An Honest Moral Question

Is slavery itself evil? (please read before answering)

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 70.0%
  • No

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Depends on its execution

    Votes: 5 25.0%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    20
The ClayTaurus said:
You continue to fail to understand that slavery is involuntary. If you want to go back and talk about the working class that was labeled slaves, then fine. But that, just like kinky sex fetishes, is not slavery. It's something else that was labeled as slavery incorrectly.

And as for your argument that slavery was a huge step forward a long time ago, that somehow legitimizes it from being evil at that time?

If I have an anger problem, and I take it out by killing people, but then slowly work my way from killing to crippling to severely injuring to assault to breaking someone's stuff, does that make mean that anything following killing isn't evil just because I was able to control myself more? It's a faulty line of logic; it's justification of one evil because it's better than the alternative evil.

Slavery = involuntary
Work = voluntary


It's that simple. And when you look at something that simple, lenses don't even matter. Slavery is evil; it always has been, it always will be.

Are you sure you aren't defining slavery as many people have through the years and not necessarily using the "correct" or, one of the "correct" ways to define the word?

You're definition above isn't necessarily always the case.
 
GotZoom said:
Are you sure you aren't defining slavery as many people have through the years and not necessarily using the "correct" or, one of the "correct" ways to define the word?

You're definition above isn't necessarily always the case.
Just in case, I'll break down the definition.

1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
Well this definition says you are bound in servitude as property of a slaveholder or household. A slaveholder is defined as
one who owns or holds slaves
and a slave is defined as one of the following 4:
One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
Which, again, goes back to being property.
2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence: “I was still the slave of education and prejudice” (Edward Gibbon).
Not exactly something that sounds like a good thing...
3. One who works extremely hard.
This isn't a bad thing, but the slaveholder still owns or holds you. Hardworking or not, you are still property.
4. A machine or component controlled by another machine or component.
This definition doesn't apply.

So let's continue with the remaining definitions of slavery:
2a. The practice of owning slaves.
Again, back to ownership and treatment of humans as property.
b. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
This definition of slavery is not inherently, when using the technical definition, evil. However, you'd need to use the one out of five definitions for "slavery," and the one out of 4 definitions of "slave" for this to not be evil. This is often called "working" instead of slavery, most likely because almost every other combination of slavery and slave results in an evil connotation.
3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
This definition doesn't seem to apply.
4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.
This, if anything, seems to me to be a recent adaptation of the meaning of slavery. Only once slavery was banished was the word slavery used to describe traditionally non-slavery situations. I'm a slave to my boss at work, I slaved over the stove, etc. etc.

Slavery, the ownership of another human against their will, is evil. It will always be evil. It has always been evil.
 
The ClayTaurus said:
Slavery, the ownership of another human against their will, is evil. It will always be evil. It has always been evil.

Key part of your definition. "...against their will..."

If it is against their will, I agree.

However, if it isn't against "their" will....what is the harm?
 
You see, the Roman definition of slavery is not something they called slavery but wasn't, since they came before the definition used in the Age of Exploration. While our word for slavery technically originated from the word 'Slav' (since the Slavs were the most common slaves found in Gaul and Germania), the Romans had defined slavery as what I've detailed long before we got there and attached our modern word to it. You can't change a definition after the fact and then say what the original definers referred to doesn't fit the definition. That's like saying that soldiers don't actually kill people only for us to find out later that your definition of killing only ecompasses what we call murder.
 
GotZoom said:
Key part of your definition. "...against their will..."

If it is against their will, I agree.

However, if it isn't against "their" will....what is the harm?

It's not slavery, except in one out of 20+ definition combinations, and even then, that definition can be applied in conjunction with an evil one.

My position is that slavery is involuntary. Voluntary slavery is work. You can call it slavery to look for pity, oh look at me, I'm a slave at work, but it's not slavery. Slavery is involuntarily being owned by someone, key word being involuntary.
 
Hobbit said:
You see, the Roman definition of slavery is not something they called slavery but wasn't, since they came before the definition used in the Age of Exploration. While our word for slavery technically originated from the word 'Slav' (since the Slavs were the most common slaves found in Gaul and Germania), the Romans had defined slavery as what I've detailed long before we got there and attached our modern word to it. You can't change a definition after the fact and then say what the original definers referred to doesn't fit the definition. That's like saying that soldiers don't actually kill people only for us to find out later that your definition of killing only ecompasses what we call murder.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. You were just justifying forced slavery as an alternative to dying as un-evil. If I offer you the choice of dying or being raped, which choice is evil and which one isn't?
 
As for the definitions you gave, Clay, you're still looking at the issue through a modern lens. Thanks largely to our founding fathers, the idea of property has changed quite a bit. In ancient days, everything was controlled by the monarch (or equivalent). You may have 'owned' the land, but you couldn't kill certain animals on it without permission or plant any forbidden crops. With the regulations on slaves (primarily to prevent large revolts, which were common in American slavery, but more rare in Rome), the only property rights you detained were the right to command the person and the right to sell and keep all of the profits.

When property rights became more open and slaves had no more rights than a couch, things got dangerously cruel, since, if you consider context, nobody cares what you do to your own couch. You can have sex with it and then hack it to pieces and burn it, and people will think you're nuts, but they won't try to stop you. I mean, it's just a couch. This is when slavery becomes universally evil and is what led to its modern revulsion.
 
The ClayTaurus said:
It's not slavery, except in one out of 20+ definition combinations, and even then, that definition can be applied in conjunction with an evil one.

My position is that slavery is involuntary. Voluntary slavery is work. You can call it slavery to look for pity, oh look at me, I'm a slave at work, but it's not slavery. Slavery is involuntarily being owned by someone, key word being involuntary.

I see your point. However, again, you are using "slavery" in the negative definition. The "bad" definition.

You are doing the same thing as many people do with the confederate flag. If the KKK had never used the confederate flag as their symbol, then there wouldn't be an uproar about it.

If people used the word "slug" instead of "slave" when describing ownership of blacks, etc.....then slug would be the "bad" word.
 
Hobbit said:
As for the definitions you gave, Clay, you're still looking at the issue through a modern lens. Thanks largely to our founding fathers, the idea of property has changed quite a bit. In ancient days, everything was controlled by the monarch (or equivalent). You may have 'owned' the land, but you couldn't kill certain animals on it without permission or plant any forbidden crops. With the regulations on slaves (primarily to prevent large revolts, which were common in American slavery, but more rare in Rome), the only property rights you detained were the right to command the person and the right to sell and keep all of the profits.

When property rights became more open and slaves had no more rights than a couch, things got dangerously cruel, since, if you consider context, nobody cares what you do to your own couch. You can have sex with it and then hack it to pieces and burn it, and people will think you're nuts, but they won't try to stop you. I mean, it's just a couch. This is when slavery becomes universally evil and is what led to its modern revulsion.
Owning someone against their will is evil. I don't care if it's for the good of the people or prevents revolts. It's black and white (no intended racial pun).
 
GotZoom said:
I see your point. However, again, you are using "slavery" in the negative definition. The "bad" definition.

You are doing the same thing as many people do with the confederate flag. If the KKK had never used the confederate flag as their symbol, then there wouldn't be an uproar about it.

If people used the word "slug" instead of "slave" when describing ownership of blacks, etc.....then slug would be the "bad" word.
I don't have any problem with people using the word slave. I'm a slave to this boring job I have; I don't care if someone is a love slave to someone else. These are all adaptations of a word that defines an evil act after said act has been banished.

If this is the argument, then I'll say that rape isn't always evil. I raped a test once.

We can squabble over side-definitions like kinky fetishes or wordplay, but the idea of slavery, the one that Hobbit justifies because it kept order, or was a progressive step forward at the time, is evil.
 
The ClayTaurus said:
It's not slavery, except in one out of 20+ definition combinations, and even then, that definition can be applied in conjunction with an evil one.

My position is that slavery is involuntary. Voluntary slavery is work. You can call it slavery to look for pity, oh look at me, I'm a slave at work, but it's not slavery. Slavery is involuntarily being owned by someone, key word being involuntary.

You don't get to make up your own definitions, Clay. The Romans defined slavery thousands of years ago. You're not allowed to narrow the definition just so to make a point.

The ClayTaurus said:
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. You were just justifying forced slavery as an alternative to dying as un-evil. If I offer you the choice of dying or being raped, which choice is evil and which one isn't?

Ok, now you're just getting belligerant. This is the ancient world. There is no USO, postal service, or any of the other dozens of ways modern soldiers keep themselves from going crazy that we have now. When they hit a city, the soldiers wanted cash and sex, but might be willing to settle for cash. If the commander just says, "No, you can't do that," they're likely to turn around and kill him. At the very least, they'll start to desert. Then there's the fact that the commander must offer a tribute to Rome or else, once again, be killed and replaced with somebody who will do what he will not. Do you really expect somebody to suddenly decide that a millenia old tradition is so wrong that he's willing to die for it? Even if dieing for it won't actually save the people? The only reason slavery started gaining acceptance when conquering is because it brought money to Ceaser while making rebellions less likely. Before that time, most commanders would kill at least 75% of the nation's population, and with the Romans, crucifixion was the preferred method. There are paintings of the ancient world depicting crosses lining the streets as far as the eye can see. Given that a commander was under direct orders to do something like this, suggesting using slavery instead was quite merciful.

You keep equaiting it to somebody pointing a gun and saying "Be a slave or I'll kill you." It's more like somebody about to fall off a cliff and the guy says, "I can save your life, but the only way I can do that is if you become a slave for a few years."

What I'm trying to do is provoke logical thought along with a comparison taking the values and conditions of the time into account. However, Clay, you seem to a) not read my whole posts and b) inject all kinds of emotion into this thing.
 
Hobbit said:
You don't get to make up your own definitions, Clay. The Romans defined slavery thousands of years ago. You're not allowed to narrow the definition just so to make a point.
I'm sorry, I didnt' realize we were using thousand year old definitions in this discussion. Sure, Hobbit, slavery, as defined 3000 years ago probably wasn't evil. wtf.
Hobbit said:
Ok, now you're just getting belligerant. This is the ancient world. There is no USO, postal service, or any of the other dozens of ways modern soldiers keep themselves from going crazy that we have now. When they hit a city, the soldiers wanted cash and sex, but might be willing to settle for cash. If the commander just says, "No, you can't do that," they're likely to turn around and kill him. At the very least, they'll start to desert. Then there's the fact that the commander must offer a tribute to Rome or else, once again, be killed and replaced with somebody who will do what he will not. Do you really expect somebody to suddenly decide that a millenia old tradition is so wrong that he's willing to die for it? Even if dieing for it won't actually save the people? The only reason slavery started gaining acceptance when conquering is because it brought money to Ceaser while making rebellions less likely. Before that time, most commanders would kill at least 75% of the nation's population, and with the Romans, crucifixion was the preferred method. There are paintings of the ancient world depicting crosses lining the streets as far as the eye can see. Given that a commander was under direct orders to do something like this, suggesting using slavery instead was quite merciful.

You keep equaiting it to somebody pointing a gun and saying "Be a slave or I'll kill you." It's more like somebody about to fall off a cliff and the guy says, "I can save your life, but the only way I can do that is if you become a slave for a few years."

What I'm trying to do is provoke logical thought along with a comparison taking the values and conditions of the time into account. However, Clay, you seem to a) not read my whole posts and b) inject all kinds of emotion into this thing.
I read every post in response to me, and I'm not getting beligerant. You are justifying slavery because the alternative was worse. If all the soldiers wanted to kill everyone, and the commander said "oh just rape them instead" does that make the rape not evil? Is slavery better than dying? Some would say no, but I'm sure many would say yes, because the hope for freedom is always there. That doesn't mean slavery isn't evil. If I were to guess who between us wasn't reading entire posts, I would guess you, as I've had to repeat this over and over and over again. Just because everyone was a sex-driven maniac back then doesn't mean slavery wasn't evil. Less evil? Maybe on this point there is a discussion to be had.
 
manu1959 said:
slavery is evil

I agree.

When slavery is used in Clay's definition:

Slavery, the ownership of another human against their will, is evil. It will always be evil. It has always been evil.

I agree.
 
GotZoom said:
I agree.

When slavery is used in Clay's definition:

Slavery, the ownership of another human against their will, is evil. It will always be evil. It has always been evil.

I agree.

i can not think of a good slavery
 
The ClayTaurus said:
I'm sorry, I didnt' realize we were using thousand year old definitions in this discussion. Sure, Hobbit, slavery, as defined 3000 years ago probably wasn't evil. wtf.

The definition never changed. The execution of slavery simply changed over time, and you cannot make an argument that an ancient practice is evil by using a definition that vastly differs by the one used by those ancient people. It's like saying frigates were technologically impossible before the late 19th century because our modern, narrower definition of a frigate is propellor driven. That would be a stupid thing to say, since sail powered frigates were the mainstay of the mighty British fleet at one time.

The ClayTaurus said:
I read every post in response to me, and I'm not getting beligerant. You are justifying slavery because the alternative was worse. If all the soldiers wanted to kill everyone, and the commander said "oh just rape them instead" does that make the rape not evil? Is slavery better than dying? Some would say no, but I'm sure many would say yes, because the hope for freedom is always there. That doesn't mean slavery isn't evil. If I were to guess who between us wasn't reading entire posts, I would guess you, as I've had to repeat this over and over and over again. Just because everyone was a sex-driven maniac back then doesn't mean slavery wasn't evil. Less evil? Maybe on this point there is a discussion to be had.

Yes, I've noticed you keep posting the same thing over and over again. I've tried posting many different things, but you post the exact same response to them all, leading me to believe that you have not been paying attention to a word I've said.

What I've been trying so hard to do is put the whole thing in context, a thing you seem incapable of. Given that, I fail to see how you could think of more than about a dozen people prior to the year 1500 as moral.
 
Hobbit said:
The definition never changed. The execution of slavery simply changed over time, and you cannot make an argument that an ancient practice is evil by using a definition that vastly differs by the one used by those ancient people. It's like saying frigates were technologically impossible before the late 19th century because our modern, narrower definition of a frigate is propellor driven. That would be a stupid thing to say, since sail powered frigates were the mainstay of the mighty British fleet at one time.
Sure I can. Human sacrifice is a part of many ancient cultures. That practice is EVIL. They didnt' think so back then, but I'm retroactively labeling it evil, because it is. Do I fault them for it? Not necessarilly; the "they didn't know any better" argument probably applies.
Hobbit said:
Yes, I've noticed you keep posting the same thing over and over again. I've tried posting many different things, but you post the exact same response to them all, leading me to believe that you have not been paying attention to a word I've said.
I've been waiting for you to answer the question: If someone has a choice between being murdered or being killed, does that mean one option inherently isn't evil, because it's better than the other option?
Hobbit said:
What I've been trying so hard to do is put the whole thing in context, a thing you seem incapable of. Given that, I fail to see how you could think of more than about a dozen people prior to the year 1500 as moral.
If the entire roman empire picked raping people as the national pasttime, and it was accepted across the land, and that society thrived because of it, they would still be immoral and practicing an evil act, only on a societal level. Historical and societal impact does not dictate what is and is not evil. Evil is not subjective in that manner.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top