Quote:
Quote by: SoylentGreen  Well what does then? I would of thought not liking something would be a prerequisite of believing it immoral or wrong.
Slavery would be wrong because it is an inefficent use of resources.
An unwilling worker will never perform to the best of their ability and may even go to the length of sabotaging any effort he is put to.
A slave is an unwilling worker as has been pointed out in your own OP and others posts.
Plus there is the added costs of security which is a drain on resources.
We enjoy the technological advantages we have because slavery was not an option and machinery was invented to replace there labour.
If we introduced slavery again the this would be to the detriment of technology. Why build a better tractor when you have a 100 slaves to pull the plows.
. |
So the economic argument here is that if slavery is economically prosperous, it's moral, and if its detrimental, it's immoral.
Interesting.
So 200-250 years ago, slavery was morally acceptable because it was the most efficent form of mass labor that existed.
While now, slavery is morally unacceptable because factories, machinery, and assembly lines are the most efficient form of mass labor that exists.
Then do you suggest that if you were alive in the early 1800's when cotton was king in the South and brought the southern states huge prosperity, forming the backbone of its economoy, you would be in agreement that slavery is morally acceptable? Interesting.
And I suppose that while machinery is morally acceptable now, if in the future man was able to harness a different form of power that caused machinery to be obsolete, the use of machinery in the future would be as immoral as the use of slaves is now. Would that mean machinery is immoral throughout all time, or just in the future? Are we bad people for using machines just because it's the most economical choice of our time?
Interesting.