It depends on what your view of the purpose of government is. A better example than slavery might be the case of the German cannibal/cannibalized.
Theoretically, the government should only be concerned with the general health of society, not of the individual. So long as a person’s oddities only affect himself, the government shouldn’t care.
But the problem then comes that how do you determine that the person was actually willing? Meiwes documented the whole thing on camera, but for all we know he was blackmailing the guy off camera (however unlikely that may be). Even if he wasn’t, he was clearly preying on someone else’s weaknesses.
Take for example the housing crisis, pay-day loans, and gambling – these are all things where one human is preying on the weaknesses of others. If allowed to become too prevalent, there is a net negative effect on society. In the case of self-chosen slavery or self-chosen cannibalization, I’m somewhat doubtful that this is something which would become sufficiently widespread to really matter, but there certainly is precedence for the government to step in.
In this conversation, I’ve intended to presuppose that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those under its power.
You’re asking the engineering questions, which is important, but mine is a purely theoretical one. I am just trying to figure out what rights we have regarding the question of voluntarily entering into slavery. Sure, it might be difficult to figure out who’s doing things “voluntarily” and who’s not–but given someone does voluntarily wish to enter slavery (however we may have determined that), the question is, does the person have the right to do so?
My previous answer stands: No. And for all of the above reasons.
To other posters who would quibble about compensation for slaves. It is just that: a minor quibble. Minimum wage employers today do not provide the things that my hypothetical neighbor would provide for summer work. Basic sustenance was at least allowed for by the master.
Voluntarily DNE good. People might be at a sad point in their lives and decide that slavery is their only option (similar to suicide). Just because a person might agree to something at one moment in time does not mean that government should enforce that contract forever.
Which is to say we don’t have the right to enter into slavery. (If we did, then I think the voluntariness in the scenario would override the badness of the decision. Rights very often involve allowing people voluntarily to make bad decisions.)
You’ve indicated a particular case in which someone shouldn’t be allowed to enter into slavery, but what’s the more general principle at work concerning rights? What’s the argument that there is no right to enter into slavery?
Because any positive societal aspects of allowing freedom to enter into slavery contracts (which, I can’t seem to think of one) are greatly and massively outweighed by the abusive, coercive, and involuntary in fact nature that these type of contracts would bring to society.
And just to be clear, you are talking about an irrevocable slavery contract, right? A sells to B his labor for life? No way out?
Yeah, that’d be included in what I’m talking about.
Is it accurate to paraphrase your argument like this: If we allow people to enter into slavery voluntarily, there will inevitably come to be a society in which people are coerced into involuntary slavery?
Yes, but that’s only part of the argument. The other part is that there is no legitimate governmental reason to enforce those slavery contracts that are entered into of free will without any coercion or negative influence. And as I type that, I wonder what situation would be a good and positive situation in which a free and happy person would want to enter slavery. Perhaps the government which should allow the slavery contract should work to correct the problem that would make a person want to enter the slavery contract?
Yeah, that would be nice. But governments routinely enforce all kinds of contracts which have not been entered into by “free and happy” people for “good and positive” reasons. Plenty of agreements are made more or less unhappily and begrudgingly, but we not only count them legal but normally assign a moral value to their fulfillment.
Seems to me that, if the agreement is for an permanent period of servitude without pay, it cannot be considered a valid contract anyway; there is no consideration. Also the agreement is for an unlawful person, which again makes it unlawful on its face.
Antother thing to consider is that, if such agreements were considered valid, then [del]masters[/del] evil motherfuckers who want to own other people and who in a just world be beaten to death with two-by-fours would coerce their [del]slaves[/del] victims into submitting by violence and then get them to pretend to agree to the abuse when questioned by the law or courts. It is in societys interest to discourage things like that, and though the aforementioned two-by-four beatdowns of the masters are in theory preferable, I’ll allow that ruling the agreements invalid on their face is more practical.
Well, that goes to my nanny state argument above. Government doesn’t/shouldn’t be all powerful telling everyone how to live their lives. If you pay $50 more on a new car purchase that you should have, government shouldn’t step in and invalidate that contract, even if you really did want the car and/or you were stupid enough to negotiate that way.
In contrast, if you do something REALLY, REALLY ridiculous like sell yourself into slavery, maybe government should step in.
I’m talking about real, legally enforceable contracts, not BDSM agreements. I don’t see an exchange of consideration in these agreements; nor is the agreement for a lawful purpose (at least in the United States) as slavery is prohibited here. Bringing up BDSM in this context is like talking about the admissibility of testimony derived by the use of telepathy.
Maybe so. Maybe some of the presently legal contracts that our government does enforce are wicked as well.
What exactly is the moral basis for calling upon a government to enforce this contract but refuse to enforce that one? Can we make a concise, coherent statement of why slavery contracts are categorically wicked? Maybe one that doesn’t effectively rely on the religious notion that one’s life and personhood are conditional gifts from God, not actually ours–suicide is a sin, and so forth.
I do not believe in God or gods. I believe in sin, but do not hold suicide to be one. I will thank you not to imply that I hold such positions; doing so is not merely creating a straw man, but actively dishonest.
Slavery is so egregiously wicked because we have evidence – it’s called *the history of the United States of America from the early 1600s to the mid-1800s – *that keeping persons as chattel leads to inevitable excesses of power on an enormous scale. Because human nature is such that if you give one person unlimited and unreviewable authority over another, then in the vast, vast majority of cases, the former will treat the latter as an It rather than a Thou. Because by the very nature of slave “agreements” is at odds with the basics of contract law: there is no equitable exchange of consideration. Because if slave contracts are allowed in theory, then in practice the wealthy and the poweful will coerce the poor and the powerless into such agreements, either by force or by fraud, and then brutalize or manipulate their victims into saying they are being enslaved of their own will.
What arguments have you to make that slavery can ever be a good thing? In answering, bear in mind that I do NOT mean BDSM slavery; I mean a permanent loss of or surrendering of personhood by one party to another, unreviewable by outside agents and irreversible by the slave.
But Spark240 makes a fair enough argument, if there is no God, and therefore no ultimate authority of what is right or wrong, who among us can say that slavery or genocide is bad apart from our own or collective disgust at the action? And if there is no ultimate judge, then should the collective overcome the individual liberty?
This was the reduction I talked about in my last post. It goes beyond slavery and descends into a “Does God exist” thread.
The notion that collective liberty or individual liberty matters is itself a moral judgment.
Moral systems, like geometrical ones, depend on choosing given axioms and then extrapolating logically from them. Ideally, you want as few axioms as possible. In my personal system, the highest axioms are the laws of agape and of survival/prosperity of the human species. Basically, that means that good actions are those which bring the greatest good to the greatest number, and do the least possible harm. We should always predicate our actions based on how we would wish to be treated if the situation were reversed, along with what is best for the species as a whole.
Human nature persuades me that if chattel slavery is permitted, it will be abused. Persons unwilling to enter such an agreement will be forced into it; persons not cognizant of the implications will be manipulated into it. The very notion is an outrage to human dignity.
Elsewhere on the boards, there’s a thread running in which someone asks former theists when they jumped off the God train. For me, a major reason I jumped off the Jesus train was the Epistle to Philemon. If Paul – the mouthpiece of an allegedly wise and benevolent deity – could not see how abhorrent the notion of persuading the escaped slave Onesimus to return to his master, and further did not direct in the strongest fashion that master to free his slave, then it was impossible for Paul’s god to be altogether benevolent or altogether wise.
I believe a judge broke Alberto Vargas’ contract with Esquire Magazine on the grounds that the contract was essentially contractual slavery and hence was not enforceable, since slavery was illegal in the U.S. The publisher of the magazine at the time, David Smart, was a real scumbag in the way he treated Vargas.