An Honest Moral Question

[Gunny]

Spell what your point is out for me; I'm a slow asshole, remember?

Your statment that slavery is evil is subjective, not absolute.

And I didn't call you a slow asshole ...yet. YOU called yourself one. I merely repped you for your honesty and willingness to share your personal insight on the matter.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Your statment that slavery is evil is subjective, not absolute.

Evil is absolute; it's not subjective. Just because no one thought slavery was evil 200 years ago doesn't mean that it wasn't.

People's perceptions of what is and is not evil, however, is indeed subjective.

Do you think that slavery is evil?

 

[manu1959]

slavery is evil
murder is evil
sex with children is evil
sex against ones will is evil

 

[Gunny]

Evil is absolute; it's not subjective. Just because no one thought slavery was evil 200 years ago doesn't mean that it wasn't.

People's perceptions of what is and is not evil, however, is indeed subjective.

Do you think that slavery is evil?

Dude, it IS people's perception of what is "evil" that makes it so. It most certainly is not absolute.

 

[Hobbit]

Dude, it IS people's perception of what is "evil" that makes it so. It most certainly is not absolute.

Well, there are some absolutes. However, in the backdrop of human history, I think slavery is more of a gray issue. While machinery has pretty much made the idea of slavery obselete in most industries, many of the civilizations that got us here could not have existed without slave labor.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Well, there are some absolutes. However, in the backdrop of human history, I think slavery is more of a gray issue. While machinery has pretty much made the idea of slavery obselete in most industries, many of the civilizations that got us here could not have existed without slave labor.

That doesn't make it not evil. You are suggesting that certain acts, such as slavery, are excusable due to cultural primitiveness?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Dude, it IS people's perception of what is "evil" that makes it so. It most certainly is not absolute.

Evil, no matter who or what you believe is behind it or motivates it, is absolute. Terrorists are evil; just because the terrorists don't think so doesn't mean it's not true. Conversely, terrorists believe we are evil, but that doesn't make it so. Evil is an absolute, independent of people's interpretations of it.

Slavery is evil; it's an absolute. One person should not be able to buy and sell another for forced, unpaid, labor against their will. Tricking yourself into thinking it isn't evil doesn't alleviate it of it's evilness.

 

[Mariner]

to see a conservative consider a morally relativistic question. I guess I'm conservative on this point--though I can agree with Kathianne that given the choice of slavery or death in the ancient world I'd have chosen slavery (and looked for the first opportunity to escape, sabotage my owner, or turn my position to my advantage--as some slaves did, becoming teachers), I still consider the entire idea of one person owning another--even for a restricted period of time--evil, period. It demeans both owner and owned, and has no place in civilized society, in my opinion.

Mariner.

 

[Hobbit]

I keep hearing from a few people that it's absolutely evil no matter what and no civilized society should ever tolerate it. I've also heard that if you ended up a slave, no matter the circumstances, you would do everything within your power to escape, but what I keep seeing is that none of you can seem to remove the lens of your modern life to see the other side in a more objctive way. Our freedoms are so fundamental now that it's considered reprehensible to infringe on them, even with the person's permission. So, I ask you, take off the lens of modern values and conditions and consider the following.

In ancient times, life was even more brutal and short than it is now. Many people had to go deep into debt just to feed their families (buying land to farm). If a man had a bad year, he could wind up in jail with his entire family either on the streets or the auction block. Unable to pay the regular payment meant they had to cough up the entire balance at once. There were no credit management services or home equity loans, it was pay or jail, and jail wasn't nice either. It was 4 walls, a floor, a ceiling, bread and water once a day, and, if you were lucky, a tiny window too high for you to see anything but sky. So this man walks up to you and says, "I'll pay off your entire debt plus some if you'll work in my fields for five years with no additional pay. Oh, and I'll feed and house you and your whole family the entire time, too." Would you consider that 'a barbaric practice,' that is 'absolutely evil' and 'morally reprehensible?'

What if an invading army came through? Legally, all the soldiers could rape, kill, and steal whatever they wanted. One of the few exceptions was the Israeli army, which neither raped nor stole, as everything was either destroyed or killed and then destroyed. Now, the commanding officer reigns in his men and tells the villagers that he will keep his soldiers at bay if some of them will spend a few years doing one job or another in and around a clean, civilized jewel of a city. Is what he did evil because it involves slavery?

How about those living in squalid conditions? Say you have nothing and can't even afford to eat. Maybe you're even sick due to dirty conditions. Do you continue to live this existance, knowing you probably don't have long to live or do you work for free for five years in exchange for food, shelter, clothing, and enough money to start a decent life for yourself at the end?

I think one of the things many fail to understand is that, unlike the African slaves, which were seen as intelligent pets at best, most slaves throughout history were considered people that basically worked for a wage, just like anybody else, but recieved that wage up front. Slaves had rights, and were protected against abuse, sexual assault from their owners (though soldiers got pretty much anything they wanted, but that's another story), inadequate food or living conditions, and many other rights infringements. Essentially, the slaveowner did not own the person himself, just his labor. Even in the arena, slaves had the same rights as volunteer combatants, and only Ceaser could order their deaths unless a slave was to bare his throat, asking for death. Only criminals could be killed without a direct order from Ceaser.

Also, to clarify once again, I tend to think that slavery is kinda gray, but I lean very much towards it being wrong. I am simply playing Devil's Advocate here, since slavery, once as much a part of everyday life as the internet is now, is almost universally seen as being 100% wrong in every context no matter what with pretty much no thought being put into the process. There are many things that are seen as very wrong, but to re-examine them from other perspectives is a good thing, as it helps people to understand why it's wrong.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I keep hearing from a few people that it's absolutely evil no matter what and no civilized society should ever tolerate it. I've also heard that if you ended up a slave, no matter the circumstances, you would do everything within your power to escape, but what I keep seeing is that none of you can seem to remove the lens of your modern life to see the other side in a more objctive way. Our freedoms are so fundamental now that it's considered reprehensible to infringe on them, even with the person's permission. So, I ask you, take off the lens of modern values and conditions and consider the following.

Oh, so we're not open-minded enough to see how slavery isn't always evil. We've got a lens jading our view... riiiight...

In ancient times, life was even more brutal and short than it is now. Many people had to go deep into debt just to feed their families (buying land to farm). If a man had a bad year, he could wind up in jail with his entire family either on the streets or the auction block. Unable to pay the regular payment meant they had to cough up the entire balance at once. There were no credit management services or home equity loans, it was pay or jail, and jail wasn't nice either. It was 4 walls, a floor, a ceiling, bread and water once a day, and, if you were lucky, a tiny window too high for you to see anything but sky. So this man walks up to you and says, "I'll pay off your entire debt plus some if you'll work in my fields for five years with no additional pay. Oh, and I'll feed and house you and your whole family the entire time, too." Would you consider that 'a barbaric practice,' that is 'absolutely evil' and 'morally reprehensible?'

That isn't slavery. That's work. He voluntarily chose to enter into that work situation. The man asked him to work for 5 years, he didn't capture and force him.

What if an invading army came through? Legally, all the soldiers could rape, kill, and steal whatever they wanted. One of the few exceptions was the Israeli army, which neither raped nor stole, as everything was either destroyed or killed and then destroyed. Now, the commanding officer reigns in his men and tells the villagers that he will keep his soldiers at bay if some of them will spend a few years doing one job or another in and around a clean, civilized jewel of a city. Is what he did evil because it involves slavery?

Yes, that is evil. He's using one form of evil to facilitate the compliance with another. That's like a bully coming and beating your ass, and then saying "if you pay me, I'll protect you." You can either pay him, and not get your ass beat, or not pay him, and he'll continue to beat your ass. Just because one form of evil is removed does not justify another form.

How about those living in squalid conditions? Say you have nothing and can't even afford to eat. Maybe you're even sick due to dirty conditions. Do you continue to live this existance, knowing you probably don't have long to live or do you work for free for five years in exchange for food, shelter, clothing, and enough money to start a decent life for yourself at the end?

That, again, isn't slavery. That's work. It's voluntary. Slavery is involuntary. A slave is owned against his/her will.

I think one of the things many fail to understand is that, unlike the African slaves, which were seen as intelligent pets at best, most slaves throughout history were considered people that basically worked for a wage, just like anybody else, but recieved that wage up front. Slaves had rights, and were protected against abuse, sexual assault from their owners (though soldiers got pretty much anything they wanted, but that's another story), inadequate food or living conditions, and many other rights infringements. Essentially, the slaveowner did not own the person himself, just his labor. Even in the arena, slaves had the same rights as volunteer combatants, and only Ceaser could order their deaths unless a slave was to bare his throat, asking for death. Only criminals could be killed without a direct order from Ceaser.

You're confusing slaves with working class. The working class makes a conscious decision to work; slaves have no choice. If Ronald McDonald came into your house and asked "Would you like to work for me for 4 bucks an hour?" and you agree, that's not slavery. If Ronald comes in, asks you, and then after you've declined the offer, slaps handcuffs on you and makes you work, even if you still get paid 4 bucks an hour, then that IS slavery. Ronald has taken your freedom.

Also, to clarify once again, I tend to think that slavery is kinda gray, but I lean very much towards it being wrong. I am simply playing Devil's Advocate here, since slavery, once as much a part of everyday life as the internet is now, is almost universally seen as being 100% wrong in every context no matter what with pretty much no thought being put into the process. There are many things that are seen as very wrong, but to re-examine them from other perspectives is a good thing, as it helps people to understand why it's wrong.

Why are you re-examining whether slavery is evil or not? Why don't you pony up with how this train of thought started in your head, because, at times, you seem to be advocating that slavery isn't evil if it's good for the people that are enslaved, and that's troubling. Just because vegetables are good to eat doesn't mean you can barge into every person's home and force them to eat them.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The working class makes a conscious decision to work; slaves have no choice.

WHy does everyone keep telling me I have to get a job? I keep telling them i reject their bourgeousie wage slavery and nobody buys it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

My role model is Bartleby, The Scrivener.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

WHy does everyone keep telling me I have to get a job? I keep telling them i reject their bourgeousie wage slavery and nobody buys it.

It's subtle encouragement, you lazy bum

 

[Said1]

WHy does everyone keep telling me I have to get a job? I keep telling them i reject their bourgeousie wage slavery and nobody buys it.

You need to practice your brand of reformation elsewhere. Try Norway.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You need to practice your brand of reformation elsewhere. Try Norway.

Only if you come too, forbidden lover!

 

[Said1]

No way. My fine self wouldn't be caught dead in Norway.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No way. My fine self wouldn't be caught dead in Norway.

I didn't know you were anti-Norway. Is it because of the jewish cooky thing? Or was that FInland. What's the difference. I mean really. THey're all pale, morose fishy-smelling socialists anyway.

 

[Hobbit]

Clay, I don't think you have quite the grasp on history you think you do. In the Roman Empire, the only way slavery was involuntary was if a) it was part of a criminal sentence, b) you were part of a conquored nation, or c) another nation had already enslaved you and sold you to the Romans. Either way, it was rarely permanent except by the request of the slave.

As for the conquored nation, you act as though the standard for an army is the same as it always was. The idea of not killing, raping, pillaging, or burning everything an army saw was very revolutionary, but pillaged goods were part of a soldier's income and conquored people needed to be subjugated somehow. A small amount of slavery solved both problems and earned respect from lots of people who saw the Romans as merciful conquorers.

Clay, you are looking at the whole issue through an emotional lens of modern values. Today, enslaving some citizens of a conquored country would be a gigantic step backward, even for the cruelest of conquorers. Even Arab terrorist nations stop killing civilians once they've conquored a nation. At one time, though, it was a huge step forward, as they were the only nation other than Babylon that didn't completely objectify conquored people, and Babylon took most of the people they conquored into exile.

For thousands of years, slavery was simply another way of life. The Bible, despite what some people try to say about it, was one of the most progressive books in the world for a long time, as it didn't objectify women and gave everybody a chance to move up in live. The Bible also had provisions for slavery in it, dictating that all slaves living in Hebrew lands be released on every seventh year and even Jesus dictated that those who were slaves obey their masters. For a better idea of how Roman slavery worked, as opposed to European expansion slavery, check out indentured servitude. In the Age of Exploration, somebody could basically work as a slave for 5-10 years in exchange for a ride to America and a healthy spit of land there when their service was over.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Clay, I don't think you have quite the grasp on history you think you do. In the Roman Empire, the only way slavery was involuntary was if a) it was part of a criminal sentence, b) you were part of a conquored nation, or c) another nation had already enslaved you and sold you to the Romans. Either way, it was rarely permanent except by the request of the slave.

As for the conquored nation, you act as though the standard for an army is the same as it always was. The idea of not killing, raping, pillaging, or burning everything an army saw was very revolutionary, but pillaged goods were part of a soldier's income and conquored people needed to be subjugated somehow. A small amount of slavery solved both problems and earned respect from lots of people who saw the Romans as merciful conquorers.

Clay, you are looking at the whole issue through an emotional lens of modern values. Today, enslaving some citizens of a conquored country would be a gigantic step backward, even for the cruelest of conquorers. Even Arab terrorist nations stop killing civilians once they've conquored a nation. At one time, though, it was a huge step forward, as they were the only nation other than Babylon that didn't completely objectify conquored people, and Babylon took most of the people they conquored into exile.

For thousands of years, slavery was simply another way of life. The Bible, despite what some people try to say about it, was one of the most progressive books in the world for a long time, as it didn't objectify women and gave everybody a chance to move up in live. The Bible also had provisions for slavery in it, dictating that all slaves living in Hebrew lands be released on every seventh year and even Jesus dictated that those who were slaves obey their masters. For a better idea of how Roman slavery worked, as opposed to European expansion slavery, check out indentured servitude. In the Age of Exploration, somebody could basically work as a slave for 5-10 years in exchange for a ride to America and a healthy spit of land there when their service was over.

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.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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.

Finally you see it my way. Work Makes You Free!