Slavery

[Piscivore]

Seriously... do we need a philosophical debate about whether or not slavery is wrong? Seriously? Do we?

We've most of us been taught that, but it seems to me that this whole idea that "slavery is wrong" is a pretty recent development when considered against the scope of human history. And it isn't even universal- slavery still exists today, in all its forms. People have to participate in it, condone it, for it to still exist.

It further seems that would be a tremendous advantage to any small group's genetic survivability. The group gets to add the slave's manhours to its production without costing the group a the same resource share as another full member or competition for females.

Further, "slavery"- i.e. compulsory employment- seems like a viable way to ameliorate the cost of non-productive members of society- recidivistic prisoners, drug addicts, and the chronically un- or underemployed.

I'd like to hear some other ideas.


Thread moved from "Forum Community" to "History, Literature, and the Arts".

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I hear the sound of a can of worms opening! :p

[TragicMonkey]

You're discounting the efforts the enslavers must expend to make sure the slaves don't rebel. Try too hard to keep them in line, and it might inspire a revolt. Be too easy, and it might inspire a revolt. Then there are the outside security requirements--you have to protect your property, as well as yourselves. You don't want to wind up enslaved by somebody else. And humans are expensive. You have to feed them and water them and shelter them, and if you take poor care of them they'll get sick, which would not only be an economic loss of their labor, but risk infecting you as well.

I think in the end it's unfeasible, costing more work than it produces.

[Katana]

Well, I have heard that mandating that welfare recipients (those who are capable of working) actually work for their benefits amounts to slavery.

That's an argument that I don't buy.

Yes, to continue the can o' worms...

[Piscivore]

You're discounting the efforts the enslavers must expend to make sure the slaves don't rebel. Try too hard to keep them in line, and it might inspire a revolt. Be too easy, and it might inspire a revolt. Then there are the outside security requirements--you have to protect your property, as well as yourselves. You don't want to wind up enslaved by somebody else. And humans are expensive. You have to feed them and water them and shelter them, and if you take poor care of them they'll get sick, which would not only be an economic loss of their labor, but risk infecting you as well.

I think in the end it's unfeasible, costing more work than it produces.

I think you are right for the most part, and I further think it is due to the industrialisation of the West that led to the end of slavery, the "morality" of it being appended as a rationalisation. The timing is curious, to be sure, as is the apparent fact that it is in unindustialised nations where it thrives today.

However, I would be surprised that were the American economy to catastrophically collapse if chattel slavery didn't at least illicitly rear its head again.

[skepHick]

You're discounting the efforts the enslavers must expend to make sure the slaves don't rebel. Try too hard to keep them in line, and it might inspire a revolt. Be too easy, and it might inspire a revolt. Then there are the outside security requirements--you have to protect your property, as well as yourselves. You don't want to wind up enslaved by somebody else. And humans are expensive. You have to feed them and water them and shelter them, and if you take poor care of them they'll get sick, which would not only be an economic loss of their labor, but risk infecting you as well.

I think in the end it's unfeasible, costing more work than it produces.


Tell me about it. I didn't figure all this out until after I had the kid. Doing household chores myself would have been much easier.

[Dogdoctor]

Shhhhh....don't talk so loud or my slaves may start getting ideas.:rolleyes:

[Piscivore]

Tell me about it. I didn't figure all this out until after I had the kid. Doing household chores myself would have been much easier.

Children are more of a long-term investment.

[Skeptic Guy]

And they can't lift as much.

The prisoner idea is interesting if you can teach them a marketable job and not just digging ditches.

"...what we have here is a failure to communicate."

[Brown]

I don't know why no one has suggested this before. I mean, it's so obvious...

The USA is looking for a solution to unwanted immigration from Mexico. On the one hand, the immigrants provide cheap labor, but on the other hand, they are a drag on resources.

Isn't the solution obvious? Bring back slavery! Just repeal the 13th Amendment.

This would stop the illegal immigration problem overnight. Also, it would maintain the existing cheap labor force (arguably making the labor force even cheaper than it was before), while removing immigrants' petty legal claims to expensive entitlements such as "human rights." It's a win-win scenario!

Just in case there's someone out there who is a little slow on the uptake and who wonders whether this is a serious proposal: it isn't.

[skepHick]

Children are more of a long-term investment.

Yeah, that's why I gladly write the checks for the college expenses now. Mommy wants to retire before she's dead. I don't want have to be employed as a Wal-Mart greeter in my golden years. I'd much rather pretend to be one, and "accidentally" ram people with the carts as they come in the door. Then go home for a nice nap in the afternoon.

[nails3jesus0]

slavery


**** YEAH!



*waits for someone to catch the reference*

[Geek Goddess]

Tell me about it. I didn't figure all this out until after I had the kid. Doing household chores myself would have been much easier.

Really. You spend all that time and energy, and don't get any decent work out of them until they are about 12. Then they become teenagers, and you don't get any useful work out of them until they are 30 or so. Then you feel bad for asking them to do things, because they have their own family.

The best you can hope for is that they get you a pretty decent nursing home when they are in their 50s. And if you had just put all that money raising them into stocks and bonds, you could pay for your own cool nursing home with 30-something studs as attendants.

[Normal Dude]

We already have slaves. In every industrialized country. They work tirelessly for us day and night, and only rarely complain or stumble. And boy am I glad we have them.

They are machines.

;)

[Dylab]

They work tirelessly... now.

[Geek Goddess]

For anyone who thinks that slavery is dead, I invite them to talk to my friend Pat, who is working in Dubai for the next 15 months, about the 'guest workers' the Arabs hire.

Her company must hire counselors for the western employees, to help them deal with what they see.

[ImaginalDisc]

Tell me about it. I didn't figure all this out until after I had the kid. Doing household chores myself would have been much easier.

You're completely hoodwinked. It's you who are the slave.

[Gurdur]

We've most of us been taught that, but it seems to me that this whole idea that "slavery is wrong" is a pretty recent development when considered against the scope of human history.
Spartacus was 2000 years ago, and there are recorded anti-slavery writings before even then.
And it isn't even universal- slavery still exists today, in all its forms. People have to participate in it, condone it, for it to still exist.
That is a non-argument.

Rape and murder still exist today. And?

Further, "slavery"- i.e. compulsory employment- seems like a viable way to ameliorate the cost of non-productive members of society- recidivistic prisoners, drug addicts, and the chronically un- or underemployed.
It might seem that way to someone predisposed to think slavery might be OK.

Not to the rest.

I'd like to hear some other ideas.
Done.

[Piscivore]

Spartacus was 2000 years ago, and there are recorded anti-slavery writings before even then.
I was not aware of that. Links?

That is a non-argument.

Rape and murder still exist today. And?
The only point there is that it is not a universally understood to be an unquestionably "absolute evil" as was proposed in another thread.

It might seem that way to someone predisposed to think slavery might be OK.

Not to the rest.
Why isn't it?

Done.
Thanks. :)

[Cuddles]

Of course, there's always the question of what actually constitutes slavery. Most people would agree that abducting someone, slapping them in irons and forcing them to work for you until they drop dead with no reward and no rights probably counts as slavery. But there are plenty of other less obvious situations that could easily be seen as slavery. What about forced labour in prison? The only difference between that and the previous scenario is that society agrees only criminals do it as punishment rather than just arbitrarily picking random people. And what about community service? It's forced labour for no reward and the threat of further sanctions if you don't comply.

And what about people who technically have regular jobs but have no choice in the matter? Poor people picking crops, factory workers, that sort of thing? There are many people that have no choice about their job, it's either that or be out on the street. Is there really a difference between paying someone just enough that they can have a house and food but nothing else, and providing them with a house and food and nothing else while making them work at the exact same job?

If slavery is wrong, where is the line drawn?

I hear the sound of a can of worms opening! :p

Shh! That's my dinner.

[sackett]

Of course, there's always the question of what actually constitutes slavery....


Check. Who needs chains when you've got wages?

[Mark]

With the MASSIVE transfer of wealth going on in this country, we are well on our way. And modern technology will probably make revolution impossible when it does happen.

And since most people believe whatever they see on TV, our new corporate masters will convince most of us that we like it.

Great. Now I'm depressed.

[Gurdur]

I was not aware of that. Links?
look up History Of Slavery on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery) and go from there.

The only point there is that it is not a universally understood to be an unquestionably "absolute evil" as was proposed in another thread.
Murder is not universally understood to be an unquestionably "absolute evil".
People still murder.
So the big what?
NOTHING is or ever was understood to be an unquestionably "absolute evil".
This point has been made a large number of times. You should tackle it.

As for your claim about what was being claimed, do you have an actual link to the post and claim in question? Was such an actual claim made? By whom? Quote? Link? I'm just checking in case anything was misunderstood.

Why isn't it?
Why should it be?

[Amapola]

look up History Of Slavery on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery) and go from there.


Murder is not universally understood to be an unquestionably "absolute evil".
People still murder.
So the big what?
NOTHING is or ever was understood to be an unquestionably "absolute evil".
This point has been made a large number of times. You should tackle it.

As for your claim about what was being claimed, do you have an actual link to the post and claim in question? Was such an actual claim made? By whom? Quote? Link? I'm just checking in case anything was misunderstood.


Why should it be?

Gurdur, this was sparked by this thread (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showthread.php?t=89510) where DrBuzz0 was (apparently) arguing that some people should be personally attacked and driven off for the views they hold - such as that slavery is OK. (I may have DrBuzz0's point of view wrong here. It was really hard to make out exactly what he was trying to say. That's just what it *seems* he was saying, if I got it wrong, I apologize.)

I doubt Piscivore actually believes slavery is OK. I think he is more trying to point out that the views people have towards slavery have not always been universally the same as the views we currently hold in our society.

[scratchy]

If slavery is wrong, where is the line drawn?
I find that line to be quite obvious. If you can stand up and leave its not slavery. That doesnt mean anything else goes. Bad treatment of labor is still bad, and wrong. But as long as you are free to leave its not slavery. There is still too much real slavery in the world to make that term vacant for the various other forms of bad labor treatment one wishes to condemn.

[Gurdur]

Gurdur, this was sparked by this thread (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showthread.php?t=89510) where DrBuzz0

Ah, a great many thanks, Amapola! That clears up another question I had too. Very kind of you to give me the info.

was (apparently) arguing that some people should be personally attacked and driven off for the views they hold - such as that slavery is OK. (I may have DrBuzz0's point of view wrong here. It was really hard to make out exactly what he was trying to say. That's just what it *seems* he was saying, if I got it wrong, I apologize.)

Um, yes, well. DrBuzz0. Um. Well, I hate to be harsh, but I have zero remit to defend any such stance. I prefer a bit more logic; murder, as I pointed out, is still not universally accepted as a no-no, so why should slavery?

You will always have people in favour of either murder or slavery; that, as far as I am concerned, is meaningless. Nor does it make murder or slavery OK.

Besides which, I like free will, and people deciding for themselves. So people actually behaving individually on ethical matters is something I approve of. It's a small price to pay if they decide the wrong way; the main thing is, we all still have that individual power of decision.

I doubt Piscivore actually believes slavery is OK. I think he is more trying to point out that the views people have towards slavery have not always been universally the same as the views we currently hold in our society.

My reaction here is heightened because someone else tried a variant of that position on yet a totally different slavery thread (actually an American Civil War thread); the poster in question is arguing, in essence, that because slavery was not "universally" condemned in 1862, it is somehow magically unfair to criticise the CSA for bringing itself into existence to protect its slavery institution.

The poster in question characterizes it as imposing 2007 morality on 1862. Needless to say, it's merely self-serving, and completely ignores that there was much abolitionist feeling among many at the time.

So I am feeling somewhat short-tempered with such arguments; they're specious, and appeal to some kind of absolute that does not exist and will never exist, and therefore constitute empty evasion.

[Piscivore]

Gurdur, this was sparked by this thread (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showthread.php?t=89510) where DrBuzz0 was (apparently) arguing that some people should be personally attacked and driven off for the views they hold - such as that slavery is OK. (I may have DrBuzz0's point of view wrong here. It was really hard to make out exactly what he was trying to say. That's just what it *seems* he was saying, if I got it wrong, I apologize.)
Further, I understood Dr. B to mean that since slavery was so absolutely, inocntravertably wrong that people should be shunned and mocked for even discussing the possibility that it might not be.

Whatever Dr. B's issue is- and I hope he gets over it soon- I didn't think he was in any mood to consider he might be wrong, but there are others that have their own sacred cows. I don't think there should be any opinion that's off limits, And I wanted this thread to be an example.

I doubt Piscivore actually believes slavery is OK. I think he is more trying to point out that the views people have towards slavery have not always been universally the same as the views we currently hold in our society.
One of the things running through my mind right now is that "Slavery" is a pretty broad term, and we may be throwing something out with that bathwater we might not want to.

I'm still trying to render these thoughts in a coherent manner, I'll explain more later.

I find that line to be quite obvious. If you can stand up and leave its not slavery.
Where does that leave prisoners? They are not free to leave, if we make them work for their keep does this make them slaves?

My reaction here is heightened because someone else tried a variant of that position on yet a totally different slavery thread (actually an American Civil War thread); the poster in question is arguing, in essence, that because slavery was not "universally" condemned in 1862, it is somehow magically unfair to criticise the CSA for bringing itself into existence to protect its slavery institution.

I saw that, and it is the reason I chose "Slavery" over one of his other "absolutes", like eugenics.

[slingblade]

Well, I have heard that mandating that welfare recipients (those who are capable of working) actually work for their benefits amounts to slavery.

That's an argument that I don't buy.

Yes, to continue the can o' worms...


I don't think that amounts to slavery, either.

But I do think "wage slavery" exists, although the term is very misleading and emotive. If it's slavery, it's a milder form than others.

Put it this way: the ones who benefit from low-income workers don't often see any problems, and the ones who are low-income workers see little but problems. I've worked at many, many jobs in my life in which I didn't earn enough to purchase what I was producing.

[scratchy]

Where does that leave prisoners? They are not free to leave, if we make them work for their keep does this make them slaves?Well, if they are held as prisoners with no other reason than to make them work, that would make them slaves. But the prisoners you are talking about are of course convicts. They have chosen their destiny when they committed the crime, and most of them will eventually be free. We allready have a better fitting term than slaves: convicts.

A better question about the where the line goes might be about drafted military. They are not free to leave, and are held for no other reason than to make them do military service, in times of war it may be for a time that is not specified. I still wouldnt consider them slaves, though, but they might fit he term better than convicts.

[luchog]

A better question about the where the line goes might be about drafted military. They are not free to leave, and are held for no other reason than to make them do military service, in times of war it may be for a time that is not specified. I still wouldnt consider them slaves, though, but they might fit he term better than convicts.

It also depends on the form of conscription. Press-gang-style or other forcible conscription would generally fit the defintion of slavery. A US-style draft, with its various means of avoiding compulsory service (conscientious objector, educational deferrment, and various health, disability, and religious exemptions) would not necessarily be considered slavery.

[DRBUZZ0]

We've most of us been taught that, but it seems to me that this whole idea that "slavery is wrong" is a pretty recent development when considered against the scope of human history. And it isn't even universal- slavery still exists today, in all its forms. People have to participate in it, condone it, for it to still exist.

It further seems that would be a tremendous advantage to any small group's genetic survivability. The group gets to add the slave's manhours to its production without costing the group a the same resource share as another full member or competition for females.

Further, "slavery"- i.e. compulsory employment- seems like a viable way to ameliorate the cost of non-productive members of society- recidivistic prisoners, drug addicts, and the chronically un- or underemployed.

I'd like to hear some other ideas.

There is a difference between saying that "slavery" is justified as a form of punishment or for some sort of debt repayment by agreement vrs. general decision that slavery is acceptable, as a wholesale. In the former cases it is in some way based on the decisions or actions of those who are found in the situation. Just as a removal of liberty is the result of a criminal conviction.

I'm not going to say whether compulsory work is somehow justified as punishment, but that is a separate issue.

It is not simply compensatory employment, but rather is a complete removal of rights and property. It does not simply say "You must work." But takes any right to choice in the manner and nature of life. You are no longer able to decide anything for yourself and are literally owned by another.

This is, unfortionately, not uncommon throughout human history. In the Americas it was those from Africa. In the US, it was only legal to enslave Africans of those descended from them, even if part white. There was clearly a line drawn to differentiate the two. Even American Indians, who were certainly given the most raw deal you can think of were not enslaved... at least not after the formation of the United States. (Perhaps they did not look quite different enough)

In Roman times and before it was often those from other cultures, such as those captured in battle who became slaves (in addition to criminals - or possibly accused criminals). Although Rome did have a rather uniquely common system of slavery.

In general though, there's one unifying thing that, at least I, can see in slavery throughout the ages. It's a differentiation of "them" and "us" by such things as skin color, manner of speaking and so on. Generally there is some comparison to animals. IE: "We can own them. Sure it would be wrong if they were like us, but they're not. They're not as smart. They're not as capable. They are like animals."

This may be why blacks were portrayed as almost ape-like. It again, takes away the idea of equality and equates certain groups to the status of animals.

Of course, it would not be unexpected in an Islamic society either. In that case, it may be okay to enslave foreigners or women because they are "not like us" according to the Koran.


While it now seems intuitive and relatively a no-brainer (well, except to some on this forum apparently) that slavery of groups is not justified, it is disturbing and somewhat perplexing that it would have commonly be thought otherwise.

I suppose the only real explanation I can come up with for that reverts to the "not like us" mentality. Hopefully, in a society where people of different backgrounds can become more familiar with each other this will become less of a danger.


Of course, if the day comes when people are not judged "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Well... that might be a BIG problem for some people I know... given their character... or lack thereof.

[Amapola]

....snip......

In general though, there's one unifying thing that, at least I, can see in slavery throughout the ages. It's a differentiation of "them" and "us" by such things as skin color, manner of speaking and so on. Generally there is some comparison to animals. IE: "We can own them. Sure it would be wrong if they were like us, but they're not. They're not as smart. They're not as capable. They are like animals."

......snip.......

Interesting, but this is often what is done in war. My FIL was in many of the major battles in the Pacific and says how they were "trained" to hate the Japanese. Well, he was a machine gunner in the Marines, and his job was to shoot and kill people. They happened to be Japanese, but he had been taught that they did not 'count' somehow, that it was OK to kill them.

One difference between war and slaves, though - in war you just kill them (or put them in prison) but in slavery, there they are - walking among you. You have to be careful they don't become aware of how many "they" are compared to "you". Otherwise you could have a successful revolt on your hands.

It's odd to me, because I was not raised that way, but to many people in the world there are different "classes" of people. Some are just "naturally" more important or somehow better. I don't see things that way, but I know that in many societies that is the reality of how people see things.

[DRBUZZ0]

Interesting, but this is often what is done in war. My FIL was in many of the major battles in the Pacific and says how they were "trained" to hate the Japanese. Well, he was a machine gunner in the Marines, and his job was to shoot and kill people. They happened to be Japanese, but he had been taught that they did not 'count' somehow, that it was OK to kill them.

One difference between war and slaves, though - in war you just kill them (or put them in prison) but in slavery, there they are - walking among you. You have to be careful they don't become aware of how many "they" are compared to "you". Otherwise you could have a successful revolt on your hands.

It's odd to me, because I was not raised that way, but to many people in the world there are different "classes" of people. Some are just "naturally" more important or somehow better. I don't see things that way, but I know that in many societies that is the reality of how people see things.

I think that is very true. There needs to be an "Us and them" sort of mentality.

It's obvious to most that slavery is just wrong, if you put yourself in the situation. The idea that it could be done to *you* or those *like you* is intuitively injust.

Hence there needs to be a message: These people are not like you. Not like your family. Not even really people. They are like animals or like something else. Therefore it is not the same.

One might say that this sort of thing is a "necessary evil" in war. If you need to oppose an invading force or win a battle for an important cause, you have to oversimplify, because, to put it bluntly: You just can't have your marines trying to take islands in the pacific while they grapple with the internal emotional issues of taking the life of another. But it definitely is a slippery slope.

It seems like it is almost human nature to establish an additude that separates groups into classes, and thereby justifies their treatment. In some cases it is very explicit and formal.

In India it was the Caste system and in Europe there was the class system of royalty, high nobelity, lower nobelity and then: Everyone else. (who didn't matter). In Japan and China similar class systems developed. And often one could see very ridged boundaries. The lowers could not even speak to the highers: It was forbidden.

My best guess is that this rigity developed simply because any allowing of intermingling will cause a breakdown in the system. Once one an have contact with the "untouchables" it becomes apparent that they are individuals and are capable of the same sorts of things anyone else is. Hence the stigma.

If one looks at, for example, the United States, slavery really began to falter once some of this began to break down. The notion that blacks were so different and inferior and not capable of handing themselves became very difficult to maintain once you had free blacks running around and books being written about life of slaves, there really started to be a fragmentation of the country.

In the south, where cultural separations were maintained more strongly things were held out a bit more than in areas where there were populations of freed Africans and where black soldiers served and such. But even in the South, it began to eat away at the social fabric.

Despite the US Civil War not being about state succession, one could make a good case that it was caused by the unrest and turmoil caused by those who wanted to keep an institution that was becoming increasingly difficult to justify. Separating from the areas where freed blacks were and books of the character of slaves were published offered a possible means of trying to maintain this.


Throughout history I think one can find parallels to this. You simply cannot allow people to come to the realization that those in the enslaved "classes" are basically individuals or the immorality of the system becomes all to obvious. For the Nazi's the Jews were "Not German" and "Not us. Not like you," and they were compared to rats or a plague. In South Africa, Apartheid(sp?) was very strictly enforced as a policy.


Hence: I tend to think that major discrimination and enslavement *IS* entirely, intuitively and obviously wrong. And the only way around it is the maintenance of the illusion that they are "Not us and not like us."

If you begin to judge the individual, based on his or her words, actions and character; you can no longer simply label them based on their ethnic or social group. And the system breaks down.

[DRBUZZ0]

Interesting, but this is often what is done in war. My FIL was in many of the major battles in the Pacific and says how they were "trained" to hate the Japanese. Well, he was a machine gunner in the Marines, and his job was to shoot and kill people. They happened to be Japanese, but he had been taught that they did not 'count' somehow, that it was OK to kill them.



Perhaps it is possible that the reason this (somewhat necessary evil oversimplification of war) was relatively quick to die out and that Japan would become an ally of the US; and that by the 1950's even words like "jap" were becoming taboo is not so surprising.

After the war with Japan, the United States spent a great deal of money and man hours toward the rebuilding of the nation of Japan. There were many troops who spent time in Japan doing recovery work. There was much cultural exchange. This is, at least in part, why the Japanese have come to love baseball and why Americans love Susi. The one-on-one exchange is more powerful than the stereotypes which created a single "group" of the Japanese.

The ironic thing being that what really caused this is not that the United States wanted to rebuild Japan out of the goodness and generosity of its heart. Had things been stable in the area, the US may very well have left those "damn dirty Japs to clean it up themselves." But that was not an option because Stalin's Soviet Union was an increasing concern. And a nation like Japan was too important to leave. Had such aid and exchange not occurred, it is likely that the USSR would have offered it instead, wanting to gain their own foothold in the region.

But: Because of this exchange and the breaking down of the group mentality, US troops and Japanese would serve and fight side by side less than a decade later in Korea.

[Paulhoff]

The bible has nothing against slavery, I is quess it is all right then.

Paul

:) :) :)

Well don't they say that America's laws are built on the bible.

[bug_girl]

Actually, you can find quite a bit of bible quoting in the literature of the civil war. (Or, as I was taught to call it in school, "The war of Northern Aggression.")

They also used a lot of natural fallacy arguments. ("ants take slaves, ergo, it's natural.")

There's an awesome paper around somewhere that examines the way in which other groups are dehumanized by comparison to insects. I'll have to look that up again.

[DingoBingo]

If you think slavery is acceptable, then you wouldn't mind being a slave?

[Soapy Sam]

Surely this debate hinges on the definition of "wrong".

Moral wrongs have a largely arbitrary element.

Economic wrongs are easier to spot. Slavery seriously skews a labour market.

[DingoBingo]

Moral wrongs have a largely arbitrary element.
So I guess you wouldn't mind being a slave?

[Soapy Sam]

So I guess you wouldn't mind being a slave?


I wonder what makes you guess that?

Are you saying all slave owners throughout history were or are identically immoral?

Would you consider Jefferson less / more / identically immoral to Julius Caesar? How about a plantation owner of the 1850s? No difference at all?

Until my lifetime, it was both immoral and illegal for two consenting men to commit buggery in my country. You feel there is no arbitrary element in this? All morals are absolutes? Which do your absolute moral instincts tell you is the correct stance?

[Cuddles]

I find that line to be quite obvious. If you can stand up and leave its not slavery. That doesnt mean anything else goes. Bad treatment of labor is still bad, and wrong. But as long as you are free to leave its not slavery. There is still too much real slavery in the world to make that term vacant for the various other forms of bad labor treatment one wishes to condemn.

But that was the whole point of my post. There is often a difference between being theorectically capable of leaving and actually being able to in the real world. Especially in the developing world, but also in the developed world, there are many people who have no choice about their job, their home or how they live their lives. This is not because they are kept as slaves or forced to do anything, it is simply that if they do choose to leave they will have no money and will be unable to support either themselves or their families. This isn't necessarily the fault of bad treatment at work, it is simply that there are no other choices.

And of course, this completely ignores the other point I made about criminals. Unpaid community service and forced labour in prisons are legal, and common practice, in many countries where slavery is supposedly illegal. How is this any different from slavery. It is justified by society as punishment, but the actual practice is identical.

[scratchy]

But that was the whole point of my post. There is often a difference between being theorectically capable of leaving and actually being able to in the real world. Especially in the developing world, but also in the developed world, there are many people who have no choice about their job, their home or how they live their lives. This is not because they are kept as slaves or forced to do anything, it is simply that if they do choose to leave they will have no money and will be unable to support either themselves or their families. This isn't necessarily the fault of bad treatment at work, it is simply that there are no other choices.

And of course, this completely ignores the other point I made about criminals. Unpaid community service and forced labour in prisons are legal, and common practice, in many countries where slavery is supposedly illegal. How is this any different from slavery. It is justified by society as punishment, but the actual practice is identical.
Then theres a lot of us living in slavery.

I can see two reasons to expand or obscure the term by using it for more things than what we generally mean:
1. Making slavery more accepted by saying "well, thats practically slavery too, and thats legal, so wy shouldnt i be allowed to own a few slaves? Theyd be better off than those suckers anyway."
2. To condemn other bad practices or circumstanses by saying "Look, this is practically slavery, therefore this is very very bad".

Nr 1 is not what youre reaching for, i guess. But why would we do nr 2? I see no good reason. If something is bad and wrong it should be shown as such on its own merits, i think.

[DingoBingo]

Are you saying all slave owners throughout history were or are identically immoral?
Yes.

Would you consider Jefferson less / more / identically immoral to Julius Caesar? How about a plantation owner of the 1850s? No difference at all?
Yes.

Until my lifetime, it was both immoral and illegal for two consenting men to commit buggery in my country. You feel there is no arbitrary element in this? All morals are absolutes? Which do your absolute moral instincts tell you is the correct stance?
Without moral absolutes, then everything is chaos. Unless all humans adopt a personality of extreme stoicism, then injustice is inevitable.

[Gurdur]

Surely this debate hinges on the definition of "wrong".
Moral wrongs have a largely arbitrary element.
Economic wrongs are easier to spot. Slavery seriously skews a labour market.

There are huge logical fallacies in your POV.

There is no such thing as an "economic wrong" independent of moral judgment. Economics in intersubjective assessment of facts. Morality is the judgment over facts on an ethical basis.

Economics cannot tell you what is wrong or right. Not at all.

[Piscivore]

Without moral absolutes, then everything is chaos.
Hail Eris.

Unless all humans adopt a personality of extreme stoicism, then injustice is inevitable.
That's why I don't get to excited about injustice. I'm not even sure there is an objective thing such as "justice".

[Piscivore]

Economics cannot tell you what is wrong or right. Not at all.

In practice, doesn't morality follow economics?

[Soapy Sam]

There are huge logical fallacies in your POV.


That would make me pretty average.



There is no such thing as an "economic wrong" independent of moral judgment.

I disagree. We're back to definitions. A economic system which is wrong is one ill adapted to the prevailing reality. Communism, for instance, might work well for creatures evolved from herd herbivores. It is wrong (does not work, leads to financial disaster) for evolved pack scavengers.

Economics in intersubjective assessment of facts. Morality is the judgment over facts on an ethical basis.

Sorry, I don't understand you. So far as I'm aware, facts require no judgement, moral or otherwise. A slave economy affects the value of labour in the market. This is a fact. Slave economies have short term benefit for some. This is a fact. These facts remain valid whatever one's judgement of the morality.

We probably share the same moral view of slave labour. This should not touch the economics. I try not to buy my clothes from places where they pay workers 22c per hour. This does not alter the fact that buying those clothes would save me money.




Economics cannot tell you what is wrong or right. Not at all.
Ah. I see the problem. You think I'm saying moral judgement can be made on economic basis.

Actually, I don't see why not. It must be made on some basis. It might be pure preference, or politics, or what side of the bed you got out of, or a whole bundle of factors. We can agree it's not the only factor. I never said it was. I said it had an arbitrary element.
Maybe it's a subject for a separate thread?

[David Swidler]

I'd like to echo Pisci's baby-with-bathwater sentiment. I think there's room for a type of "slavery" (for lack of a better term) that might be beneficial under certain circumstances.

Let's take the following case: Person A steals from person B. The value of the theft exceeds that which Person A can pay back, and given his miserable financial/employment situation, he won't come close to paying the debt in any reasonable amount of time (say decades).

So the courts sell A into servitude to Person C for a set amount of time. The proceeds go to B. All sorts of legal restrictions prevent C from mistreating A, and he must provide adequate food, shelter, healthcare, etc. Violations would set A free. At the end of the term, C must also provide a small grant to A to help him get back on his feet. C gets prepurchased (bargain?) labor for all that time, B gets back at least some of the money he would otherwise not recoup, A works off his debt and gets back on his feet, hopefully having gained some responsibility and maturity in the interim.

Two points for whoever recognizes an ancient version of this model.

[DRBUZZ0]

I'd to make a rather important point here, which seems to be lost on many.

Slavery is NOT simply compulsatory work or servitude. There are examples of where one might be made to work without pay or without choice that would be justified and fall far short of slavery: Being made to work in order to pay off a debt; being made to work in order to serve a condition of a criminal sentence (IE: How many people have "community service" as part of a conviction? It's not uncommon, but one doesn't generally consider it slavery). or being drafted for service in the military...

The difference is that slavery is not about working, it's about everything. You are not your own person but the property of another. You cannot appeal things, make your own decisions, own property of your own or anything against what your master wants.

It makes you less than a human as we generally consider them in society, but simply a piece of property. You may as well be a robot, or for that matter a chair or a gold coin.

The owner can make you work, choose what to feed you or not to, whip you, rape you, take away your children, sell you, force you to have sex with someone and produce offspring, for the purposes of "breeding." They can even torture or kill you. There is nothing you can do about it. Nothing you can say. It is their right. You have none.

There have been laws, in areas with slavery, giving some restrictions. In the US, states passed laws saying that one could not kill a slave without "good reason." Or that if you want to savagely beat a slave, it can only be done for punishment and not for entertainment. Or that two slaves cannot be made to fought each other.

Such laws offer slaves less protection than many animals. And aside from those, the slave simply has no rights or protections of any kind.

[DRBUZZ0]

Ah, a great many thanks, Amapola! That clears up another question I had too. Very kind of you to give me the info.



Um, yes, well. DrBuzz0. Um. Well, I hate to be harsh, but I have zero remit to defend any such stance. I prefer a bit more logic; murder, as I pointed out, is still not universally accepted as a no-no, so why should slavery?

You will always have people in favour of either murder or slavery; that, as far as I am concerned, is meaningless. Nor does it make murder or slavery OK.

Besides which, I like free will, and people deciding for themselves. So people actually behaving individually on ethical matters is something I approve of. It's a small price to pay if they decide the wrong way; the main thing is, we all still have that individual power of decision.


Oh I don't say that I want people who believe in slavery to be prosecuted. Certainly not for their views alone. If they owned slaves, then I'd like to see them prosecuted.

But, if there are some who are in favor of slavery, nazism, genocide, stalinism, wholesale murder of people just for fun, violence against dogs... They are free to have those views.


But, I'm going to still give them a dirty look; I'm not going to invite them to any BBQ I should have; If I see them stuck in a parking lot, I'm not going to offer them my jumper cables; I'm not going to tell them if they have toilet paper sticking to the bottom of their shoe or of their Klan robe; if the opportunity to say what I think of them comes up, I very well might say something...

I'd tend to hope that most of the people in my community would feel similar. Maybe not, but it all works out in the end by a preponderance of views and actions. Generally, someone with a view as extreme as "I'm all about slavery" would probably (I hope) be generally disliked in the area I live in.

And they might even get the message "You know, I don't really feel comfortable around here. I mean, nobody has threatened me, but it seems like the folks here don't take too kindly to my pro-slavery stance. Perhaps I should think about leaving... or even rethinking my pro-slavery thing"


I do not see how this is being the "though police" or appointing any one person the one in charge of things.

I make my own personal choice when something is so very wrong, extreme and intolerable that I will hold it against the person. Others should do the same. By preponderance of those who do so, those who are not liked by those around them will get the message, although no one person is the one who "takes charge"

It's a sort of implicit democracy.


And no: I wouldn't hold one's views against them in general. But for stuff like slavery, yes I would. And don't ask me "Where do I draw the line." I do whereever I want to. You should do the same.

[DRBUZZ0]

With the MASSIVE transfer of wealth going on in this country, we are well on our way. And modern technology will probably make revolution impossible when it does happen.

And since most people believe whatever they see on TV, our new corporate masters will convince most of us that we like it.

Great. Now I'm depressed.

Ok... um... have you considered that rather than getting depressed you could put up a website? Or maybe write to a senator or congressman about what policies you think encourage this? Or maybe write an editorial and submit it to a paper?

Or write to a TV station or radio station and tell them you are dissatisfied enough with their content to not watch? Or write to the advertisers?

Maybe you could volunteer? Or, rather than formal charity work, you could just try to do things with those you know or see around you to the end you'd like to see? Or maybe you could try to encourage action in your area?


I don't want to hear that you are frustrated about how you are nothing compared to the forces that be. Or how you are tired of fighting a loosing battle. Or how what you do is entirely insignificant. I have heard that from enough people to make an army. No single raindrop thinks it is responsible for the flood.

This is something I have a big problem with... It irritates me undendingly

[Piscivore]

The difference is that slavery is not about working, it's about everything. You are not your own person but the property of another. You cannot appeal things, make your own decisions, own property of your own or anything against what your master wants.
I fail to see a distinction here between a slave and a maximum-security prisoner, especially one who has exhausted his legal options in the court system.

The owner can make you work, choose what to feed you or not to, whip you, rape you, take away your children, sell you, force you to have sex with someone and produce offspring, for the purposes of "breeding." They can even torture or kill you. There is nothing you can do about it. Nothing you can say. It is their right. You have none.
Is this all inclusive to your definition of slavery? In other words, do any restrictions to these "owner's rights" make the condition other than slavery?

There have been laws, in areas with slavery, giving some restrictions. In the US, states passed laws saying that one could not kill a slave without "good reason." Or that if you want to savagely beat a slave, it can only be done for punishment and not for entertainment. Or that two slaves cannot be made to fought each other.
It would seem that this paragraph says that the circumstances described in the paragraph that preceeds it are not a necessary part of your definition of what constitutes slavery. Any social interaction between two people can and will be abuse, especially one so patently unbalanced, but such potential for abuse does not by default render the interaction invalid. Many of the abuses in your parade of horrors have been visited upon people who would not usually be considered "slaves", such as employees and especially family members. Does this render these associations "evil"?

Such laws offer slaves less protection than many animals. And aside from those, the slave simply has no rights or protections of any kind.
This is emotional rhetoric. We can just as well say that aside from those enumerated in state and federal law, a citizen " simply has no rights or protections of any kind". Technically correct, but meaningless.

[DRBUZZ0]

I fail to see a distinction here between a slave and a maximum-security prisoner, especially one who has exhausted his legal options in the court system.


Yes, you loose most all your rights when you have committed a crime and are imprisoned. You don't loose them because of the color of your skin, though. However, this is considered such a horrible thing, that measures are taken to ensure this does not happen to someone who is not guilty.

Sometimes, however, it does. When the justice system fails and someone is sent to prison for a crime they did not commit, and it comes to light that this has happened: There is often great public outcry. States and governments have reexamined their policies to find where they went wrong. The careers of DA's car be ruined and lawsuits are filed.

Even prisoners have rights though: They are entitled to write letters to family; to have food which provides all necessary nutrition; to not be punished in any that is "cruel and unusual." To petition the court or be informed of new evidence. The rights are few and the enforcement varies, but they are understood to have rights.

But people are sent to prison for being guilty of a crime, not for their social class or the color of their skin. At least not directly, explicitly - even though it seems that way at times. At least, in theory, all are supposed to be treated equally.


Is this all inclusive to your definition of slavery? In other words, do any restrictions to these "owner's rights" make the condition other than slavery?


If you own somebody, it's slavery. If you can say or do anything with their life, it's slavery. Minimal restrictions not withstanding. If you have to ask "What rights do I have over those I own." Then you're already a slaveholder.



It would seem that this paragraph says that the circumstances described in the paragraph that preceeds it are not a necessary part of your definition of what constitutes slavery. Any social interaction between two people can and will be abuse, especially one so patently unbalanced, but such potential for abuse does not by default render the interaction invalid.

The difference is that being "possessive" does not mean owning someone. They can still walk away and say no when you tell them what to do. If they can't, then that is unlawful imprisonment. And the person holding them ought to be prosecuted.





Many of the abuses in your parade of horrors have been visited upon people who would not usually be considered "slaves", such as employees and especially family members. Does this render these associations "evil"?


If you are a worker who is mistreated, told what to do, and held against your will. And you can't even quit your job: Yeah that's pretty much slavery. If it's not "technically slavery" that it really doesn't matter. It should not be tolerated.

And as for "family members"... If a family member holds you against your will or something similar, then yes: That is wrong and they should be prosecuted.

Of course, if you're a minor, then your parents do have a lot of say in what you can do with your life and your rights are minimal. This is obviously because if you are very young you are reasonably expected not to be equipped to make all decisions for yourself. In the US the age 18 is where the line is drawn in terms of being considered fully adult.

That's not to say you are a slave before this though. You certainly have rights, you can petition for emancipation if you want to. Your parents can tell you a few things, but they can't abuse you or confine you. And they certainly do not owe you.

Yes, it's an imperfect system and sometimes it comes down to a judgment call. This is why the people who make such decisions in a legal system are called "Judges"




This is emotional rhetoric. We can just as well say that aside from those enumerated in state and federal law, a citizen " simply has no rights or protections of any kind". Technically correct, but meaningless.

The laws "protecting" slaves were extremely minimal. They were minimal and unenforced. "The owner cannot kill you without good reason." Oh great. That sounds like good protection, especially when the non-slaves in the society would be protected from any personal threat.

Emotional rhetoric? Yes, the idea that people were once, in my own country, forced to work in the fields endlessly beaten, dehumanized and put their lives at risk when they tried to escape to me is: Revolting, embarrassing, upsetting, angering, nearly unbelievable, endlessly depressing.

I take it that this is bad from your perspective? I'm sorry and next time I'll try not to get angry when some atrocity happens.

[Piscivore]

Yes, you lose most all your rights when you have committed a crime and are imprisoned. You don't lose them because of the color of your skin, though. However, this is considered such a horrible thing, that measures are taken to ensure this does not happen to someone who is not guilty.

But people are sent to prison for being guilty of a crime, not for their social class or the color of their skin. At least not directly, explicitly - even though it seems that way at times. At least, in theory, all are supposed to be treated equally.
So it is not the imprisonment, the loss of rights, the compulsory labour, the degradation per se that is the issue, but the method of selecting to whom it will be applied?

Even prisoners have rights though: They are entitled to write letters to family; to have food which provides all necessary nutrition; to not be punished in any that is "cruel and unusual." To petition the court or be informed of new evidence. The rights are few and the enforcement varies, but they are understood to have rights.
Ignoring for the moment that these examples of "rights" that the prisoner has and the slave did not are not that good (as TM pointed out, one is almost compelled to feed the slave well, or he cannot work; not all prisoners are allowed outside communication; "cruel and unusual" are subjective considerations at best, and you already granted that some such protections were historically in place for slaves; there are limits to court appeals and potential "new evidence"), would an improved and clearly explicated set of such "rights" mitigate the ownership of another human being?

If you own somebody, it's slavery. If you can say or do anything with their life, it's slavery. Minimal restrictions not withstanding. If you have to ask "What rights do I have over those I own." Then you're already a slaveholder.
This reduces it to just a question of semantics, then. Many an employer has felt those they pay to be "assets"- I've worked for some.

The difference is that being "possessive" does not mean owning someone. They can still walk away and say no when you tell them what to do.
Not, as has been pointed out, if they cannot economically afford to.

If they can't, then that is unlawful imprisonment. And the person holding them ought to be prosecuted.
Someone can have an economic, contractual, or emotional hold on someone without physically restraining them. Does this count?

If you are a worker who is mistreated, told what to do, and held against your will. And you can't even quit your job: Yeah that's pretty much slavery. If it's not "technically slavery" that it really doesn't matter. It should not be tolerated.
Easy words to say, but one cannot snap one's fingers and cure the effects of a depressed economy or a nation poor in resources just because these effects are "unjust".

And as for "family members"... If a family member holds you against your will or something similar, then yes: That is wrong and they should be prosecuted.
By whom, and under what authority?

The laws "protecting" slaves were extremely minimal. They were minimal and unenforced. "The owner cannot kill you without good reason." Oh great. That sounds like good protection, especially when the non-slaves in the society would be protected from any personal threat.
I'm not speaking exclusively about the past.

Emotional rhetoric? Yes, the idea that people were once, in my own country, forced to work in the fields endlessly beaten, dehumanized and put their lives at risk when they tried to escape to me is: Revolting, embarrassing, upsetting, angering, nearly unbelievable, endlessly depressing.

I take it that this is bad from your perspective?
I don't like to use words like "bad"- they are too subjective. It is unproductive to let emotion have too much influence when one is trying to discuss an issue rationally.

I'm sorry and next time I'll try not to get angry when some atrocity happens.
That's your business. I find anger a poor position from which to make decisions, however.

[DRBUZZ0]

So it is not the imprisonment, the loss of rights, the compulsory labour, the degradation per se that is the issue, but the method of selecting to whom it will be applied?


Ignoring for the moment that these examples of "rights" that the prisoner has and the slave did not are not that good (as TM pointed out, one is almost compelled to feed the slave well, or he cannot work; not all prisoners are allowed outside communication; "cruel and unusual" are subjective considerations at best, and you already granted that some such protections were historically in place for slaves; there are limits to court appeals and potential "new evidence"), would an improved and clearly explicated set of such "rights" mitigate the ownership of another human being?


I see no parallel between punishment for breaking a law imposed by a court within a just legal system and taking someone's freedom on the basis of the color of their skin, their ancestry or their social class.

If it comes down to it I suppose you could say that if a person's appeals are exhausted and no evidence so substantial as to prompt court's to reassess a conviction is discovered then, yes.. in a manner of speaking, the convicted is in a similar position to a slave.

Just the same, I don't see the parallel between this and slavery of non-criminals. That's like arguing that "If you think the death penelty is okay in certain circumstances you are saying the same thing as people can be shot because you don't like the looks of them."


This reduces it to just a question of semantics, then. Many an employer has felt those they pay to be "assets"- I've worked for some.


Interesting. How did you manage to end that? Did you and your fellow employees revolt and kill the employer? Or did you have to fee by right and find those who would help you escape the country?

It must suck having an employer like that. I mean, I had some crappy jobs too, but they still let me go home at night and I was able to quit when I wanted to.



Not, as has been pointed out, if they cannot economically afford to.


Doesn't exactly qualify as slavery. It's unfortionately that some people are in very bad economic situations. But that's natural not imposed, for one thing. Some people are born without arms. That doesn't mean we should cut them off of those who are.

Furthermore, it does not remove all choice from someone or make them property. If a person does not have a good situation and finds that their choices in employment and lifestyle are limited, this still does not make them the property of someone. And it does not mean that it is expressly because of someone else making decisions that they are robbed of choice.


Someone can have an economic, contractual, or emotional hold on someone without physically restraining them. Does this count?


No it doesn't. You can have an economic hold on someone to a point and that is addressed above. If that economic hold, however, is something as restrictive as someone being brought to a country to work and being put in a situation where they cannot find alternate employment due to the circumstances, then that's pretty damn close to slavery. Maybe it doesn't qualify as "slavery" but it's still not something that should be tolerated.

As for emotional restraints. You cannot legislate emotions. If someone feels they cannot leave someone for their own attachment or similar reasons, that is hardly comparable to slavery. Outreach to such people would be about the most that could be done. You can't really get someone for making another person feel they are too attached to leave. Or making someone think they don't want to.


Easy words to say, but one cannot snap one's fingers and cure the effects of a depressed economy or a nation poor in resources just because these effects are "unjust".


I'm not sure what your point is here. Because a law cannot be universally enforced it should not exist? Outlawing slavery does allow one to stop it in their own jurisdiction, at least publicly. And recognizing something wrong is still important, even if an immediate and easy action is not apparent.



By whom, and under what authority?

In my area it would be a state issue, I would think. It would be the business of the local police and/or county sheriff's office andthe state policy as well as the public prosecutor assigned to that region. I suppose there could be federal charges too, especially if it involved crossing state lines.



I'm not speaking exclusively about the past.


There are no laws on the books now that protect slaves' rights, because there are no nations that allow for slavery, as far as I know. There are those which do not enforce such laws and there are some where a wife or worker is just about a slave. But as far as I know, no sovern and established government has condoned slavery in some time: At least not officially and publicly.

Those who do allow slavery within their borders, despite having the resources to stop it. (and I can think of a few). They are doing something that they really should be held accountable for. Unfortionately, international politics and need to maintain regional stability and such sometimes preclude that.


I don't like to use words like "bad"- they are too subjective. It is unproductive to let emotion have too much influence when one is trying to discuss an issue rationally.


Call it what you want then. As far as I am concerned, something like slavery should sound crude, harsh, irrational, emotionally upsetting. It's something that looses a lot when you sanitize it to an academic question of theory.


That's your business. I find anger a poor position from which to make decisions, however.

Perhaps. I don't see much need really to defend my position on slavery. I think that the moral and ethical theory questions are pretty much in the bag. I've never had any doubt. I appreciate the skeptical mindset and the attempts to make fair and objective decisions that are based not on emotions but on logical observances.

But slavery? No, I don't see that as one which really requires a lot of reading of philosophy books and questioning whether or not my cultural perspective might be skewing things. Slavery is not something that I think need to speculate about.


I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying you support slavery? Or what? That I need to provide some universal and simple moral formula with which you can tell? And otherwise slavery cannot be considered wrong? Unless somehow it is proven so, universally and with no chance of cultural basis?


Look, I can't tell you where to draw the line. But I can tell you which side slavery is on. Other issues, not so much. But slavery? That's one where I'm confident enough of it's one-sidedness that I don't feel the need to consider whether someone else's opinion or wonder if I really should go around claiming my side is the only correct one.



So what? Are you just condoning slavery? Or you think it's neutral and we should not pass judgment?

[Piscivore]

I see no parallel between punishment for breaking a law imposed by a court within a just legal system and taking someone's freedom on the basis of the color of their skin, their ancestry or their social class.
I think the reason is the word you added- "just". The assumption that any particular legal system can be expected to be always "just" is questionable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps#United_ States). It is a goal I don't see anyone has ever achieved, and as long as human are involved I don't see that any every will be. It is a noble goal, one to strive for, and one towards which great strides have been made, but one I can't see we will ever reach.

If it comes down to it I suppose you could say that if a person's appeals are exhausted and no evidence so substantial as to prompt court's to reassess a conviction is discovered then, yes.. in a manner of speaking, the convicted is in a similar position to a slave.
So do you approve of the prisoner's treatment and situation or not?

Just the same, I don't see the parallel between this and slavery of non-criminals.
Because you seem to be assuming all criminals are "immoral". Not all laws are just. Very recently, it was an imprisonable offense to screw a person of the same sex- in some states it still is. Until 1967, marrying someone of a different race was still in some places. Because of this moral ambiguity in the legal system, I struggle to see how you can make such a clear distinction between "criminals" that you say are not slaves and other, similarly imprisoned people that are slaves and not "criminals".

That's like arguing that "If you think the death penelty is okay in certain circumstances you are saying the same thing as people can be shot because you don't like the looks of them."
How about hung (http://www.withoutsanctuary.org/)?

Interesting. How did you manage to end that?
I was fortunate that at the time I was unencumbered by family or debt. Plenty of my co-workers were not. I left, they could not.

Did you and your fellow employees revolt and kill the employer?
It was discussed. As was framing the manager for sexual harassment.

Or did you have to fee by right and find those who would help you escape the country?
I assume you meant "flee by night"? Yes, in a sense I did. I didn't bother giving notice, I just left.

It must suck having an employer like that. I mean, I had some crappy jobs too, but they still let me go home at night and I was able to quit when I wanted to.
Yes, you were (http://www.du.edu/anthro/ludlow/cfhist.html).
"The coal miners in the Southern Field were located up canyons where the coal seams were exposed by erosion. Most of the miners lived in these canyons in company towns, in company houses, bought food and equipment at company stores and alcohol at company saloons. The doctors, priests, schoolteachers, and law enforcement were all company employees. The entries to the camps were gated and guarded by deputized armed guards (Beshoar 1957:2; McGovern and Guttridge 1972:23)."

Doesn't exactly qualify as slavery. It's unfortionately that some people are in very bad economic situations. But that's natural not imposed, for one thing.
You'll have to explain that. "Natural"? Is it "natural" to be forced to work for a coal mining company because it the only game in town so they get to do whatever they want to you? Especially if they paid for you to come there in the first place? Is it "natural" to have to work a crappy minimum wage job for a tyrannical boss because the boy that knocked you up in high school split and left you with a kid and no education?

Some people are born without arms. That doesn't mean we should cut them off of those who are.
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Furthermore, it does not remove all choice from someone or make them property. If a person does not have a good situation and finds that their choices in employment and lifestyle are limited, this still does not make them the property of someone. And it does not mean that it is expressly because of someone else making decisions that they are robbed of choice.
Yes, Buzz, sometimes it does. In fact, if no longer in name (http://www.eduardomartino.com/pages/slavery_brazil.html).

No it doesn't. You can have an economic hold on someone to a point and that is addressed above. If that economic hold, however, is something as restrictive as someone being brought to a country to work and being put in a situation where they cannot find alternate employment due to the circumstances, then that's pretty damn close to slavery. Maybe it doesn't qualify as "slavery" but it's still not something that should be tolerated.
But here's the other side of that coin- the conditions the miners lived in were directly due to the coal companies being economically forced by tight profit margins and fierce competition, and had they "chosen" not to "tolerate" these injustices the railroads would have ground to a halt and the American economy of the time would have faltered and even more people would have been forced into similar conditions. Very few things are black and white when it comes to human beings.

As for emotional restraints. You cannot legislate emotions.
Are we talking about legalities now? I thought we were discussing "Revolting, embarrassing, upsetting, angering, nearly unbelievable, endlessly depressing... atrocities".

Do you feel restraining, controlling, dominating someone by other than grossly physical means is any more acceptable that actually slapping chains on them, or not?

If someone feels they cannot leave someone for their own attachment or similar reasons, that is hardly comparable to slavery.
Why not?

Outreach to such people would be about the most that could be done. You can't really get someone for making another person feel they are too attached to leave. Or making someone think they don't want to.
So brainwashing is okay?

I'm not sure what your point is here. Because a law cannot be universally enforced it should not exist? Outlawing slavery does allow one to stop it in their own jurisdiction, at least publicly. And recognizing something wrong is still important, even if an immediate and easy action is not apparent.
Again you've slipped from discussing what you said was a question of absolute morality to concerns about laws and enforcement. My point here is that poverty is sometimes endemic in a society for causes outside its control, and that poverty leads to resource disparity, which in turn leads to domination of one social class by another. Whether this leads to actual chattel slavery- which I'm starting to think is the only sort of which you are aware- it does share many of its characteristics.

In my area it would be a state issue, I would think. It would be the business of the local police and/or county sheriff's office and the state policy as well as the public prosecutor assigned to that region. I suppose there could be federal charges too, especially if it involved crossing state lines.
I was not asking a question about jurisdiction, I was trying to highlight that the abuses of slavery you have illustrated as objectionable are not exclusive to it. If it is these abuses you are having the problem with you are in error in objecting to slavery as such, because these abuses are not unique to slavery, nor are they universal within it.

There are no laws on the books now that protect slaves' rights, because there are no nations that allow for slavery, as far as I know.
You may have missed it if you did not read the whole thread, but the question was put forth if possibly some form of slavery- other than chattel, certainly- might have a benefit to society, especially with clearly defined boundaries.

Let's face it, there are lots of people wandering around out there incompetent to handle their own affairs, and our prisons are not the answer.

Call it what you want then. As far as I am concerned, something like slavery should sound crude, harsh, irrational, emotionally upsetting. It's something that loses a lot when you sanitize it to an academic question of theory.
Loses something like, I dunno- this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion)? Religious people say exactly the same about atheism, you know. If you can't discuss a subject without demonising it you may want to find out why that is.

Perhaps. I don't see much need really to defend my position on slavery. I think that the moral and ethical theory questions are pretty much in the bag. I've never had any doubt.
And what is the source of this certainty?

I appreciate the skeptical mindset and the attempts to make fair and objective decisions that are based not on emotions but on logical observances.
Except in the case of "moral and ethical theory questions", of course.

But slavery? No, I don't see that as one which really requires a lot of reading of philosophy books and questioning whether or not my cultural perspective might be skewing things. Slavery is not something that I think need to speculate about.
Why not?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying you support slavery? Or what?
"One of the things running through my mind right now is that "Slavery" is a pretty broad term, and we may be throwing something out with that bathwater we might not want to."

That I need to provide some universal and simple moral formula with which you can tell?
You seem to have one, I'd love to know what it is and where you got it.

And otherwise slavery cannot be considered wrong? Unless somehow it is proven so, universally and with no chance of cultural basis?
Of course not. Those are not the only two possibilities.

Look, I can't tell you where to draw the line. But I can tell you which side slavery is on. Other issues, not so much. But slavery? That's one where I'm confident enough of it's one-sidedness that I don't feel the need to consider whether someone else's opinion or wonder if I really should go around claiming my side is the only correct one.
Obviously. But strenuously and confidently asserting your certainty is not proof it is correct.

So what? Are you just condoning slavery? Or you think it's neutral and we should not pass judgment?
Again, not the only two- or including your unquestioned condemnation, three- possibilities.

[Polaris]

I'd like to echo Pisci's baby-with-bathwater sentiment. I think there's room for a type of "slavery" (for lack of a better term) that might be beneficial under certain circumstances.

Let's take the following case: Person A steals from person B. The value of the theft exceeds that which Person A can pay back, and given his miserable financial/employment situation, he won't come close to paying the debt in any reasonable amount of time (say decades).

So the courts sell A into servitude to Person C for a set amount of time. The proceeds go to B. All sorts of legal restrictions prevent C from mistreating A, and he must provide adequate food, shelter, healthcare, etc. Violations would set A free. At the end of the term, C must also provide a small grant to A to help him get back on his feet. C gets prepurchased (bargain?) labor for all that time, B gets back at least some of the money he would otherwise not recoup, A works off his debt and gets back on his feet, hopefully having gained some responsibility and maturity in the interim.

Two points for whoever recognizes an ancient version of this model.

Person A should be required to pay back every red cent of the value he stole from B, not just "at least some", and if C mistreats A, then C should be penalized but A does not get off the hook - he still owes B for stealing property that B worked hard for, something A couldn't be bothered to do. At this point A would go to work for person D or E until the thief pays back B in full. If he dies of natural causes before that happens, too bad, he should have thought of that before he took something that didn't belong to him. Or he could just serve a jail sentence for theft, like happens now.Unless A is a good, reliable worker and C wants to give him a paid job, C doesn't owe A anything, and should not be responsible for him once his debt is paid. I should also add that a reasonable "wage" be "paid" to A (whatever a normal employee of C is paid), at normal income taxation rates, so make it fair. I suppose B, or the judge, should have the final say on this sentence in lieu of simple jail time, as it would make sense that B would waive insurance payments for whatever was stolen if he was to be paid back by A for it anyway, or if the item was returned undamaged. This is turning into another topic so I'll stop.

This is more accurately called 'indentured servitude' than 'slavery' anyway, although traditionally indentured servants chose to be in effect temporary slaves of their own free will (usually because of low wages/caste or class standing). I admit that saying "A chose servitude when he chose to steal from B" is twisting the logic a tad, but I might be injecting a little emotion into my argument, as I've been robbed 4 times this year and nobody was arrested for any of them, so I have zero sympathy for thieves.

[David Swidler]

Person A should be required to pay back every red cent of the value he stole from B, not just "at least some", and if C mistreats A, then C should be penalized but A does not get off the hook - he still owes B for stealing property that B worked hard for, something A couldn't be bothered to do. At this point A would go to work for person D or E until the thief pays back B in full. If he dies of natural causes before that happens, too bad, he should have thought of that before he took something that didn't belong to him. Or he could just serve a jail sentence for theft, like happens now.Unless A is a good, reliable worker and C wants to give him a paid job, C doesn't owe A anything, and should not be responsible for him once his debt is paid. I should also add that a reasonable "wage" be "paid" to A (whatever a normal employee of C is paid), at normal income taxation rates, so make it fair. I suppose B, or the judge, should have the final say on this sentence in lieu of simple jail time, as it would make sense that B would waive insurance payments for whatever was stolen if he was to be paid back by A for it anyway, or if the item was returned undamaged. This is turning into another topic so I'll stop.

This is more accurately called 'indentured servitude' than 'slavery' anyway, although traditionally indentured servants chose to be in effect temporary slaves of their own free will (usually because of low wages/caste or class standing). I admit that saying "A chose servitude when he chose to steal from B" is twisting the logic a tad, but I might be injecting a little emotion into my argument, as I've been robbed 4 times this year and nobody was arrested for any of them, so I have zero sympathy for thieves.

Sounds interesting. I agreee with your point about having to pay back every cent - sorry if it seems he'd get off scot free once the servitude ends.

But what we're talking about is actually the Biblical model of the "Hebrew slave," minus a few details that complicate the discussion.

[Polaris]

Sounds interesting. I agreee with your point about having to pay back every cent - sorry if it seems he'd get off scot free once the servitude ends.

But what we're talking about is actually the Biblical model of the "Hebrew slave," minus a few details that complicate the discussion.

I had no idea where the example came from - I haven't read the Bible and have no burning desire to.

[DRBUZZ0]

To be honest, I find it a bit disturbing that this discussion seems to have gone in the direction of having some seem to express some sort of doubt that one can just say slavery, as an institution which would take away all rights from certain persons without just cause is wrong.

I'm not saying that there are not examples where one could make a case for times where slave-like conditions might be justified. For examples, mandated labor to pay for a duely convicted crime. Such circumstances do, undoubtedly, have different sides one could come in on.

But slavery, as existed in the western hemisphere until the mid-1800's, as existed in the Roman world and as continues to exist in areas where the government turns a blind eye? Do we really need to debate that?

It's just something that concerns me greatly when people seem to have such a problem putting their foot down and saying "No this is wrong. We've been over it enough times. The debate is over. You cannot do that."


I had someone say to me that my view is "What causes war." And indeed it does cause war, but is this to say that it is wrong to have war? Certainly war is never the optimal outcome for solving problems.

But what of the UN and Nato stepping into Bosnia or the UN intervening in Rawanda, simply because they saw something that was wrong. Or aggression by the North Koreans being kept in check by the US, Japan and others, who contribute to the civil defense of the area?

None of these things could happen if there were not some events where one can put the debate aside and say, "No, that's just not something we will allow to happen."

One can look at the Sudan and at Rawanda and find that many of the "human rights" movement want nothing more than to see international, even military action. There have been full page ads taken out in the New York Times by ordinarily pacifist groups demanding that international action be taken to stop the egregious human rights violations in the Sudan. This does not necessarily mean all-out war, but embargos, shows of force and severing of diplomatic ties have certainly been suggested.

But then again... Who are we in the US to say? We have capital punishment in several states. Isn't, by some of the logic here the same as outright genocide? And for that matter, we fought "Indian Wars" until the beginning of the 20th century. Certainly that was not an honorable policy.


This is disturbing to me. I guess that's just me, but it's highly disturbing. I bet there are a lot of people here who could make the case that if they saw a woman being stabbed in the ally below their apartment that they would be ethically justified in not intervening. Afertall, they are not directly involved to begin with. What if they ran down and hit the man over the head and he died? Would that be their place to say who's life is worth taking? And how is his stabbing her any different than two animals attacking in nature? Aren't humans members of the animal kingdom? And maybe she has it coming to her, I mean.. who are we to judge not even knowing the woman.

And that is why that sort of thing happened. It happened in 1964 to Kitty Genovese and it has happened time and time again. That is just the best publicized event. It's happened in the US, in Sweden, in Brittan and Germany. Doubtless there have been more examples of persons being beaten or killed in front of throngs of onlookers. That somebody would be slaughtered in front of the eyes of inactionist relativists who do nothing but say much...

[Piscivore]

To be honest, I find it a bit disturbing that this discussion seems to have gone in the direction of having some seem to express some sort of doubt that one can just say slavery, as an institution which would take away all rights from certain persons without just cause is wrong.
Repeating an appeal to emotion does not make it any more effective. At least, not here.

I'm not saying that there are not examples where one could make a case for times where slave-like conditions might be justified. For examples, mandated labor to pay for a duely convicted crime. Such circumstances do, undoubtedly, have different sides one could come in on.
What side do you come on? Do you approve of the prisoner's treatment and situation or not?

But slavery, as existed in the western hemisphere until the mid-1800's, as existed in the Roman world and as continues to exist in areas where the government turns a blind eye? Do we really need to debate that?
That's called "chattel slavery", and yes, every so often we do, if only to remind ourselves why we don't agree with it. Otherwise it just becomes doctrine.

Besides that, the governments don't always "turn a blind eye"- sometimes it is endorsed and enshrined in law.

It's just something that concerns me greatly when people seem to have such a problem putting their foot down and saying "No this is wrong. We've been over it enough times. The debate is over. You cannot do that."
Well, that is called "fundamentalism" and I have a problem with that.

I had someone say to me that my view is "What causes war."
Among other things. Othertimes it just keeps you from getting invited to parties.

And indeed it does cause war,
Somtimes. Not always.

but is this to say that it is wrong to have war?
That's a whole different can of worms.

Certainly war is never the optimal outcome for solving problems.Change "never" to "rarely".

But what of the UN and Nato stepping into Bosnia or the UN intervening in Rawanda, simply because they saw something that was wrong. Or aggression by the North Koreans being kept in check by the US, Japan and others, who contribute to the civil defense of the area?

None of these things could happen if there were not some events where one can put the debate aside and say, "No, that's just not something we will allow to happen."
Your entire assesment of those events is comically naive. I am not a political scientist, but I feel pretty safe in saying from what little I do know that in none of those cases did any square jawed and noble heros decide that teese were "just not something we will allow to happen." In the first place, the UN DID NOT intervene in Rwanda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide)-
"In the wake of the Rwandan Genocide, the international community, and the United Nations in particular, drew severe criticism for its inaction. Despite international news coverage of the violence as it unfolded, most countries, including France, Belgium, and the United States, declined to prevent or stop the massacres. Canada continued to lead the UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda, United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR). Despite specific warnings and requests from UNAMIR's commanding officers in Rwanda, before and during the genocide, the UN Security Council refused to send additional support, declined UNAMIR's request for authorization to intervene, and even scaled back UNAMIR's forces and authority."

One can look at the Sudan and at Rawanda and find that many of the "human rights" movement want nothing more than to see international, even military action. There have been full page ads taken out in the New York Times by ordinarily pacifist groups demanding that international action be taken to stop the egregious human rights violations in the Sudan. This does not necessarily mean all-out war, but embargos, shows of force and severing of diplomatic ties have certainly been suggested.
This whole speil has meaning ONLY if we accept your premise that "Certainly war is never the optimal outcome for solving problems", which is not a position that very many people endorse. It is black and white (or binary, or dualistic, or extremist, or uncompromising- whatever you want to call it) thinking, and it is thinking that breeds false dichotomies. In this case it leads you to make statements that seem to set up the false dichotomy that one must accept or endorse human rights abuses, or else go to war. These are not the only options. Further, it seems you then determine that since there were human rights abuses in Bosnia, and we went to war in Bosnia, that the human rights abuses are the sole reason we went to war in Bosnia, so you are confused why we did not do so in Rwanda.

You take the same sort of attitude with slavery, and are wrong for the same reasons.

But then again... Who are we in the US to say? We have capital punishment in several states. Isn't, by some of the logic here the same as outright genocide?
To someone capable only of thinking in false dichotomies, perhaps.

And for that matter, we fought "Indian Wars" until the beginning of the 20th century. Certainly that was not an honorable policy.
You'll have to define "honourable" for me. The "Indian Wars" seem to me to be the inevitible result of two cultures competing for resources.

This is disturbing to me. I guess that's just me, but it's highly disturbing.
Another appeal to emotion.

I bet there are a lot of people here who could make the case that if they saw a woman being stabbed in the ally below their apartment that they would be ethically justified in not intervening.
Yep. Want to give that one a go?

Afertall, they are not directly involved to begin with. What if they ran down and hit the man over the head and he died? Would that be their place to say who's life is worth taking? And how is his stabbing her any different than two animals attacking in nature? Aren't humans members of the animal kingdom? And maybe she has it coming to her, I mean.. who are we to judge not even knowing the woman.
That's a start. You could also go with "parent of two small children the responsibility for which trumps any responsibility for a stranger" or "The woman may be a homicidal ex-lover with a gun and the man is defending himself" or "There are trained and armed professionals capable of handling the situation better than me". There are lots more. See how many you can come up with, it's fun!

The point is, the person in the apartment is not a superhero, he's not a crusader for justice, nor should he be. The world is f[rule X] all more complicated than such people think, or would like.

The same goes for depriving people of their rights and their freedoms, which is what slavery boils down too. When you wave your flag against "Slavery" and only mean "chattel slavery as it existed in the western hemisphere until the mid-1800's" you are engaging- whether you realise it or not, and I don't think you do- in equivocation.

And that is why that sort of thing happened. It happened in 1964 to Kitty Genovese and it has happened time and time again.

That is just the best publicized event. It's happened in the US, in Sweden, in Brittan and Germany. Doubtless there have been more examples of persons being beaten or killed in front of throngs of onlookers. That somebody would be slaughtered in front of the eyes of inactionist relativists who do nothing but say much...
You realise, Buzz, that not everybody acts out of some clearly defined "relativist" moral position, but just out of fear and ignorance?

[DRBUZZ0]

Repeating an appeal to emotion does not make it any more effective. At least, not here.

I don't really see why there is this argument that keeps coming up that "appeals to emotion" are somehow faulty or always, simply by their very nature, never with merit.

It's certainly true that emotions can cause people to do things which are not justifiable or which, when later considered, are a less than optimal action. But they can also lead people to do things which are necessary or which would not be possible in a timely or decisive manner if they were left to be debated.

If one is driven to intervene when one they see suffering, simply because they have a nagging feeling that they should, is this wrong? If someone is so outraged at the sight of an innocent person being harmed that they feel unable to not do something about it, is this again wrong?

When a stranger is seen in pain, and one is compelled to offer comfort, or if a person is driven by anger to help capture a terrorist or aid in an investigation, is this wrong?

I know of people who have helped in search efforts or volunteered or lobbied for a law or policy not because of how it may befit their roll in the social contract but simply because they felt for another.

Again, is this wrong?





What side do you come on? Do you approve of the prisoner's treatment and situation or not?


My own personal beliefs on the matter go beyond the scope of what is discusses here

But if you must know: I would be willing to have labor be an option for punishment of criminal activities, as long as it is within the bounds of a well proven conviction for severe enough crimes. However, I'd have to know more about how the judicial system would impose such before I could make a firm decision on where I would stand. But I'd be open to the idea, pending more information...



Besides that, the governments don't always "turn a blind eye"- sometimes it is endorsed and enshrined in law.


Yes that's true. There aren't really any governments which will come out and endorse slavery anymore. But there are those who tacitly approve it by their laws and enforcement structure.

This should always be condemned. The fact that the world cannot just step in and stop them is an unfortionate reality of a world which is very interdependent and in which there are few simple solutions. However, at the very least, this should be pointed out and grounds for diplomatic pressures.




Well, that is called "fundamentalism" and I have a problem with that.


So you would say you are a staunch and unwavering anti-fundamentalist? There's an oxymoron in there somewhere.

But I don't see the problem with being a anti-slavery or anti-genocide fundamentalist or an anti-corruption or anti-torture-of-innocent-civilians fundamentalist.






Change "never" to "rarely".


That is correct, in a sense. Sometimes going to war is the only option to protecting national or international security or stopping an intolerable crime of some sort.






This whole speil has meaning ONLY if we accept your premise that "Certainly war is never the optimal outcome for solving problems", which is not a position that very many people endorse. It is black and white (or binary, or dualistic, or extremist, or uncompromising- whatever you want to call it) thinking, and it is thinking that breeds false dichotomies. In this case it leads you to make statements that seem to set up the false dichotomy that one must accept or endorse human rights abuses, or else go to war. These are not the only options. Further, it seems you then determine that since there were human rights abuses in Bosnia, and we went to war in Bosnia, that the human rights abuses are the sole reason we went to war in Bosnia, so you are confused why we did not do so in Rwanda.


Apologies if I cited Rwanda improperly. It was meant to provide an example of where an international community was willing to impose their will on a nation state which was committing crimes against it's own people.

Whether or not the actions of the international community in Rwanda, Bosnia or elsewhere were the most effective in achieving what was intended will be something for history to judge.

In Bosnia it was not simply human rights issues but also relating to the stability of the region and other factors.

These are of course, always very difficult decisions. Iraq is a good example of why invading another country by force can often cause more harm than good, even if the leadership is not exactly treating the people justly or fairly.

Again. Sorry for the imperfect examples.





You'll have to define "honourable" for me. The "Indian Wars" seem to me to be the inevitible result of two cultures competing for resources.


Again, perhaps an imperfect examples. I'm simply saying that one's own shortcomings do not justify inaction or refusal to condemn something as obvious as slavery.



That's a start. You could also go with "parent of two small children the responsibility for which trumps any responsibility for a stranger" or "The woman may be a homicidal ex-lover with a gun and the man is defending himself" or "There are trained and armed professionals capable of handling the situation better than me". There are lots more. See how many you can come up with, it's fun!

The point is, the person in the apartment is not a superhero, he's not a crusader for justice, nor should he be. The world is f[rule X] all more complicated than such people think, or would like.

The same goes for depriving people of their rights and their freedoms, which is what slavery boils down too. When you wave your flag against "Slavery" and only mean "chattel slavery as it existed in the western hemisphere until the mid-1800's" you are engaging- whether you realise it or not, and I don't think you do- in equivocation.
[quote]

No, and such a person is not required to go down themselves and assist such a woman. They could yell out their window, in the hopes of frightening the attacker away. They could (most obvious answer) call the police. They could, after the attacker seems to have gone, go down with others to help bring the woman inside and bandage her wounds.

They could do many things. They don't have to. Nobody can force them to.

They choose to do nothing. And a woman is dead now. All your philosophy and hypothetical situations of having children or it being fighting lovers or whatever. Nobody decided to do the obvious and call for help or offer assistance.

Now someone is dead. And others have died in similar manners.






[quote]
You realise, Buzz, that not everybody acts out of some clearly defined "relativist" moral position, but just out of fear and ignorance?

Yes, and that's really (how do I say this in a non-emotional and entirely subjective way)....

That would tend to be of concern to those who may find themselves in need of assistance, such as ocean going vessels, stranded motorists or others who would find themselves in a situation where their own safety could be entirely dependent on the assumption that at least one car, vessel or other person might be inclined to render assistance.

[Piscivore]

I don't really see why there is this argument that keeps coming up that "appeals to emotion" are somehow faulty or always, simply by their very nature, never with merit.
Not always, but when using reason evaluate an argument it is, by definition, a fallacy. If you cannot see why, turn it around: "I have to have the slaves because I cannot work this farm on my own, I cannot afford to pay them like they were White folks, and if I don't have them my children will starve."

It's certainly true that emotions can cause people to do things which are not justifiable or which, when later considered, are a less than optimal action. But they can also lead people to do things which are necessary or which would not be possible in a timely or decisive manner if they were left to be debated.
It can also lead people to do things which are unnecessary or even harmful in a timely and decisive manner. People have proven themselves well able to handle emergency situations without getting their dander up. Usually they are better equipped to handle the situation than the person that's upset or emotional.

If one is driven to intervene when one they see suffering, simply because they have a nagging feeling that they should, is this wrong?
Sometimes, yes. Because no one is omniscient. It is very possible for the person "driven to intervene" to misapprehend the situation, to take the "wrong side" because of personal bias, to assume, to speculate, to be incorrect. This is exactly why most criminal justice systems prohibit or discourage vigilantism.

If someone is so outraged at the sight of an innocent person being harmed that they feel unable to not do something about it, is this again wrong?
How do you know they are "innocent"? What standard do you use for "harm"? Now, at this point, we might be tempted to play the "duelling hypotheticals" game, but the fact is, without foreknowledge of the people involved and their situation the best anyone can do is guess, and guesses can and frequently are wrong.

When a stranger is seen in pain, and one is compelled to offer comfort,If there is nothing you can do for them, they might see you as a meddling jerk or a nosy busybody- so sometimes, yes.

or if a person is driven by anger to help capture a terrorist or aid in an investigation, is this wrong?
Frequently, yes. This is why we have professional police forces that are trained to act dispassionately and lynch mobs are outlawed. An angry person is not an investigator, he is a person seeking revenge, and as such usually jumps on the first likely suspect to "punish". I don't know how old you were when OKC was bombed, but in the first few hours there were a lot of people- myself included- that thought that Muslim terrorists had done it. After 9/11, a "person... driven by anger to help capture a terrorist" murdered a Sikh gas station owner just down the street from my house. I'm sure he was just loads of help to everyone concerned.

I know of people who have helped in search efforts or volunteered or lobbied for a law or policy not because of how it may befit their roll in the social contract but simply because they felt for another.
Swell, you want to play dualling anecdotes now? I know of people who have passed out Chick tracts or donated money to televangalists because they sincerely felt by doing so they were saving someone from the fires of hell. People can be motivated by emotion to do "good" things", and people can be motivated by emotion to do "bad" things. It is a poor way to determine the appropriateness and value of an action. When you consider that "appropriateness" and "value" themselves are subjective and highly variable considerations, it seems a very poor one.

Again, is this wrong?
Yes, sometimes.


My own personal beliefs on the matter go beyond the scope of what is discusses here
Why? It would seem to be central to the discussion.

But if you must know: I would be willing to have labor be an option for punishment of criminal activities, as long as it is within the bounds of a well proven conviction for severe enough crimes. However, I'd have to know more about how the judicial system would impose such before I could make a firm decision on where I would stand. But I'd be open to the idea, pending more information...
So you are not opposed to slavery per se, what you object to is the label "property" and the use of skin colour as the sole selection criteria for candidates.

Yes that's true. There aren't really any governments which will come out and endorse slavery anymore. But there are those who tacitly approve it by their laws and enforcement structure.
In which case shouldn't we presume that the slave is subject to due process of law?

This should always be condemned. The fact that the world cannot just step in and stop them is an unfortionate reality of a world which is very interdependent and in which there are few simple solutions. However, at the very least, this should be pointed out and grounds for diplomatic pressures.
But why should it be condemned? We already agree that the real meat of slavery- denial of freedoms and forced labour- are not always condemnable, why should mere labels be? Do you have any reason apart from this moral certainty, the elusive source of which you have thus far failed to reveal?

So you would say you are a staunch and unwavering anti-fundamentalist?
I didn't, and wouldn't. Were I to believe so I would be prone to the same sort of error as our Mr. Plumbjam, tiltling at the windmills of a "Skeptical Orthodoxy" that exists only in his mind. No, even fundamentalism, like murder, has its place. It does not do for a soldier on the battlefield to question his superiors overmuch, or to epathise with his enemy- so as long as we have war, some measure of fundamentalism must be tolerated. It is not an accident that those who crusade for whatever cause they champion frequently adopt the language of war to describe their struggle, they seek to legitimise themselves. However, fundamentalism has no place in peacetime law, or government, or culture- it stifles discussion and discovery, it breeds error, and it hampers adaptation to changing circumstance.

There's an oxymoron in there somewhere.
There might be had I said that.

But I don't see the problem with being a anti-slavery or anti-genocide fundamentalist or an anti-corruption or anti-torture-of-innocent-civilians fundamentalist.
Because when you think you know all the answers you are guaranteed to be wrong at least some of the time. For instance- you claim to be "anti-slavery" but you only understand one tiny facet of the subject, and yet seem to agree with elements of it. Then there is the possibility that in certain circumstances "genocide" might be justifiable, and of course the question of what consitutes "corruption" or an "innocent civilian" is subjective at best. Any time you climb up on a soapbox without first questioning yourself, your beliefs, your sources, and your leaders you risk working against the very values you think you are working towards. Especially if your values are not related to bullying or dominating those that disagree with you.

That is correct, in a sense. Sometimes going to war is the only option to protecting national or international security or stopping an intolerable crime of some sort.
I don't really give any credence to that last item but yes, as long as humanity remains essentially the same biologically as we are now wars will happen.

Apologies if I cited Rwanda improperly. It was meant to provide an example of where an international community was willing to impose their will on a nation state which was committing crimes against it's own people.

Whether or not the actions of the international community in Rwanda, Bosnia or elsewhere were the most effective in achieving what was intended will be something for history to judge.

In Bosnia it was not simply human rights issues but also relating to the stability of the region and other factors.

These are of course, always very difficult decisions. Iraq is a good example of why invading another country by force can often cause more harm than good, even if the leadership is not exactly treating the people justly or fairly.

Again. Sorry for the imperfect examples.
Not a problem, they prove my point. You will not find a single example in reality where the "right action" was 100% certain, absolutely unquestionable, and completely objective.

Again, perhaps an imperfect examples. I'm simply saying that one's own shortcomings do not justify inaction or refusal to condemn something as obvious as slavery.
Have you given any consideration to the idea that it is not with the examples that the imperfection lies?

That's a start. You could also go with "parent of two small children the responsibility for which trumps any responsibility for a stranger" or "The woman may be a homicidal ex-lover with a gun and the man is defending himself" or "There are trained and armed professionals capable of handling the situation better than me". There are lots more. See how many you can come up with, it's fun!

The point is, the person in the apartment is not a superhero, he's not a crusader for justice, nor should he be. The world is f[rule X] all more complicated than such people think, or would like.

The same goes for depriving people of their rights and their freedoms, which is what slavery boils down too. When you wave your flag against "Slavery" and only mean "chattel slavery as it existed in the western hemisphere until the mid-1800's" you are engaging- whether you realise it or not, and I don't think you do- in equivocation.
No, and such a person is not required to go down themselves and assist such a woman. They could yell out their window, in the hopes of frightening the attacker away.One did (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese): "When one of the neighbors shouted at the attacker, "Let that girl alone!", Moseley ran away and Genovese slowly made her way towards her own apartment around the end of the building."
They could (most obvious answer) call the police.They did (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese): "One witness said his father called police after the initial attack and reported that a woman was "beat up, but got up and was staggering around." "A few minutes after the final attack, a witness, Karl Ross, called the police."
They could, after the attacker seems to have gone, go down with others to help bring the woman inside and bandage her wounds.So many things wrong with this touching, heroic, heartwarming thought. First, they didn't know where she was, or that she needed immediate help: "She was seriously injured, but now out of view of those few who may have had reason to believe she was in need of help." "Only one witness (Joseph Fink) was aware she was stabbed in the first attack, and only Karl Ross was aware of it in the second attack." "Out of view of the street and of those who may have heard or seen any sign of the original attack, he proceeded to further attack her."
Second, they could have been putting themselves in mortal danger to do so: After the initial attack, "Other witnesses observed Moseley enter his car and drive away, only to return ten minutes later."
Thirdly, bandaging the wounds of a victim of a mortal stabbing attack is a bit more involved than slapping on an elastoplast and a kiss. I do not see any indication that any of the witnesses were trained or equipped to do more than watch her die even if they had found her.
Fourthly, "Police and medical personnel arrived within minutes of Ross' call".
They could do many things. They don't have to. Nobody can force them to. But they did, and she still died.
They choose to do nothing.No, they didn't.
And a woman is dead now.Life is tragic and people are fallible. And the cow says moo. Thousands of other people died that day too, where are your crocodile tears for them?
All your philosophy and hypothetical situations of having childrenThat's not a hypothetical, that is my reason why I would not interfere with an assault in progress. In my moral code I value my responsibilities to those two children over even the lives of a