An Honest Moral Question

[manu1959]

There are people within the BDSM community who would disagree.

there are people in africa and china that would disagree....slavery is still evil

 

[GotZoom]

there are people in africa and china that would disagree....slavery is still evil

Sounds like it might be a matter of opinion based on what definition you are using.

Against the person's will - very evil.
Not against the person's will - seems to be ok...consenting adults..etc.

 

[Hobbit]

But this isn't about rape. Geez, why is it always about sex with you?

What I'm trying to do is not say that all things are justified through moral relativism. At its best, I see slavery as neutral, as it was often a capitalistic contract between two people. What I'm trying to do is get you to throw out the stupid rape analogy for one second and consider that maybe slavery, in its Roman form or some of the other forms that predated racial slavery, is not quite the ultimate evil so many people seem to almost instinctively think it is. You don't have to accept it as truth, but I'm aksing that people simply consider it.

Let's take one more look at the enslaving of conquered people, the only area of Roman slavery you seem to think is just a wholely damnable offense (the rest you just say isn't actually slavery, since, despite a lack of this in Webster's, you insist it must be involuntary). I've been doing some research, and one of the reasons it was used was to spread Roman cultureand technology. Often, many of the slaves would be put to work building basic improvements for their own towns, such as aqueducts and granaries. When their servitude was up, they could return to life in a much cleaner town and enjoy a longer life span. Those who were sent back to Rome, usually with their families, lived in much better conditions and were fed better than in their own countries, and could return there when their servitude was up.

And before you talk about those poor poor people who were forced into all of this, a large number of them, at the end of their servitude, voluntarily went through a ritual in which they would pierce one ear, forever marking them as a slave to that one master. It was the ultimate expression of how loved a master was, as the slave was basically saying that living in his service was better than what he could get elsewhere. From that day forward, that slave could never be bought nor sold and would only be freed if the master could no longer afford to feed or house him.

Slavery seems to be thought of as evil because of how horrible it is to the slave. The question is, if the slave actually likes it, is it still evil? I still think this is a gray area, as I think it is still immoral to kill somebody who wants to die (with few exceptions). It does make one think, though, or at least it should.

 

[dilloduck]

But this isn't about rape. Geez, why is it always about sex with you?

What I'm trying to do is not say that all things are justified through moral relativism. At its best, I see slavery as neutral, as it was often a capitalistic contract between two people. What I'm trying to do is get you to throw out the stupid rape analogy for one second and consider that maybe slavery, in its Roman form or some of the other forms that predated racial slavery, is not quite the ultimate evil so many people seem to almost instinctively think it is. You don't have to accept it as truth, but I'm aksing that people simply consider it.

Let's take one more look at the enslaving of conquered people, the only area of Roman slavery you seem to think is just a wholely damnable offense (the rest you just say isn't actually slavery, since, despite a lack of this in Webster's, you insist it must be involuntary). I've been doing some research, and one of the reasons it was used was to spread Roman cultureand technology. Often, many of the slaves would be put to work building basic improvements for their own towns, such as aqueducts and granaries. When their servitude was up, they could return to life in a much cleaner town and enjoy a longer life span. Those who were sent back to Rome, usually with their families, lived in much better conditions and were fed better than in their own countries, and could return there when their servitude was up.

And before you talk about those poor poor people who were forced into all of this, a large number of them, at the end of their servitude, voluntarily went through a ritual in which they would pierce one ear, forever marking them as a slave to that one master. It was the ultimate expression of how loved a master was, as the slave was basically saying that living in his service was better than what he could get elsewhere. From that day forward, that slave could never be bought nor sold and would only be freed if the master could no longer afford to feed or house him.

Slavery seems to be thought of as evil because of how horrible it is to the slave. The question is, if the slave actually likes it, is it still evil? I still think this is a gray area, as I think it is still immoral to kill somebody who wants to die (with few exceptions). It does make one think, though, or at least it should.

Doing some back flips to defend your religious beliefs, Hobbit?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

But this isn't about rape. Geez, why is it always about sex with you?

What I'm trying to do is not say that all things are justified through moral relativism. At its best, I see slavery as neutral, as it was often a capitalistic contract between two people. What I'm trying to do is get you to throw out the stupid rape analogy for one second and consider that maybe slavery, in its Roman form or some of the other forms that predated racial slavery, is not quite the ultimate evil so many people seem to almost instinctively think it is. You don't have to accept it as truth, but I'm aksing that people simply consider it.

The rape analogy isn't stupid. I've considered your position that evil acts can be justified through moral relativism or societal benefit. I disagree with it. You've been trying to say that slavery was a progressive alternative to carnal lust and murder, that the people were better off with slavery. Of course they were. The would have bene even better off in a free, capitalistic society, and why is that? Because it's better. 3000 years from now, we could live in an evil society. I'm sure many people on this board wouldn't be surprised if that happened. Just because a society with the downtrodden enslaved is better than one with the downtrodden raped and murdered does not justify that slavery therefore is not evil. Do you understand that?

Let's take one more look at the enslaving of conquered people, the only area of Roman slavery you seem to think is just a wholely damnable offense (the rest you just say isn't actually slavery, since, despite a lack of this in Webster's, you insist it must be involuntary). I've been doing some research, and one of the reasons it was used was to spread Roman cultureand technology. Often, many of the slaves would be put to work building basic improvements for their own towns, such as aqueducts and granaries. When their servitude was up, they could return to life in a much cleaner town and enjoy a longer life span. Those who were sent back to Rome, usually with their families, lived in much better conditions and were fed better than in their own countries, and could return there when their servitude was up.

The dictionary has 5 definitions for slavery, and 4 definitions for slave. 1 out of a combination of the 20 or so applicable definitions is not inherently bad. And even that definition is not definitive about being good, it simply lacks good or bad language. I don't know about you, but one out of 20+ is not a good ratio. But you're hung up on the fact that the definition meant something different X number of years ago. When do we consider ancient definitions of today's language? If we used to say "murdering puppies" to describe "eating cookies" does that mean that "murdering puppies" isn't always evil? No. It means, in a time past, they had a different definition of the word that is no longer used today. It's irrelevant.

And before you talk about those poor poor people who were forced into all of this, a large number of them, at the end of their servitude, voluntarily went through a ritual in which they would pierce one ear, forever marking them as a slave to that one master. It was the ultimate expression of how loved a master was, as the slave was basically saying that living in his service was better than what he could get elsewhere. From that day forward, that slave could never be bought nor sold and would only be freed if the master could no longer afford to feed or house him.

Slavery seems to be thought of as evil because of how horrible it is to the slave. The question is, if the slave actually likes it, is it still evil? I still think this is a gray area, as I think it is still immoral to kill somebody who wants to die (with few exceptions). It does make one think, though, or at least it should.

Pleasure is not necessarily an indicator of evil, or the lack thereof.

Slavery is evil. Do I fault ancient civilizations who didn't know any better? No. Just like I don't fault them for not knowing how to drive a car or fly a plane, and just like I don't fault myself for not knowing whatever we'll know 2000 years from now.

 

[Hobbit]

Doing some back flips to defend your religious beliefs, Hobbit?

Devil's Advocate. If legislation was introduced to allow voluntary slavery, I'd be against it. If I was suddenly transported to Roman times, I'd avoid slave markets unless I got really rich, in which case I'd start buying up slaves to free them. However, the knee-jerk of utter disgust at the word got me thinking, espeically when most people don't think beyond the abhorant treatment shown to the African slaves. I think critical thought of even your most core values and even the most obvious moral questions is healthy, as it often reinforces those values.

I guess this whole idea started with my 8th grade history teacher, who used to do this sort of thing all the time. He was part history teacher, part philosophy teacher. One day, when we asked why he tried so hard to do stuff like this, he explained that the first debate in his college philosophy class was, "Is it wrong to take a machine gun and slaughter an entire school bus full of children." Well, of course it's wrong. The professor wanted everybody to understand why it was wrong. It actually took a long time for the class to figure out that they all believed that all humans were given a right to live either by God or whatever, and that to take a person's right to live just because you can is wrong. This, of course, led to the debate on why it's right kill somebody if you know for a fact that he will kill an entire school bus full of kids. The only reason I'm picking on Clay is because he keeps responding with, "It's wrong, period," instead of offering a convincing reason why.

 

[Hobbit]

For the last time, Clay, I'm not trying to say that anything moral if it's a societal norm or preferable to the alternative, so get off the rape analogy.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Devil's Advocate. If legislation was introduced to allow voluntary slavery, I'd be against it. If I was suddenly transported to Roman times, I'd avoid slave markets unless I got really rich, in which case I'd start buying up slaves to free them. However, the knee-jerk of utter disgust at the word got me thinking, espeically when most people don't think beyond the abhorant treatment shown to the African slaves. I think critical thought of even your most core values and even the most obvious moral questions is healthy, as it often reinforces those values.

I guess this whole idea started with my 8th grade history teacher, who used to do this sort of thing all the time. He was part history teacher, part philosophy teacher. One day, when we asked why he tried so hard to do stuff like this, he explained that the first debate in his college philosophy class was, "Is it wrong to take a machine gun and slaughter an entire school bus full of children." Well, of course it's wrong. The professor wanted everybody to understand why it was wrong. It actually took a long time for the class to figure out that they all believed that all humans were given a right to live either by God or whatever, and that to take a person's right to live just because you can is wrong. This, of course, led to the debate on why it's right kill somebody if you know for a fact that he will kill an entire school bus full of kids. The only reason I'm picking on Clay is because he keeps responding with, "It's wrong, period," instead of offering a convincing reason why.

I've given you a reason: no human has the right to own another human as property. I gave that reason a long time ago.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

For the last time, Clay, I'm not trying to say that anything moral if it's a societal norm or preferable to the alternative, so get off the rape analogy.

But it's one of the ways you've justified slavery in the past, because it was better than being raped and pillaged and murdered. That's not a justification for slavery not being evil. That's a justification for slavery being not as evil as being raped and pillaged and murdered.

 

[Hobbit]

But it's one of the ways you've justified slavery in the past, because it was better than being raped and pillaged and murdered. That's not a justification for slavery not being evil. That's a justification for slavery being not as evil as being raped and pillaged and murdered.

Point taken. I was simply trying to point out that losing a war has consequences and that a few years of slavery was acutally pretty mild. It's one of the reasons I like America so much: We try to leave conquered nations better than we found them.

I've given you a reason: no human has the right to own another human as property. I gave that reason a long time ago.

That's pretty much a fancy way of saying, "It's just wrong." Let me string you along a bit to see where I can get this going. What fundamental right do you believe is violated by slavery? Is it the right to pursue your own happiness? Is it the right to choose your own fate? Maybe it violates your perception of the concept of free will. Each of these has its own sub-questions that will eventually lead to all of us finding out exactly why you think slavery is wrong other than just being told that it is.

 

[Said1]

Not all instances of slavery turned out bad. Look at the Mamluks in Egypt. For what first started out as a white slave army, eventually wound up organizing and gaining power in Egypt largely due to the fact that they were eventually give rights and status within society.

The Janissaries, another very skilled and effective slave military force. Young Christians were taken from their families in the Balkans to be trained for the sole purpose of serving the Sultan. It's believed that their families didn't necessarily see giving their sons to the empire as being a bad thing because it was rumoured that they were treated ok and probably better off than living as peasents. Of course, saying no wasn't exactly an option either.

I'm not justifying slavery by any means, however, in some cases being a slave was possibly better than the other options available at the time.

 

[manu1959]

slavery is wrong for the same reasons your 8th grade teacher taught you that it is wrong to take a machine gun and kill a busload of children

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Point taken. I was simply trying to point out that losing a war has consequences and that a few years of slavery was acutally pretty mild. It's one of the reasons I like America so much: We try to leave conquered nations better than we found them.

And I was simply trying to point out that just because war has consequences does not mean that those consequences aren't evil. I'm glad we agree on this.

That's pretty much a fancy way of saying, "It's just wrong." Let me string you along a bit to see where I can get this going. What fundamental right do you believe is violated by slavery? Is it the right to pursue your own happiness? Is it the right to choose your own fate? Maybe it violates your perception of the concept of free will. Each of these has its own sub-questions that will eventually lead to all of us finding out exactly why you think slavery is wrong other than just being told that it is.

You just told us all that this was how your 8th grade teacher spurred discussion amongst you, and now you're using it on me. I resent you thinking you're stringing me along as though I don't really know why I don't like slavery, that I just lockstep repeat that it's a bad thing because that's what I've always been told. I don't need you to liberate my thoughts and opinions and basic understanding of right and wrong like your 8th grade teacher did yours. How elitist of you, oh enlightened one. Really.

A human has the right to do as they please, so long as it does not infringe on someone else's right to do the same. Slavery clearly is one man doing as he pleases while intentionally infringing on other human's rights to do the same. It's that simple. There's no gray are involved.

Now, Teach, let's hear the subquestions that will help me enlighten everyone to my position.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Not all instances of slavery turned out bad. Look at the Mamluks in Egypt. For what first started out as a white slave army, eventually wound up organizing and gaining power in Egypt largely due to the fact that they were eventually give rights and status within society.

The Janissaries, another very skilled and effective slave military force. Young Christians were taken from their families in the Balkans to be trained for the sole purpose of serving the Sultan. It's believed that their families didn't necessarily see giving their sons to the empire as being a bad thing because it was rumoured that they were treated ok and probably better off than living as peasents. Of course, saying no wasn't exactly an option either.

I'm not justifying slavery by any means, however, in some cases being a slave was possibly better than the other options available at the time.

Sure, and that doesn't relieve it of being evil. Please don't make me go back to the rape analogy, it drives Hobbit nuts.

 

[Hobbit]

slavery is wrong for the same reasons your 8th grade teacher taught you that it is wrong to take a machine gun and kill a busload of children

The problem is that many slaves did not have their fundamental right to freedom or whatever taken away just because somebody else could. Some of them volunteered, and denying them that might infringe on their right to free will. Then there's the 'greater good' concept. What if one of those kids is carrying a deadly plague and the only way to save 95% of the population is by gunning down the bus and then burning it. Sure, it's an extreme case, but slave labor did accomplish many good things that would have been otherwise infeasible without heavy machinery. Structures built by slave labor often contributed to a greatly increased life span. Some people who were made slaves actually had their lives spared by that action. So, which weighs more, the good or the bad?

Just another reminder, since I'm under the impression that some people think I'd actually support slavery, I don't.

 

[Said1]

Sure, and that doesn't relieve it of being evil. Please don't make me go back to the rape analogy, it drives Hobbit nuts.

I didn't say it did. Just discussing some cultural aspects surrounding other slave eras I find more interesting than the Romans. Kay?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

The problem is that many slaves did not have their fundamental right to freedom or whatever taken away just because somebody else could. Some of them volunteered, and denying them that might infringe on their right to free will. Then there's the 'greater good' concept. What if one of those kids is carrying a deadly plague and the only way to save 95% of the population is by gunning down the bus and then burning it. Sure, it's an extreme case, but slave labor did accomplish many good things that would have been otherwise infeasible without heavy machinery. Structures built by slave labor often contributed to a greatly increased life span. Some people who were made slaves actually had their lives spared by that action. So, which weighs more, the good or the bad?

Just another reminder, since I'm under the impression that some people think I'd actually support slavery, I don't.

I could get really rich by robbing people. There's no way I could have gotten as rich if I hadn't have stolen. Does that make my stealing not evil? What if I stole so much money that I had enough to start donating it. Would my stealing still be evil?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I didn't say it did. Just discussing some cultural aspects surrounding other slave eras I find more interesting than the Romans. Kay?

:moon4:

 

[GotZoom]

A human has the right to do as they please.....

And if that human chooses to enter into a "slavery" situation.....

 

[Said1]

:moon4:

Tsk, tsk. Lame.