If “right” and “wrong” are subjective, then why are we debating if something is “right” or “wrong”? There must be no answer.
I do agree that the world can be cold and harsh and lonely.
However, I would like to point out that I only brought up the concept of “natural rights” to add to the debate what some notable philosophers thought.
JMullaney
No, I’m not, and yes they are if the person imprisoned has committed no crime.
You have Quakers confused with something else. I am a Quaker, and I have nothing against technology.
Whew. Well. I agree with the point that at certain historical points slavery was progressive. But, those points were in the ancient realm. As such, it can be looked upon as a historical phase that accomplished a needed goal, yet doesn’t need to be regarded in a good light currently. Much like tribal groups or serfdom. It has acomplished it’s historical purpose, it no longer has any benficial effects, only negative ones. As such it is a bad thing. What I strongly object to is your assertation that slavery helped the Indutrial Revolution in Europe and America. It was much more of a hamper than anything. It restricted the growth of capitalism in the american south, and was largely non-existent in Europe. No coincidence that capitalism only flourished once serfdom was abolished in European countries. Capitalism requires citizens with the freedom to sell their labor power. Slavery restricts this, it is also more expensive. Irish labor was much cheaper than slave labor.
I don’t think slavery is inherently wrong. However I do think that the circumstances of enslavement may be wrong - grabbing a person off the street (or jungle) and enslaving him is certainly wrong. But if a person agreed to sell themself, or was punished for a crime, I wouldn’t think it wrong.
A slave can choose not to submit and thus not be a slave. A prisoner, though, can’t choose to not be a prisoner. Now, a slave may also be a prisoner, or he may only be imprisoned by his own consent generated by threat of punishment or offer of reward for loyalty.
Really? Odd mental block… Who are those Luddites in Pennsylvania with the horse and buggies?
Do you mean the Amish?
oh, duh! (slaps forehead repeatedly). Sorry for the confusion – that is exactly what I meant. I think the wires cross somewhere around that Amish looking Quaker Oaks man and the (rhyming) Shakers which are also, er, luddish IIRC.
oldscratch-
Slavery did not exist in Europe generally, but they are the one’s who made the big bucks off of it. If there had never been slavery, there might have never have been an industrial revolution because it was the profits made from the slave trade that funded the industrial revolution. The African slave trade was started by Africans who would sell their captured enemies to other Africans after a battle and eventually many of them made it to the coast where the Europeans (initially just the Portuguese) began buying them for use in sugar plantations such as the one in Sao Tome and Principe of the coast of Africa (Plantations which were modeled after Greek and Roman slave plantations and later adapted by slave holders in the American south and Caribbean) . Eventually all of the major European trading nations were involved in the slave trade and became very wealthy. “It accounted for the rising wealth of a number of major European port cities, such as Bristol and Liverpool in Britain, Bordeaux and Nantes in France, and Amsterdam in Holland. These merchants moved into banking and ultimately financed the capitalist factory system of the Industrial Revolution. And as European merchants were well aware at the time, the key to their source of Atlantic trading profits was the systematic exploitation of African slave labour” (Prof. K. Shillington, History of Africa, St. Martin’s Press, 1995, Pg 179-80)
What do you consider to be an excellent argument? Is it one in which the axioms on which it is based lead logically to its conclusion? Is it one in which you happen to agree with the poster?
Niccolo Machiavelli might have argued in favor of slavery from the viewpoint that the ends (profit) justify the means (depriving humans of their freedom.)
Jesus of the Bible may have argued against slavery based on his directive of “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you,” assuming that you would not wish to be enslaved (someone mentioned this earlier in the thread).
IzzyR brought up the interesting possibility that slavery is not wrong in and of itself, but judged from the viewpoint of the reason for enslavement (voluntary, or punitive response for a crime committed).
I believe slavery is wrong because I want to believe it is wrong, believing as I do in an ethic similar to that taught by Jesus. But for me to convince you of that same thing, I would first have to convince you to believe in my ethic. If you did not believe in the axioms on which my ethic is based, I would be wasting my time.
So since (as far as I can decipher this), you do believe slavery to be wrong, why is this, and on what axioms do you base your argument?
I define rights as the authority to make decisions with respect to your property, which is how God defines them. Since you own your life, you cannot be enslaved without coercion. Or saved either.
It was the profits of capitalism in Italy (which never really engaged in the slave trade) that funded the intially forays into the slave trade. Would you care to provide some facts on how much income was derived from the slave trade vs other enterprises. It is possible that the Industrial revolution would have been slightly delayed, but I’m not convinced that slavery or the slave trade (which is different, I noticed you compounded the two) had a prime effect.
Other notes.
Portugal was one of the leaders in the slave trade, and yet failed to experience an industrial revolution.
Same goes with Spain.
The slave trade was abolished by most countries before or during the earliest stages of their “industrial revolutions”.
Or even more directly here, John 8:31-36:
Seems to say, inherently, that slavery is bad.
But, I guess ultimately, like all morality, you have to start axiomatically somewhere, then rely on empathy to take you the rest of the way.
Crazy, you say that you will admit that assaulting someone is wrong. Of course, slavery rests on the assumption that if I don’t work, I will be assaulted. I will be chained, beaten, whipped, starved, or killed.
Slavery rests on the threat of physical violence. It may be physical violence once removed. As a slaveholder, I don’t have to physically beat my slaves, it is enough that they know that I can have others (overseers, police, slavecatchers) do it for me. Without physical violence there is no slavery. Slavery is basically mugging: hand over your wallet (labor) or I will shoot you. Therefore, there can be no “Slavery without the bad things” since slavery is impossible without the bad things.
One more amazing thing. I agree with oldscratch. Slavery did not lead to the industrial revolution. The slave societies of the carribean, latin america and the south did not experience the industrial revolution. Yes, the traders who jump-started the industrial revolution in the north and in england may have traded slaves but they were not slaveowners themselves, and if there were no slave societies they would have simply traded something else. Slavery is antithetical to industrialization. Why use machines to dig the coal, when slaves can do it? Why have machines to improve agriculture when slaves can do it? The slaveholder is naturally against any technology that substitutes machines for human labor since it undermines the source of his wealth.
Oldscratch-
I didn’t confound slavery and the slave trade (they are obviously two different things), but in order for a slave trade to exist, there must be slavery. And slavery, as I said before, DOES inhibit development where it is practiced. But historically, it’s existence also has brought forth a slave trade and made some European merchants wealthy. When that happened, they had the merchant capitol to invest in finance capital (making money from the exchange of money) and that led to industrial investments. Take out the slavery from that line of events and industrialization would have taken significantly longer. As far as Italy, Spain, and Portugal not Industrializing when the others did, this was probably more a result of the predominance of the Roman Catholic worldview in those areas (which is historically communal, against material wealth and viewed poverty as a virtue) in contrast to the Protestantism of northern Europe which encouraged independence and wealth. But I think all of this is a little off the beaten trail…
Jmullaney-
The “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a great reason for why an one individual should not choose to enslave another. But I don’t think it proves that slavery is absolutely and inherently wrong. And since you are speaking in spiritual terms of slavery, it seems that the Bible says that everyone is a slave: either to sin or to God:
Lemur866-
No, never said that. Imagine slavery does necessarily involve at least a limited amount of reasonable physical punishment. Just as a child is under the authority of their parents up to a certain age and can be legal beaten so long as it does not leave a mark more than 24 hours. I believe I said “unnecessary” physical harm or punishment. Whenever one being has control over another such as in parenting or in the military, physical punishment is allowed. So with respect to that, the same guidelines would exist.
With respect to the industrial revolution, I am not talking about places where slavery existed becoming more innovative. I am talking about the capital created by slavery encouraging it in Britain, which is widely accepted by historians.
Just to clarify things a bit:
Slavery does not require abuse, punishment or the taking of captives.
The OP would be better served if we seperated these things from our discussion of the institution of slavery.
Really? Where does He do that?
Well, I should point out this verse is right after Paul says:
Which suggests that Paul is being metaphorical. Of course, what Jesus says is superior to what Paul says, and Christianity has had plenty of clearer theologians since Paul even if he got there first.
Jmullaney-
Well I hate to turn this into a theological debate but heck we’re talking about the industrial revolution and everything else, so why not. So you obviously have something against Paul’s credibility even though he was accepted the other disciples to have been given a message from God. But let’s see, how about some non-Pauline verses dealing with slavery:
“As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master…
so our eyes look to the LORD our God until he shows us mercy.” -Ps 123:2
“…whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave– just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” -Matt 20:26-28
I’ll ask you the question again because I seem to have missed your answer somewhere:
Spider Woman-
I don’t know why it’s wrong exactly, I probably wouldn’t have started the thread if I already knew. Libertarian might be on the right track, and the “do unto others” argument is almost applicable. But I can’t say I have any reasons of my own to believe that it is inherently wrong.