Thanks for the reply. According to that test I am not a melancholy but I was concerned you were ignoring my posts. I am not sure that I would agree with your post ( although I find waterj2’s right on ) so perhaps another thread on rights would be valuable.
My post was not really a hijack; I was pointing out that BobT’s argument actually was circular.
Crazy Boob:
I agree with Gilligan ( whom I thank for posting the 2nd page that I bookmarked today ). If you would post some of the assumptions that you use in your moral code we can, in all likelyhood, show you how slavery would violate your code. If your intent in this thread is to show that all objections to slavery are based on unprovable assumptions then you may as well assume that I agree.
Well, it would make free labor less expensive, therefore cheaper, therefore more work would ultimately get done for less money. That isn’t bad for society, is it?
There’s nothing wrong with that.
I don’t know if that would ever be the case. Sure, in the worst case, there may be no reward for doing a better job, but there may be a negative punishment (such as being sold to an even worst master). Thus it would be in their self interest to do a fairly good job.
Boy, I hope you never become the master of some sheep!
Does this mean a tomato plant has “natural rights?” I mean, it has life, right? Does the tomato plant own its life?
I’m with 2sense on this one. There are no such things as “natural” rights. Those rights we do possess, we possess simply because we, as a society, agree that we possess them. All “rights” are human constructs, formulated by consensus.
Applying this logic to the OP, slavery is wrong because we, as a society, have deemed it wrong.
One might argue that if all the bad things associated with slavery were removed, then it would no longer be slavery. I assume, perhaps wrongly, that not having the choice to refuse any directive by the master at any time is one of the “bad things” you refer to.
In the end does it not come down to what you personally would accept as proper treatment? If you refuse to be a slave, why would you consider it OK for someone else?
If you subscribe to the idea that “nobody wants to be a slave”, that should be sufficient. If not, you can start tomorrow. Vacuum’s in the hall closet.
No need to cower, Rocket – after accounting for mistakes in judgement and prosecution, the convict is usually experiencing the consequences of having acted in a way that did cause negative effects. So he was asking for it. The slave, OTOH, wasn’t.
And you are right, if you “remove all the bad things” then you have to restore to the person the right of refusal and the right to just walk away, and it’s no longer slavery.
Since slavery is popularly considered absolutely wrong, I am looking for the most fundamental definition of slavery that is always considered wrong and does not contradict the logic behind other accepted practices (given that there are no relative dissimilarities). In other words, what is the very core essence of slavery and when does it in itself become wrong. What are the necessary attributes that identify slavery? I will assume that the following things are wrong without contest: brutality (physical harm or punishment unnecessarily inflicted by another), murder, rape (sexual abuse in general), unnecessary lying, and depriving of the available necessities of life such as nourishment, sleep, medical care, and protection from the elements of nature. Are any of these things necessary attributes of slavery?
** Keenan-**
I am not asking for anyone to “explain why slavery is wrong independently from the wrong stuff.” But not all “bad things” are necessary characteristics of slavery. For example, racism does not define slavery. You can still have slavery without racism. Take away all the things that are unnecessary to associated with slavery, and then is it still wrong?
** Zoggie-**
That’s a good question. Does simply not paying someone for any amount of obligatory labor constitute slavery?
** Libertarian-**
That could very well be! But is what you have said always true? Is it always an “abomination” for one moral being to use coercion and bend the will of another moral being? I’m sure it wouldn’t be difficult to think of exceptions. Perhaps asking for an absolute is asking for the impossible. But if coercion is not absolutely wrong, then is slavery?
** jmullaney-**
Part of the economy is the need for people to buy things. Slaves don’t by anything which would be bad for the economy and bad for society.
** Mojo-**
Hmm…this is the most difficult one to respond to (Darn those timeless proverbial sayings!). I’ll have to consider this one more carefully….scratching head
** spoke–**
Yup, makes me dizzy
** Rocket88-**
No, that would still be included because it is a necessary characteristic of slavery.
Lot’s of people have jobs or circumstances they don’t like, but they are nonetheless acceptable. Someone might not want to be born the son of a mime, does that mean that being the son of a mime is wrong? Others might say that they wouldn’t want to work at McDonald’s: does this make working there wrong?
Crazy b: but you said it yourself:“I will assume the following things are wrong without contest…murder, rape…”. Why is Murder wrong? Because it takes away a humans 'right to live". Ie., it is wrong…because it is wrong. Slavery is wrong because it takes away a humans “right to be free”. Ie, slavery is wrong- because it is wrong. Some things are wrong simply by definition.
Now, is “murder” right sometimes? Yes, when it is not “murder”, when is is self defense, rightful execution, or sometimes-war. So is slavery right sometimes? Sure, when it is not slavery- “hard labor”, the draft, etc.
FWIW, I know my post about natural rights was circular reasoning. That was the point I was trying to make. Some people just say slavery is wrong because … it is just wrong. And that position has been held by many philosophers.
I’m not really a debater. I just like to insert other ideas that people have come up with through time that I’ve actually studied during my years in school.
I don’t know if anyone has proved that slavery is intrinsically wrong, but can anyone prove that it is intrisically right?
The point is that “right and wrong” are subjective.
The words mean different things to different people. There is no universaly agreed upon set of rules to refer to. It is all up to you to decide what exactly is the difference between right and wrong.
It’s a cold and harsh world we live in.
Sometimes lonely as well.
Examine the etymology of “politics” as in “political philsophy”, and you will have your answer about your tomato plant.
Using coercion to mean initial force or fraud, yes it is always a barbaric act to bend the will of a moral agent who is capable of giving meaningful consent. It is not your will to bend. If you must bend someone’s will, then bend your own.
The tomato plant actually does not die from having its fruit eaten. I won’t get graphic here, but that is how the seeds are spread and the species propagated. Also, as far as is the general consensus, plants do not have sentience.
May I ask what is your purpose in beginning this debate, and continuing it? Do you disagree with the concept that slavery is wrong? Can you state your arguments?
I’m beginning to have the faint suspicion that you may be jerking us around here. You have said you aren’t a relativist, so that would imply that you yourself have a stand on the issue. What is it?
Actually I was not the one who said anything about a Tomato. To be honest I don’t even know what you are talking about.
And also, no I DO believe that the concept of slavery is wrong. I noticed the overwhelming presence of libertarianism and references to it. So I thought I would start a thread and see if there was actually any reason to believe that there is actually anything absolutely wrong with slavery. There have a been a couple of excellent arguments (in my opinion), but not as much as one would think.
I would inform you and your cronies that an agreement willingly entered into is not slavery, and that the ethical difference is not a matter of duration, but of consent.
(Pardon the “cronies” remark; I was just having fun.)
Regarding your post… I was hoping you would say that! If the definition of slavery hinges on the issue of consent, then what of the argument that a man is inherently free because he is always free to choose an alternative?
Poetically, this is summed up by Heinlein: “You can’t enslave a man. The most you can do is kill him.”
You may enslave a man as your sex object by chaining him to the floor quite alive and having your way with him, his protest notwithstanding. Man is never free to choose an alternative within a context of eminent domain.
So you are saying slavery is bad because a slave wouldn’t consume enough? My toaster doesn’t go shopping at Filene’s – but would throwing my toaster away and hiring someone to cook me breakfast be good for the economy? Maybe, and I’m sure quakers have low unemployment, but I think technology is good for the economy, and reducing a man to a machine doesn’t subtract anything.
You are confusing slavery with emprisonment. They aren’t the same thing.
