Is it ethical to exploit others?

[Bezukhov]

That's quite true. Marxists today won't admit it but American slives for the most part weren't badly treated. Unlike free peasants, the master was obligated to feed his slaves, and give them medical care because a slave represented a significant investment. Slaves were treated as valuable livestock.

Here we have a closet Marxist. The aim of Marxism is to take away your rights and property, make you a slave, then turn around and tell you "it's for your own good!" Well said, Comrade Tipsycatlover!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Here we have a closet Marxist. The aim of Marxism is to take away your rights and property, make you a slave, then turn around and tell you "it's for your own good!" Well said, Comrade Tipsycatlover!

Nice turnaround. I'll go you one better. Many people today want to be slaves. They want to be given a home, food, clothing,. All the necessities of life should be free. Given by the master. Slaves who received favor were even provided sex partners. Those who would look d e v en enrich the master by their pleasure.

You will have to go past Marx for that ideology. All the way back to Marcus Aurilius who said " the majority of people long for slavery. They only want a just and generous master."

 

[ProfessorHawthorne]

This subject has never been complicated. It's just a fact dating back thousands of years. The advancement of civilization and the rise of an empire has always relied on a disposable workforce. That is still true today. China is doing an excellent job of it with their own citizens. What changes are perspective and frame of reference - aka societal norms and prevailing culture. Looking at historical behavior through modern "lenses" is both foolish and lacking in any intrinsic value. I mean it's a great vehicle for argument but, essentially meaningless.

Cheers

 

[Rye Catcher]

The slaves here in america did not starve like the european serfs-------they were also given better medical care than most american free person received.

Statement: The slaves here in america did not starve like the european serfs-------they were also given better medical care than most american free person received.

Response: Prove it.

 

[whitehall]

Is it ethical to single out one country for abuses that were committed by everyone in the world?

 

[Bezukhov]

Is it ethical to single out one country for abuses that were committed by everyone in the world?

Ohh, I don't know. Did those people have a commandment to "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12

 

[whitehall]

Ohh, I don't know. Did those people have a commandment to "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12

The Bible? WTF?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Even the mildest system of exploitation was not exactly mild. Effective expropriation of about 30% of commoners' income through rents was a heavy burden. Relative well-being of top 10% and luxury of the top 1% of population was achieved by placing a heavy burden on the bottom 70%. The life of poorest 35% of population -- agricultural day laborers and servants was miserable. Hunger was common, and sometimes fatal. French Peasants were not happy. That was the cause of French Revolution.


Nevertheless, the system of exploitation produced a noble class which advanced sciences and arts. Feudal system produced masterpieces of Art and Architecture. Feudal system produced the Palace of Versailles with it's magnificent 22,000 great works of art. Possibly, the system of exploitation which existed in Europe was one of the major contributors of resources which were needed to launch the Industrial Revolution.

Short answer yes. Ity is ethical to exploit someone.

Your mistake is that assuming exploitation is always coercive or forced. It is often quite consensual and voluntary.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The legal right of Reparations comes from the right of inheritance. Slaves had a right to Reparations, so the money should go to their legal hairs.

Similarly, only Rockefeller's hairs can inherit his wealth.

There is no right to reparations because there is no right to inheritance.

You are full of nonsense. Rockefellers can cut his heirs off and give his estate to whomsoever he pleases.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Short answer yes. Ity is ethical to exploit someone.

Your mistake is that assuming exploitation is always coercive or forced. It is often quite consensual and voluntary.

In my example of French Serfdom, exploitation was indeed relatively mild. French serfs were not owned by land owners, and they could change their venue of work -- as some did.

 

[Man of Ethics]

There is no right to reparations because there is no right to inheritance.

You are full of nonsense. Rockefellers can cut his heirs off and give his estate to whomsoever he pleases.

If there is no contradictory will, then direct descendants inherit their ancestors property.

 

[Soupnazi630]

If there is no contradictory will, then direct descendants inherit their ancestors property.

Which means they have no right to it if there is a contradictory will. No one has a right to reparations either

 

[Soupnazi630]

In my example of French Serfdom, exploitation was indeed relatively mild. French serfs were not owned by land owners, and they could change their venue of work -- as some did.

The only unethical exploitation is involuntary whhich is what you always get under any collectivist system such as the various forms of marxism

 

[Man of Ethics]

Which means they have no right to it if there is a contradictory will. No one has a right to reparations either

I disagree. In 1917-21, my great-grandparents fought and worked to build Soviet Russia. Descendants of serfs as well as some Jews did get Reparations from property expropriated from former nobility.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I disagree. In 1917-21, my geratgrandparents fought and worked to build Soviet Russia. Descendants of serfs as well as some Jews did get Reparations from property expropriated from former nobility.

That was merely fencing stolen property

 

[Man of Ethics]

That was merely fencing stolen property

I disagree. Original Socialism built in Russia by Leon Trotsky was Democratic and Egalitarian.

 

[westwall]

Prior to mid 19th Century, resources were very limited. Production per capita was about 50 times lower then in USA 2021. Child mortality was 30% to 50%. Life was miserable. Between the time of Hammurabi and late XVIIIth Century, agrarian life and technology did not change much. The only way to acquire reasonable or large resources was by exploiting others. Almost every Civilization was built on exploitation of many people. Some systems of exploitation were relatively humane, while others were brutal.


French Society had great income inequality. Here. Nobles, clergy, and Bourgeois consumed 50% of resources which were mostly produced by peasants. Nevertheless, the level of direct coercion was minimal. The nobles owned the land. The peasants paid rent, but they were free to move to another estate. Peasants were not slaves, and they were not subject to physical abuse.


Of course, French Peasants were not happy with the fact that the fruits of their hard work were expropriated. That was the cause of French Revolution. Nevertheless, the system of exploitation produced a noble class which advanced sciences and arts. That system used resources extracted from peasants to produce masterpieces of Art and Architecture.


Russian and East European Serfdom was much more coercive. The peasants were bound to their owners. In Russia, about 60% of peasant population paid taxes -- they were either state peasants or obrok (tax) peasants. About 30% of peasants were in worse situation -- they had work (barshina) obligations. They had to work about three days per week for their owners. About 10% of peasants were de facto slaves -- household servants or factory serfs. In Russia and East Europe, serfs did suffer physical abuse from their owners.


American Slavery was extremely coercive and exploitative. Slaves had work obligations at least 2.5 times higher then serfs in Russia and East Europe. Brutal abuse of slaves was common. American Slavery was based not only on exploitation but also on unnecessary brutality. That was excessive by XVIIth and XIXth Century standards. { American Slavery and Russian Serfdom.}

No, exploitation is unethical.

 

[westwall]

I disagree. Original Socialism built in Russia by Leon Trotsky was Democratic and Egalitarian.

Egalitarian by destroying the kulaks who worked hard for what they had?

Don't be stupid.

 

[fncceo]

Any voluntary exchange between parties cannot, by definition, be exploitation.

Any person entering into an agreement with another person by his own will cannot claim to have been exploited.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I disagree. Original Socialism built in Russia by Leon Trotsky was Democratic and Egalitarian.

You are wrong. It was slavery tyranny and genocide as envisioned by Marx