, good quote. However, notice two things: 1) It does not condemn slavery, only the brutalization of the New World natives. 2) 1537 is what I meant by "abolitionism" being a fairly new idea. After 10,000 years of "civilization," this was only in the last 500 years or so.

Near as I can tell, the idea of slavery's general immorality grew out of the European Enlightenment concept of the North American "Noble Savage." From there, it was extended to other peoples, the Blacks last of all.

[LW]

Slavery isn't much different than paying minimum wage.

It is. Or at least it may be, depending on the culture.

For example, among Ottomans a slave of the Sultan could hold more real power and live more luxuriously than a free-born ethnic Turk nobleman because the government was practically run by Sultan's personal slaves.

[Rufo]

Surely someone must have questioned slavery as soon as it was invented. It may have been difficult and rare when slavery was already a part of the culture, but it seems reasonable to guess that someone not directly opressed by it questioned it at the point when someone was first enslaved.

[ceo_esq]

ceo_esq, good quote. However, notice two things: 1) It does not condemn slavery, only the brutalization of the New World natives. 2) 1537 is what I meant by "abolitionism" being a fairly new idea. After 10,000 years of "civilization," this was only in the last 500 years or so.

In fairness, it does say that "the said Indians and all other people" must not "be in any way enslaved"; I think it was provoked by the specific situation in the New World, but is reasoned and articulated in such a way as to have pretty general applicability, especially where racial slavery is concerned. It was promptly ignored by the European powers, of course.


Near as I can tell, the idea of slavery's general immorality grew out of the European Enlightenment concept of the North American "Noble Savage." From there, it was extended to other peoples, the Blacks last of all.

You're talking about racial slavery specifically here, I take it.

You make an interesting point; I would also think, however, that other more general notions regarding human equality which (though obviously based on older sources) received much attention and development during the Enlightenment, had a big part to play as well.

[ImaginalDisc]

Surely someone must have questioned slavery as soon as it was invented. It may have been difficult and rare when slavery was already a part of the culture, but it seems reasonable to guess that someone not directly opressed by it questioned it at the point when someone was first enslaved.

"Invented" presumes that the earliest humans didn't have something akin to slavery. Wolves, pan trogoldytes, and many other species have complex hierarchies where the dominant animal controls the eating, sleeping, and mating choices made by animals of lower status. The earliest societies with slavery treated their slaves about how a dominant social animal treats his or her social lessers. I doubt very much that the first homo sapien was born with egalitarian attitudes.

[toddjh]

I think it's telling that there was little serious talk of banning slavery on a large scale until the first stirrings of the industrial revolution rendered the practice obsolescent. It was simply too important to the economy before that. The Romans, for example, used slavery much as we use electricity.

Practicing slavery is the natural state of our species. It ended only because we created "technological slaves" that turned out to be more efficient than the real thing. Note that the sex-slave trade refuses to be stamped out despite many efforts, because there is no artificial replacement.

[Godmode]

I think it's telling that there was little serious talk of banning slavery on a large scale until the first stirrings of the industrial revolution rendered the practice obsolescent. It was simply too important to the economy before that. The Romans, for example, used slavery much as we use electricity.

Practicing slavery is the natural state of our species. It ended only because we created "technological slaves" that turned out to be more efficient than the real thing. Note that the sex-slave trade refuses to be stamped out despite many efforts, because there is no artificial replacement.
That's certainly an interesting idea. Maybe when there is true virtual reality, or realistic enough robots, then prostitution will end.

[blutoski]

That's certainly an interesting idea. Maybe when there is true virtual reality, or realistic enough robots, then prostitution will end.

Meh. Depends on how much they cost.

And there will always be new-agey people who will pay extra for 'natural', 'organic' prostitutes.

[Beerina]

Slavery isn't much different than paying minimum wage.

I nominate you for hyperbole of the year. Go back a hundred and fifty years and make that suggestion to someone with thick scars on their back.

[Beerina]

Probably long before recorded history, as soon as one man decided he could force the weaker to do his bidding.

That's why freedom is wonderful. Nobody can force you (note, no quotes around the word "force") to do anything.

The only thing that forces you to do anything is reality, existence. You must do some things to get food into your gullet to survive. But that must rely on voluntary cooperation with others. The moment you pick up a club, or a gun, it's no longer voluntary.

[Beerina]

"Invented" presumes that the earliest humans didn't have something akin to slavery. Wolves, pan trogoldytes, and many other species have complex hierarchies where the dominant animal controls the eating, sleeping, and mating choices made by animals of lower status. The earliest societies with slavery treated their slaves about how a dominant social animal treats his or her social lessers. I doubt very much that the first homo sapien was born with egalitarian attitudes.

Actually, that humans don't have vicious claws and teeth is probably why slavery can exist in humans. So too, rape and murder. If he or she who you're attacking stands a good chance of eviscerating you or ripping your throat out, you're far less likely to try to impose your will on them.

Our inherent passivity and physical weakness is what allows our species to oppress each other. Chalk another one up for Yahweh's grand design!

[Beady]

Actually, that humans don't have vicious claws and teeth is probably why slavery can exist in humans. So too, rape and murder. If he or she who you're attacking stands a good chance of eviscerating you or ripping your throat out, you're far less likely to try to impose your will on them.

Interesting thought. There's a saying that runs something like, "Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."

There's another that goes, "When the lion and the lamb lie down together, neither will arise hungry."

You have to do a little stretching to make them fit the context of the conversation, but they're not entirely inappropriate.

[AWPrime]

Actually, that humans don't have vicious claws and teeth is probably why slavery can exist in humans. So too, rape and murder. If he or she who you're attacking stands a good chance of eviscerating you or ripping your throat out, you're far less likely to try to impose your will on them.

Our inherent passivity and physical weakness is what allows our species to oppress each other. Chalk another one up for Yahweh's grand design!

*makes notes for designing new lifeform*

[ImaginalDisc]

Actually, that humans don't have vicious claws and teeth is probably why slavery can exist in humans. So too, rape and murder. If he or she who you're attacking stands a good chance of eviscerating you or ripping your throat out, you're far less likely to try to impose your will on them.

Our inherent passivity and physical weakness is what allows our species to oppress each other. Chalk another one up for Yahweh's grand design!

I don't get what you mean at all. Wolves and chimps are both extremely formidable animals, and yet they treat their social lessers almost like slaves. It's not about armament and lethal weaponry, it's about relative power and control.

edit: It was late. I was tired.

[losman]

I had a religous nut try to explain that slaves in the Bible were actually more like indentured servants and it was not as bad as we perceived. I found his defense disgusting, he felt if it was in the Bible it had to be ok.

[Beady]

I had a religous nut try to explain that slaves in the Bible were actually more like indentured servants and it was not as bad as we perceived. I found his defense disgusting, he felt if it was in the Bible it had to be ok.

Actually, he was right, up to a point. While it has usually been more desirable to be free, slavery in the ancient world was far from a death or hard-labor sentence. In Rome, freed slaves often remained with their former masters as paid servants or as household clients.

And, as the thread has demonstrated, slavery was not a moral issue until more modern times. While your disgust is justifiable in a modern framework, from a historical perspective you have no moral reference point upon which to base an argument.

[ceo_esq]

I think it's telling that there was little serious talk of banning slavery on a large scale until the first stirrings of the industrial revolution rendered the practice obsolescent.

I don't know what you would consider to be a large scale, but slavery had disappeared from England by about the turn of the 12th century, due in part to an active abolition campaign. Obsolescence may also have had something to do with it.


I had a religous nut try to explain that slaves in the Bible were actually more like indentured servants and it was not as bad as we perceived.

There have historically been a wide range of social and legal institutions that tend to be brought together under the modern term slavery, and various forms of indenture are among them. I don't know much about unfree labor in the Old Testament, but it's at least possible that your religious nut had a point.

[Beady]

...but slavery had disappeared from England by about the turn of the 12th century, due in part to an active abolition campaign.

I'm going to have to ask for references on this claim, or at least a more detailed explanation. For example, there's only a semantic difference between serfdom and slavery. British abolition was still centuries away, in 1100.

[ceo_esq]

I'm going to have to ask for references on this claim, or at least a more detailed explanation.

One source I have in mind is the relevant article on slavery in Medieval England: An Encyclopedia (Garland, 1998). Unfortunately, I don't have it at hand and wouldn't be able to cite from it until sometime tomorrow. Until then, you might want to consult this page (http://www.regia.org/misc/earner.htm), which refers to the famous Council of Westminster in 1102. I believe Ireland declared a general emancipation toward the end of the 12th century as well.


For example, there's only a semantic difference between serfdom and slavery.

Now that is a claim that cries out for support. But in fact, the differences between serfdom and slavery are significant, as would no doubt be apparent to a slave contemplating the lot of a serf.

Not that I blame you for the confusion, as this point is sometimes obscured even in academic treatments of the subject. Rodney Stark, discussing the decline of European slavery in For the Glory of God (Princeton UP, 2003), notes:

[A few historians] reject the decline of slavery by claiming that nothing more took place than a linguistic shift wherein "slave" was replaced by "serf." ... Here it is not history but historians who are playing word games. As Marc Bloch noted, the life of medieval serfs "had nothing in common with slavery."[47] Serfs were not chattels; they had rights and a substantial degree of discretion. They married whom they wished, and their families were not subject to sale or dispersal. They paid rent and thus controlled their own time and the pace of their work, "which was generally slow and ... individualistic."[48] If, as in some places, serfs owed their lords a number of days of labor each year, the obligation was limited and more closely resembled "hired" labor than it did slavery. As Bloch put it, "The slave had been an ox in the stable, always under his master's orders; the ... serf was a worker who came on certain days and who left as soon as the job was finished."[49] ...

While no one would argue that medieval peasants were free in the modern sense, they were not slaves, and that brutal institution had essentially disappeared from Europe.


[47] Bloch, Marc. [1940] 1961. Feudal Society. 2 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p.260.
[48] Fogel, Robert William. 1989. Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery. New York: W.W. Norton. p.25.
[49] Bloch, Marc. 1975. Slavery and Serfdom in the Middle Ages. Berkely and Los Angeles: University of California Press. p.23.

[Beady]

All well and good, but we are still left with the British slave trade, which lasted until the early 1800s (and, illegally, for some time after). Seems to me that claiming any difference between trading in slaves and engaging in slavery really is semantics.

ETA: Also, from the Wikipedia:
In the 17th century, slavery was used as punishment by conquering English Parliament armies against native Catholics in Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland). Between the years 1659 and 1663, during the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland) by the New Model Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Model_Army), under the command of Oliver Cromwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell), thousands of Irish Catholics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Catholics) were forced into slavery. Cromwell had a deep religious dislike of the Catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic) religion, and many Irish Catholics who had participated in Confederate Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_Ireland) had all their land confiscated and were transported to the British West Indies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Indies) as slaves.

All of which happened well after 1100.

[Ladewig]

"Invented" presumes that the earliest humans didn't have something akin to slavery. Wolves, pan trogoldytes, and many other species have complex hierarchies where the dominant animal controls the eating, sleeping, and mating choices made by animals of lower status. The earliest societies with slavery treated their slaves about how a dominant social animal treats his or her social lessers. I doubt very much that the first homo sapien was born with egalitarian attitudes.

With the two notable differences of (1) any wolf in the pack may challenge the dominant male to a fight and if challenger wins he becomes the leader and (2) any wolf can leave the pack to either live alone or try to join another pack, either as the dominant or as a subordinant.

Editted - I missed your reference to earliest humans. Perhaps in that stage, one or both of the differences were present, but by the time civilization rolled around, the elimination of those two points were institutionalized in the definition of slavery.

[ceo_esq]

All well and good, but we are still left with the British slave trade, which lasted until the early 1800s (and, illegally, for some time after). Seems to me that claiming any difference between trading in slaves and engaging in slavery really is semantics.

...

All of which happened well after 1100.

I am led to infer from all this that the British slave trade, which seems clearly prohibited (though how effectively in practice?) in the 1102 document, reappeared at some point after the end of the Middle Ages, rather than having existed as a continuous (or at least a continuously lawful) institution. I'll look for more information about this.

At any rate, as promised, from "Slavery and Slaves", Medieval England: An Encyclopedia (Garland, 1998):

People became slaves in several ways. Warfare was a fruitful source throughout the Anglo-Saxon period. Crime and debt led others into slavery. Sheer starvation caused by agrarian disaster or social upheaval must also have prompted others to enslave themselves to survive.

...

By the time of the Domesday Book (1086) slaves formed only 10 percent of the recorded population, though they were unevenly distributed, with the largest percentage being in the southwest, an area conquered rather late by the Anglo-Saxons.

Thereafter slavery disappeared rapidly. Opposition from prominent clerics discouraged the slave trade. Norman control and subsequent domination of the surrounding seas inhibited enslavement through capture in raids. A rise in population perhaps encouraged Norman overlords to have their demesnes farmed by free labor in return for rents and services, rather than by slaves who had to be fed daily. Foreign landowners, furthermore, probably had little grasp of the outsider status of slaves and instead regarded those on their estates in terms of occupational function rather than legal status. The institution was almost extinct by the end of the reign of Henry I [in 1135].

[chris epic]

If he or she who you're attacking stands a good chance of eviscerating you or ripping your throat out, you're far less likely to try to impose your will on them.


That's an improper analogy. There are many animals that are stronger, larger and more ferocious than we humans are...but we have zoos- they didn't seem to eviscerate us when we put them in there. And if we're dealing with a warewolf- part beast part man, we have things like shot guns and swords to combat them. Just like someone was saying that this stuff happens in the animal kingdom- stronger wolves oppressing weaker ones- the utilization of power is a natural thing.

Slavery was different in many parts of the world over history- mind you, it was all wrong- but back then two of the most important factors that justified it was tradition and economy. However, that didn't mean there was a code of ethics. One really good example was the Hebrews- even though they had a long history of slavery and captivity, they still had slavery as apart of their infrastructure, but they were still sympathetic. Every 7 years the slave had the opportunity to chose to go free or stay with their masters. Would you believe more times than not they chose the latter? That's because they had a far better life than they would if they were free...or so they thought

[chris epic]

Interesting thought. There's a saying that runs something like, "Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."

There's another that goes, "When the lion and the lamb lie down together, neither will arise hungry."

You have to do a little stretching to make them fit the context of the conversation, but they're not entirely inappropriate.

I like the first scripture- the second is pushing it- completely unrelavent. Have you ever seen a lion and a lamb lie down together? Neither have I, because the lion ate the lamb:jaw-dropp

[Beady]

Have you ever seen a lion and a lamb lie down together? Neither have I, because the lion ate the lamb:jaw-dropp

It's in reference to an allegory from the Old Testament:

Isaiah 11:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=11&verse=6&version=31&context=verse)
The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.

[chris epic]

It's in reference to an allegory from the Old Testament:

Isaiah 11:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=11&verse=6&version=31&context=verse)
The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.
I know they were both scriptures- you could have come out and said that in the first place;)

[chris epic]

I know they were both scriptures- you could have come out and said that in the first place;)

plus- thats comming from the same book where Isaiah or Elijah (one of those guys) used the power god gave him to kill a bunch of children with bears all because they taunted him

[the_bgma]

A comment on this exact thing, from Appendix A.

*****

Q. Why do you argue for an underlying base morality? Morals are a human construct, and vary by society. How do you reconcile your position with the fact that seeing a woman’s leg uncovered is immoral in many parts of the world, while it is acceptable in the United States; and that seeing a woman without a shirt is immoral in the United States, but it is acceptable in parts of Europe? Doesn’t this prove that morals are all relative?



A. What we have is a difference in definition. Although we commonly use the word “moral” to describe things such as community standards of decency, I would define those as “cultural norms” instead. Cultural norms such as standards of acceptable clothing are indeed relative, and vary widely. But morals do not. Many people confuse the two because we sometimes see people who are willing to cross the boundaries of both cultural norms and morality, and wrongly paint any people who break cultural norms as immoral. Also, sometimes cultural norms intrude where we run into the gray area at the edge of morality. How much harm do things like drugs inflict on a society, is it better to ban them and jail users, or to legalize them? There are completely moral reasons for both solutions, so cultural norms come into play. How accepting is the culture of the use of such drugs?

Sometimes cultural norms themselves fall afoul of basic morality without there being two moral sides to the issue, such as slavery and racism in the past in the U.S., or currently with bride burnings in India and honor rapes and killings in Muslim societies. But as societies mature, such acts begin to earn condemnation, and eventually are removed from the list of cultural norms. Slavery has been removed from the United States as a cultural norm. Racism in the U.S. and bride burnings in India are strongly condemned, although they occur occasionally. Honor rapes and killings in Muslim societies still occur, although there is now increased awareness of the problem. Human societies are in various stages of moving their cultural norms to conform with the true morality of sympathy for others. Yes, at times we take steps backwards, such as in Nazi Germany. But as a species, overall we continue to move forwards.

*****


******************************************
The Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist

[strathmeyer]

Slavery isn't much different than paying minimum wage.

Not any more than telling someone if they aren't worth being paid a certain salary, they shouldn't be allowed to work.

[Beady]

Human societies are in various stages of moving their cultural norms to conform with the true morality of sympathy for others.

How do you know this is "true" morality? How do you know that it is moral?

[the_bgma]

All morality is based on sympathy. If you were to see a drowning man in a river, and there was a rope nearby, you would unquestionably throw it to him. Why? Because you recognize that if YOU were drowning, you would need someone to throw YOU a rope. You empathize (recognize their state of mind) and sympathize (internalize others' feelings and feel them as your own.)

There's a long discussion on it in the Book of Morality.

**************************************************
The Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist (http://www.freewebs.com/thebgma/index.htm)

[Ladewig]

All morality is based on sympathy.

So when the Christian fundamentalist claims that homosexuality is immoral and that homosexuals should not be afforded the right to marry, then sympathy is somehow at work?

When the Islamic fundamentalist says that the only moral thing to do to women convicted of prostitution is to execute them, then sympathy is again at work?

[bruto]

Back for a moment to the original question, I think the stoic Epictetus (early AD dates) is often credited with being the first Western philosopher to condemn slavery. I don't have references at hand, and I'm too lazy and tired to google it, but I imagine there's something out there.

[Beady]

All morality is based on sympathy.

That's only one view of morality. Why is it more valid than altruism, or any of the others?

If you were to see a drowning man in a river, and there was a rope nearby, you would unquestionably throw it to him.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe I'm just trying to impress my girlfriend. Maybe he has something in his pocket that I want. Maybe I've got more important things to do. Maybe he's someone I'd rather see dead.

Your argument is built on assumptions which are "unquestionable" only so long as someone buys into your assignment of motive.

[the_bgma]

So when the Christian fundamentalist claims that homosexuality is immoral and that homosexuals should not be afforded the right to marry, then sympathy is somehow at work?

When the Islamic fundamentalist says that the only moral thing to do to women convicted of prostitution is to execute them, then sympathy is again at work?


A quote from the Book of Morality on this subject:

Theistic religions, on the other hand, offer a false morality based upon threats and rewards, usually combined with a scripted set of moral and immoral actions. Adherents who fail to follow the scripted moral actions are threatened with divine punishment, while adherents who follow them closely are promised supernatural rewards of bliss or pleasure from god. However, these religions often do include references to the true morality of sympathy. In the Christian bible, Matthew 7:12 (KJV) states, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” This is known as the Golden Rule, and the common form of this is often quoted, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This is the true embodiment of sympathy.

Although much of the rest of the scripted morality is false, the morality put into practice by most theists and by most people throughout the world is true, and is based on sympathy. Most theists adjust the scripted requirements as needed to follow their own understanding of what is moral and what is not. Although the bible allows for slavery but bans the wearing of clothing consisting of mixed fibers woven together (Leviticus 19:19, KJV), most people today recognize that slavery is bad and mixed-fiber clothing is harmless. The scripture has been adjusted to meet more reasonable moral standards. The Indian independence and peace activist Mahatma Gandhi (a Hindu) himself explicitly admitted that his morality was not based on that of scripture when he stated, “My belief in the Hindu scriptures does not require me to accept every word and every verse as divinely inspired, I decline to be bound by any interpretation, however learned it may be, if it is repugnant to reason or moral sense.” In all religions, scripture is usually subordinate to the natural “moral sense” of sympathy.

...

We have in our midst people who have perverted their own moral system to one that the rest of us recognize as immoral, based upon the written laws of their religion, and their faith in one god or another. In the conflict between Israel and Palestine, we have seen actions such as those of Israeli settler Baruch Goldberg, who fired an automatic weapon at the backs of unarmed Palestinian civilians in a mosque killing dozens, or that of the Palestinian sniper who shot and killed Shalhevet Pas, an infant in her mother’s arms. Both committed heinous acts against the innocent because they thought their religion made what they did morally acceptable. They were blinded to true morality by their faith and their scripture. Although they might have thought their acts were acceptable, the world acknowledges them as actions of evil. Even their own people, locked in a battle where morals are constantly pushed to the boundaries, have categorically condemned such horrific acts.



******************************************
The Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist (http://www.freewebs.com/thebgma/index.htm)

[the_bgma]

That's only one view of morality. Why is it more valid than altruism, or any of the others?

Altruism is based on sympathy.


Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe I'm just trying to impress my girlfriend. Maybe he has something in his pocket that I want. Maybe I've got more important things to do. Maybe he's someone I'd rather see dead.


Assume a stranger is drowning, and it is within your power without risk to yourself to save him, and you would receive no monetary reward for doing so. You would still do it, of course. Otherwise, you have lost one of the most important ingredients of humanity.


******************************************
The Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist (http://www.freewebs.com/thebgma/index.htm)

[Beady]

Altruism is based on sympathy.

It was only after LeCompte introduced the concept that someone tried to make that argument, with debatable results.

Also, I note you neglected the part that says "Or any of the others."

Assume a stranger is drowning, and it is within your power without risk to yourself to save him, and you would receive no monetary reward for doing so.

It didn't take long for you to begin introducing limiting conditions so that, eventually, the responder will be forced to agree with you. This is a dishonest debating technique, besides being a tacit retreat from your original claim.

You would still do it, of course.

Says who? Do you know me that well? You are being either presumptive or presumptuous, depending on how I decde to interpret it.

Otherwise, you have lost one of the lost important ingredients of humanity.

Says who, and by what authority? Please list these "ingredients of humanity," and tell us where you got them and who decided their order of importance, as well as their validity.

(You sure seem to take a lot for granted. Well, hang around here long enough and it'll get kicked out of you).

[meg]

Back for a moment to the original question, I think the stoic Epictetus (early AD dates) is often credited with being the first Western philosopher to condemn slavery. I don't have references at hand, and I'm too lazy and tired to google it, but I imagine there's something out there.

I think it might go farther back than that.

In reading some stuff about Popper not along ago, I came across this:

from http://www.the-rathouse.com/popessent.html

Apologists claim that it is unfair to brand Plato as a totalitarian because the Greeks did not have our modern concepts of democracy. After all, Athens still depended on slaves. But there was a viable democratic movement whose sentiments were articulated by Pericles in his great funeral oration and there was even a hint of a move against slavery. There is substantial evidence both internal to the dialogues and external, to show that Plato, far from being ignorant of modern notions of justice and freedom, actively attacked the theory of equalitarian democracy that survives today as a part of the classical liberal tradition.

Bolding mine.

So, if that is correct, the idea goes back to at least 490 BCE.

Meg

[Beady]

So, if that is correct, the idea goes back to at least 490 BCE.

We still seem left to wonder (or not) at how strong the idea might have been. Your quote speaks of hints, only; this hardly seems to be a ringing denunciation of the institution.

[meg]

Well, perhaps I misunderstood the OP. I thought one of the questions was "when was the first recorded condemnation?"

That was the earliest date that I knew of that had some discussion of the matter.

Just trying to be helpful.
Meg

[Beady]

Well, perhaps I misunderstood the OP. I thought one of the questions was "when was the first recorded condemnation?"

That was the earliest date that I knew of that had some discussion of the matter.

Just trying to be helpful.
Meg

No, you're quite right. I was probably imprecise; I'm trying to figure out when slavery first became "wrong."

[the_bgma]

It didn't take long for you to begin introducing limiting conditions so that, eventually, the responder will be forced to agree with you. This is a dishonest debating technique, besides being a tacit retreat from your original claim.


No, it was an implicit condition in my original claim, I'm sorry I did not clarify it earlier.

"If you were to see a drowning man in a river": Apologies for not clarifying that I did not mean "if you were to see a man who is your enemy" and "if you were to see a man who owes you money" and "if you were to see a man who is your brother" and every other odd condition you could think of. I implied, for sake of argument, a stranger.

and there was a rope nearby, you would unquestionably throw it to him: Again, I thought "rope nearby" and "throw" were sufficient, I guess I needed to also say that getting the rope and throwing it would not harm you in any way. Again, I apologize.

Says who? Do you know me that well? You are being either presumptive or presumptuous, depending on how I decde to interpret it.


In many arguments, we assume a "normal human" responder. For example, if I were to say "I throw a baseball at your face and you flinch", yes, I'm making a big assumption, for argument's sake. But most of us do flinch. With the rope, only the most hardened sociopath would fail to help. It is hardwired into our genes, and passed on to us memetically from our society.

Nitpicking obvious arguments by parsing the definition of words like "is" does not necessarily invalidate such arguments. Yes, chew me up when I make blanket assumptions, but the "throw the drowning man a rope" is only torn apart by someone going to great lengths to do so.



Says who, and by what authority? Please list these "ingredients of humanity," and tell us where you got them and who decided their order of importance, as well as their validity.

(You sure seem to take a lot for granted. Well, hang around here long enough and it'll get kicked out of you).

Now you have a legitimate argument, unlike the earlier comments. What are the ingredients of humanity? What makes us different from animals? Why are there such things as "morals" in the first place, which humans have and animals do not? Can we find such behavior (although a bit more primitive) in closely related animals?

Animals can obviously empathize. They have to, in order to attempt to predict what other animals (mates, prey, predators) will do. But can they sympathize, and are they altruistic?

We have found rudimentary altruistic behavior in chimps, although toddlers are far more altruistic. (http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/14013809.htm?source=rss&channel=kansascity_nation) This "desire to help without reward" stems from more than recognition of the needs of another, we recognize that we ourselves would like help if we were in that same situation. It is an evolutionary strategy that is particularly pronounced in humans.

So is it correct to say that that same sympathy-leading-to-altruism is the basis for true human morality? Now we're into a philosophical argument, feel free to take the other side. I say that yes, sympathy-leading-to-altruism IS the basis for human morality, not the artificial moralities of books written by men who thought the earth was flat.


******************************************
The Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist (http://www.freewebs.com/thebgma/index.htm)

[Ladewig]

All morality is based on sympathy. I

A quote from the Book of Morality on this subject:

Theistic religions, on the other hand, offer a false morality based upon threats and rewards, usually combined with a scripted set of moral and immoral actions.

Well, if you define all morality not based on sympathy as "false morality" then one is left with the inescapable conclusion that "All (true) morality is based on sympathy."

[the_bgma]

Well, if you define all morality not based on sympathy as "false morality" then one is left with the inescapable conclusion that "All (true) morality is based on sympathy."

;) You caught me there!

Yes, I think it comes down ultimately to the definition of morality. What is morality? What are "good deeds" and why do we do them? Are there commonalities among all people?

When you look at the various successful cultures and scriptures and other philosophical teachings, almost all have a partial basis in sympathy for the plights of others. That is the common thread. Sympathy is the one constant that flows through it all.


******************************************
The Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist (http://www.freewebs.com/thebgma/index.htm)

[Ladewig]

When you look at the various successful cultures and scriptures and other philosophical teachings, almost all have a partial basis in sympathy for the plights of others. That is the common thread. Sympathy is the one constant that flows through it all.

But your citation claims that sympathy is not one constant that flows through all systems of morality. The examples I gave earlier do not involve sympathy at all, yet religious followers loudly proclaim their morality in these matters.

On another note, I've been thinking about the definition of morality that you cited and I cannot decide if the following items are moral or not:

early-term abortion
capital punishment
assisted suicide
marijuana usage

[Rocky]

I'll play the devils advocate for a while:

A slave has value to a wealthy owner. A free person does not. It times of famine, who do you think get to eat and who starves?

[bruto]

I'll play the devils advocate for a while:

A slave has value to a wealthy owner. A free person does not. It times of famine, who do you think get to eat and who starves?

It might depend on the duration of the famine and the source of it. In times of famine, a slave must presumably produce not only what he needs, but his share of what his master needs, otherwise what is his value? As long as the owner has enough to spare, and the slave has net worth, he'll feed his slaves, or at least some of them. But his power to decide whom to feed and when is considerable. The individual slave is essentially without resources and without recourse when the owner determines that his economic value is negative. When things get bad enough to eat the dogs, you won't feed the slaves.

Even if statistically it came about that slaves as a group did better than free people, as individuals, free people would have a better competitive position than individual slaves.

The free person has a few options not so readily available to the slave, since there is at least some possibility that he can sustain himself either by producing only what he needs without providing for others, or can find paying work with which to scrape by. In addition the free person has other options such as emigration, revolt, and crime.

[Beerina]

Altruism is based on sympathy.



Assume a stranger is drowning, and it is within your power without risk to yourself to save him, and you would receive no monetary reward for doing so. You would still do it, of course. Otherwise, you have lost one of the most important ingredients of humanity.


******************************************
The Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist (http://www.freewebs.com/thebgma/index.htm)

I was swimming off the Atlantic coast of Florida when I encountered a stranger who was drowning. I instructed the lad to go in to shore to get some people with a raft to help, while I bobbed, treading water and occasionally hitting bottom on tiptoe and thrusting up again. But he was about 30 feet further out and I just couldn't get to him. Either I swim out and try to grab him as he screamed for help in panic, or I don't. As I was nearing exhaustion and deciding to take a 50% chance on dying myself or not, the people from shore with the raft finally got back out and went and got him.

So, when push came to shove, I was not about to do significant risk to my life to save a stranger. Well, an overweight bald man in his '60's anyway.

[the_bgma]

But your citation claims that sympathy is not one constant that flows through all systems of morality. The examples I gave earlier do not involve sympathy at all, yet religious followers loudly proclaim their morality in these matters.

On another note, I've been thinking about the definition of morality that you cited and I cannot decide if the following items are moral or not:

early-term abortion
capital punishment
assisted suicide
marijuana usage

Okay, I'll try to delineate it better:

(1) In the past, people tried to create sources of morality. They wrote books that are now "holy" books, or Scripture.

(2) In most of these books, they wrote out specific "moral" laws. These laws were not really morals, most of them were cultural norms. Don't eat shellfish. Don't touch menstruating women. If your brother dies you have to marry his wife. Don't mix fibers in your clothing. This is what I term a "false morality."

(3) However, in most of these books, there were also allowances for the true morality of sympathy. "Do unto others..." There is obviously a conflict between this true morality and the false scripted morality in many places.

When comparing any two scriptures, you will find enormous differences in the "cultural norms" part, but a significant commonality in the true morality part. Even way back then, when outsiders were mistrusted, the writers did recognize the need for at least an INTERNAL (to their society) true morality in many areas. Help the poor. Care for orphans. Don't kill each other. Don't steal. Don't rape.

(4) When religious followers trumpet their "morality," they are MOSTLY talkign about their cultural norms. That's why they fight with each other.

(5) Once you strip away the false morality of scriptures (who's been checking their shirt tags for mixed fibers?), you are left with true morality. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

------------------

On your other question, about the four problem areas you mentioned (early-term abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, marijuana usage), there are certainly two sides to the issue. Here's a quote on exactly such dilemmas from the Book of Morality:

Many of the political arguments we have today are a matter of choice of interpretation of the more moral action between the two. Is it more moral to allow a drug user to go free and possibly clean up his life, or to jail him and help prevent the flow of drugs into society? Is it more moral to spare the life of a murderer, or to execute him to ensure he never kills again and deter other would-be killers, so sparing the lives of their future victims? Is it more moral to go to war to bring down a brutal dictator and protect the people he has oppressed and killed, or to avoid the war and protect the people that would be the casualties of war? There is no absolute answer to any of these questions; the answers are a matter of personal preferences of which choice is more moral, in the eyes of the beholder.

However, the fact that we can see both sides of the above issues shows that there is a consistent moral underpinning to us all. Our common moral goals in all of the above examples are to minimize injustice and suffering and death, and to foster a positive society. We would not support the jailing or execution of an innocent person. We would not support war against a peaceful country that treats its citizens fairly and has not attacked or threatened us. There are obviously absolute bounds to morality.

Check out the book (it's free and fairly short), a lot of those questions are already answered in there.

******************************************
The Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist (http://www.freewebs.com/thebgma/index.htm)

[AmyWilson]

I see nothing wrong with slavery. :)

It's true. :)

[LotusMegami]

Morality means doing what is right because it is right. If you do it out of fear of punishment, then your actions are still correct, but you can't really be called a moral person.

In regards to altruism and sympathy: what if instead of treating people how you would want to be treated, you treat them how they want to be treated?
What if it just gives you a good feeling, possibly programmed in by evolution?
Empathy is required so know the needs of others - to see that they can suffer just like you can. But is it *based* on sympathy?

[the_bgma]

Morality means doing what is right because it is right. If you do it out of fear of punishment, then your actions are still correct, but you can't really be called a moral person.

In regards to altruism and sympathy: what if instead of treating people how you would want to be treated, you treat them how they want to be treated?
What if it just gives you a good feeling, possibly programmed in by evolution?
Empathy is required so know the needs of others - to see that they can suffer just like you can. But is it *based* on sympathy?


Morality is indeed based on sympathy, Thomas Jefferson put it best (and I'm probably repeating myself): “Nature [has] implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses.”

Yes, it DOES give you a good feeling to make others feel good. But our thoughts are far more complicated than merely "it feels good" or "it doesn't feel good." Moral actions of people sometimes include great suffering or death on the part of the actor. Merely doing what "felt good" has become something more, an undeniable code from both nature and nurture.


******************************************
The Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist (http://www.freewebs.com/thebgma/index.htm)

[Beady]

Thomas Jefferson put it best (and I'm probably repeating myself): “Nature [has] implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses.”

Much as I admire Jefferson, the man wasn't always right. In this case he substitutes Nature for God, and appeals to that authority. His argument is not based on logic.

Moral actions of people sometimes include great suffering or death on the part of the actor. Merely doing what "felt good" has become something more, an undeniable code from both nature and nurture.

Back in the '70s, my generation came up with the "If it feels good, do it!" morality. It doesn't work. What feels good to me may very well not feel good to you (say, sodomy -- and don't ask why that example springs to mind).

OTOH, altruism (aka selflessness - which is not based on either sympathy or empathy, both of which are ultimately selfish in nature) is not a distinctly human characteristic; many animals of all intelligence levels, from ants to orcas, will individually sacrifice themselves for the group. Self-sacrifice, therefore, is not necessarily a moral act.