Liberty is not an inalienable right ("I love me black laborers")

[Fangrim]

The quote in the title is purely decorative. Let's not get jumpy about racism ><

I started a thread in Society and Rights that also had to do with this topic.
Now, I'd like to have a similar discussion the philosophy section. This topic appears to fit both categories, so there's no problem with that, as far as I can see.


Basically:

There is nothing about being a person or being human that exempts us from being assigned as property, or traded as property. There is nothing supernatural or spectacular about human beings that would make us any different from mules or cars in our capacity to be in someone else's ownership.

Particularly in a tribal society in competition with other tribes, a victorious tribe can do what it wants with the defeated, including taking their people as slaves. There's nothing wrong with this, if only to the extent as there's nothing wrong with warfare in the first place, or competition in the first place. It may be disliked, surely; I know I wouldn't like being a slave as opposed to being free. But just because I don't like something certainly doesn't make it immoral, or wrong.

Enslavement of other people's can be thought of as free competition and capitalism to its greatest extent, to an extent that allows us to compete between each other with not only the ownership of money, or guns, or horses, or cars and houses and land, but people as well.

Slavery is not a universal wrong. Discuss.

NOTE: I'm not being racist here. Blacks can own white slaves as well.

[Alive]

Hmm....

Are you making a normative or descriptive argument? I can't really tell. Of course no "right" is technically "inalienable" :

There is nothing about being a person or being human that exempts us from being assigned as property, or traded as property. There is nothing supernatural or spectacular about human beings that would make us any different from mules or cars in our capacity to be in someone else's ownership.

Yes, we all know that "rights" can physically be taken away. Is that all you are saying?

Or are you actually making a moral argument that slavery is morally acceptable? This is a fine argument to make, but I'm not sure your arguments in favor are that great.

There's nothing wrong with this, if only to the extent as there's nothing wrong with warfare in the first place, or competition in the first place.

Well, maybe there is something wrong with warfare in the first place!

Enslavement of other people's can be thought of as free competition and capitalism to its greatest extent, to an extent that allows us to compete between each other with not only the ownership of money, or guns, or horses, or cars and houses and land, but people as well.

No, stealing is not capitalism. You might argue that people should be able to sell themselves into slavery, but you don't seem to be making that argument.

[sdbest]

Quote by: Fangrim Slavery is not a universal wrong. Discuss.

There are no "universal" wrongs or rights. However, once a group of people deem something right or wrong and then impose that decision on others backed up by coercive power then that declaration of a right or wrong becomes culturally manifest.

Slavery is wrong because a sufficient number of people not only say it is but also are prepared--and have the competency via the state--to punish those who traffic in human beings.

It's wrong to own other people because we have decided it is wrong.

Regards
S.

[Osborn F Enready]

FanGrim said: Basically: There is nothing about being a person or being human that exempts us from being assigned as property, or traded as property.

That is not true, at least as stated without qualifications.

Nobody can "assign" my rights away, without my free-will conscent.

Fangrim said: There is nothing supernatural or spectacular about human beings that would make us any different from mules or cars in our capacity to be in someone else's ownership.

Again, I disagree.

Mules are limited by nature, and are inferior to man due to natures limitations, which is why man treats mules as property.

Cars are products of man, and are tools, by design.

Man is unique in both natural physical ability (opposing thumbs), the ability for logic and reason, which has lead to language, farming, science and technology, to RISE ABOVE violence or force, as well as mans ability to move far past natural instinct using logic and reason.

Nothing else does this, that has near mans abilities, on earth.

Fangrim said: Particularly in a tribal society in competition with other tribes, a victorious tribe can do what it wants with the defeated, including taking their people as slaves. There's nothing wrong with this, if only to the extent as there's nothing wrong with warfare in the first place, or competition in the first place.

I don't think this can be "reduced" to "right and wrong" or "black and white" as you seem to imply. One individuals "right and wrong" are exact opposites of another individuals "right and wrong", as well as societies also mimmick that natural observation, sometimes, but not always based on the individuals within that society, unless force is used as the means of "control" of the populace by government.

Fangrim said: It may be disliked, surely; I know I wouldn't like being a slave as opposed to being free. But just because I don't like something certainly doesn't make it immoral, or wrong.

Immoral and wrong are different to every individual to some finite degree.

The only moral and right thing to all people, is to allow all people the chance to choose for themselves, to the point it infringes on another rights to do the same, without the use of force being a factor.

Free-will, voluntary mutual conscent, is the only morally acceptable and "right" to all persons regardless of beliefs, morals or philosophy, since they chart their own existence based on their own choices, skills, needs, desires and abilties.

Fangrim said: Enslavement of other people's can be thought of as free competition and capitalism to its greatest extent, to an extent that allows us to compete between each other with not only the ownership of money, or guns, or horses, or cars and houses and land, but people as well.

True capitalism removes force from "legality" except in legal defense of ones rights, as an individual, or the rights of others, by extension.

Capitalism, and Free-Trade are both dependent on the "illegality" of force used as a tool of coercion, fraud, murder or theft.

Fangrim said: Slavery is not a universal wrong. Discuss.

Slavery by force, is always wrong, unless in defense or punishment for rights violation of others by said individual.

Working for someone to pay off a debt, is not slavery.
Winning someone in a game of chance, if they WILLINGLY bet themselves KNOWING the cost of loss, is not slavery.

FORCING someone to serve you, is slavery. Forcing someone to honor their honorable debts, is not.

[dalin]

Question, Fangrim: do you think anything is intrinsically moral or immoral? Or do you think morality = social norms.

[dalin]

Quote by: sdbest There are no "universal" wrongs or rights. However, once a group of people deem something right or wrong and then impose that decision on others backed up by coercive power then that declaration of a right or wrong becomes culturally manifest. Slavery is wrong because a sufficient number of people not only say it is but also are prepared--and have the competency via the state--to punish those who traffic in human beings. It's wrong to own other people because we have decided it is wrong. Regards S.

That seems to dodge the issue doesn't it? It is wrong because we said it is wrong. But why do we say it is wrong? Deep seeded self-interest? What are the origins of morality?

[Technosoul]

First off it a boy thinks he "owns" his girlfriend or a husband owning his wife, then that tagets a gender group, if one race tagets another race then that likewise seems immoral relative to standards of equality.
Equality can be viewed as a standard of morality when it comes to ownership. We do not think we are equal to cars or animals. But to think that about other human beings is somewhat silly if not flat out wrong.

And I am not sure if "morality" is the only standard to concider, but this is your topic.

Jimi Hendrix (black artist) sang in his song 'are you experienced' the following words. "Who are you in your little world to think you are made out of gold and cannot be bought or sold". But selling out to gain material security is different then being forced to slave away without consent. But..... By what right or auhtority do we claim that we are so worthy that we should be above the likes of being a slave?

(I am sort of debating myself to get a two sided perspective).

But making slavery legal would only lead to abuses, pain and suffering, for those who per-chance fall victim of the slave masters. To advocate legal abuse is not good morality.

However at my age I might be forced to become 'buy-sexual". Got any for sale? (oops, I said a no no.... but it was only a joke... honest.)

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Mules are limited by nature, and are inferior to man due to natures limitations, which is why man treats mules as property. Cars are products of man, and are tools, by design. Man is unique in both natural physical ability (opposing thumbs), the ability for logic and reason, which has lead to language, farming, science and technology, to RISE ABOVE violence or force, as well as mans ability to move far past natural instinct using logic and reason. Nothing else does this, that has near mans abilities, on earth. ... Slavery by force, is always wrong, unless in defense or punishment for rights violation of others by said individual.

1) Opposing thumbs is hardly an attribute that guarantees moral value. Perhaps the capabilities that come from those thumbs, but certainly not the thumbs themselves.
2) Logic and reason are human tools as much as a trunk is an elephant's tool, blood-seeking capabilities are the shark's tool, and wings are the bird's tools. Distinguishing one characteristic of man from any characteristic of any other creature is simply anthrocentric; you make us distinct from the other races first, and assume that our traits are thus superior.
3) There's nothing about violence that makes it intrinsically better to rise above it. Assuming violence is bad since it would take away the integrity of individual rights quite obviously begs the question, since I don't see liberty as an inalienable right of any creature, let alone humanity.
4) Our ability to go past natural instict is chiefly the result of our "advanced" brain development; we can store memories and information in our brains instead of our DNA. This, however, is simply the result of evolution. Once DNA reaches a certain capacity, the advantages of adding additional information are superceded by the disadvantages of increasing numbers of deadly mutations and errors in the copying process (think of DNA as a giant stack of papers that have to go through a copying machine; the more paper and staples and packets and procedures, the more room for error). The solution was to add information not through DNA at birth but through brains throughout the organism's life.
Taking a natural process of diverging species as a moral mandate of intrinsic worth is hardly substantive.

The only moral and right thing to all people, is to allow all people the chance to choose for themselves, to the point it infringes on another rights to do the same, without the use of force being a factor. ... Free-will, voluntary mutual conscent, is the only morally acceptable and "right" to all persons regardless of beliefs, morals or philosophy, since they chart their own existence based on their own choices, skills, needs, desires and abilties.

Once again, begging the question that people should have choice and liberty in the first place. The OP is clearly against that position, what with legitimizing slavery and all.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: dalin Question, Fangrim: do you think anything is intrinsically moral or immoral? Or do you think morality = social norms.

No, I don't think anything is intrinsically immoral.

I'm still pondering the idea of morality being subjectively based on societal norms.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Alive Yes, we all know that "rights" can physically be taken away. Is that all you are saying? Or are you actually making a moral argument that slavery is morally acceptable? This is a fine argument to make, but I'm not sure your arguments in favor are that great.

With the assumption that anything is morally acceptable until it is unacceptable (i.e., it's ok as long as it doesn't break a moral standard), then yes, slavery is universally acceptable, or at least, there is not universal standard that makes slavery morally unacceptable.

With that assumption (anything is acceptable until it conflicts with a moral standard), the burden of proof would then fall to those who wish to say that slavery is unacceptable. This would most easily be done by pointing to a universal moral standard that conflicts with slavery. Of course, that person would have to prove that that moral standard is, in fact, universal, or at least that it "should" be.

[Alive]

Quote by: Fangrim Of course, that person would have to prove that that moral standard is, in fact, universal, or at least that it "should" be.

What do you mean by "universal"? That all humans actually have it as a moral standard? That all conscious beings in the universe have it? That would be pretty hard to prove. Again, you are mixing up the normative and the positive. What is moral is not necessarily how things are, or how people think they should be.

A moral standard that is universal is a pretty boring moral standard; if everyone truly agrees with it then no one will violate it.

Is your argument that there are no moral universals? Ok, why not just say that then? If you mean slavery specifically is not immoral, then make an arguments about slavery in particular.

[SoylentGreen]

Fangrim But just because I don't like something certainly doesn't make it immoral, or wrong.

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.

.

[Fangrim]

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.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Alive What do you mean by "universal"? That all humans actually have it as a moral standard? That all conscious beings in the universe have it? That would be pretty hard to prove. Again, you are mixing up the normative and the positive. What is moral is not necessarily how things are, or how people think they should be. A moral standard that is universal is a pretty boring moral standard; if everyone truly agrees with it then no one will violate it. Is your argument that there are no moral universals? Ok, why not just say that then? If you mean slavery specifically is not immoral, then make an arguments about slavery in particular.

Universal indicates that it is the moral standard for all of humanity; that whenever a person transgresses that moral standard, he is in the wrong, regardless of whether his peers happen to condone his actions.
Not all may agree with that moral standard, but it is the standard that applies to all of them nonetheless, whether they abide by it or not. For instance, it's generally agreed that murder is morally wrong, but that doesn't mean some people won't murder anyway, or even consider it morally appropriate. Ted Bundy, for example.
A universal standard could be proven by indicating that it is somehow central to human nature and thus necessitated by what makes us "human."
Alternately, it could indicated by the laws of the universe, or the laws of how society's components must interact efficiently, or some other core value.
The difficult lies in 1) showing what human nature is, or what the indications of the universe/society/core values are, and 2) showing that what we consider human nature is important or substantial enough to necessitate moral standards for all of humanity; or that some core value is indeed that important.

[Athena]

Quote by: Fangrim The quote in the title is purely decorative. Let's not get jumpy about racism >< I started a thread in Society and Rights that also had to do with this topic. Now, I'd like to have a similar discussion the philosophy section. This topic appears to fit both categories, so there's no problem with that, as far as I can see. Basically: There is nothing about being a person or being human that exempts us from being assigned as property, or traded as property. There is nothing supernatural or spectacular about human beings that would make us any different from mules or cars in our capacity to be in someone else's ownership. Particularly in a tribal society in competition with other tribes, a victorious tribe can do what it wants with the defeated, including taking their people as slaves. There's nothing wrong with this, if only to the extent as there's nothing wrong with warfare in the first place, or competition in the first place. It may be disliked, surely; I know I wouldn't like being a slave as opposed to being free. But just because I don't like something certainly doesn't make it immoral, or wrong. Enslavement of other people's can be thought of as free competition and capitalism to its greatest extent, to an extent that allows us to compete between each other with not only the ownership of money, or guns, or horses, or cars and houses and land, but people as well. Slavery is not a universal wrong. Discuss. NOTE: I'm not being racist here. Blacks can own white slaves as well.

Huh? What other animal besides the human species thinks in terms of owning and exploiting each other? Animals are territorial as are humans, but our concept of ownership is not of nature. Our concept of ownership and property rights is man made, and there it becomes an issue of justice and right and wrong. It is a human rights issue, right up there with women's rights issues. Historically, even in the US, women have been treated very badly when they did not have economic equality.

We saw a time when women couldn't even claim to own their own clothes because they were so completely dependent on the husbands. These women voiced their distressed over the uproar over Black slavery when their own slavery, called marriage, was ignored. A bible that promoted this male domiation over women, as well as slavery, is not something I can appreciate.

Human beings with undeveloped minds may assume brute force gives them the right of ownership and the right to exploitation other human beings, but as aware and thinking human being, I declare it is not justified. Our concepts of ownership and previllege are open to question.

[Milton Bradley]

I see it like this...


I am a tool using animal, and if you wish to enslave me, you run the risk of me implementing one of those tools in a fashion you might not approve of to trump your position that slavery is justafiable by rationalizing that murder is justifiable.

[SoylentGreen]

Fangrim if you were alive in the early 1800's when cotton was king

If by "you" , you mean me personally, then it's a hypothetical question.
So hypothetically if I was a land owner dependent on slave labour to produce my cotton then yes I would probably be inclined to argue that slavery was moral. If I was one of those damn interfering northern yankees I would probably find it immoral.

Are we bad people for using machines just because it's the most economical choice of our time?

Ok so again hypothetical, what if by the use of machinery now we deplete the natural stocks of oil and there is no replacement for it.
Would not future generations look back on us and say that we were greedy and selfish and acted in a immoral fashion by not considering the future generations needs.

Would that mean machinery is immoral throughout all time, or just in the future?

To do that would I not have to make a case for a universal morality.
And if I was successfull in doing so where would that leave your arguement?
Because clearly slavery was once morally acceptable but now is not and your argueing that it should would fly in the face of an accepted universal morality.
I can give many examples of where morality has changed over time. Athene points out one with women ,slavery is another .
We can easily look back into the past and find examples of things that would by todays standards seem immoral so there are probably things happening today that future generations will find immoral.

I would still like you to answer the question below, or come up with a reson to accept a universl moral.

Well what does then? I would of thought not liking something would be a prerequisite of believing it immoral or wrong.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: SoylentGreen I would still like you to answer the question below, or come up with a reson to accept a universl moral.

Just for clarification, I DON'T think that slavery is a universal wrong. I was asking you those questions about machinery to better understand why you say that an economically inferior method is inferior since clearly methods can shift in and out of economic prosperity. This would lead us to believe that we can't rely on economic reasons to say that one method is universally wrong (unless economic harm is the universal wrong; that would mean that any method that hurts the economy is wrong, and then when it helps the economy, it is right; the morality would not hinge on the method, but that method's effects on the economy.)

Just because I don't like something does not make it immoral.
A child certainly doesn't like going to the dentist, but is it immoral to have regular dental checkups?
I may not like eating foods with lots of fiber and vitamins, but is eating them immoral?

No. Liking or disliking something, though possibly related to morality, does not fully constitute morality unless morality is indeed thought of as subjective likes and dislikes.
More people are likely to suggest moral standards that apply to a broader range of people, regardless of whether those people like those standards or not.

[SoylentGreen]

]Fangrim ]the morality would not hinge on the method, but that method's effects on the economy

Yes I hold to that.
In the past before machinery slavery was justified. It allowed for large areas to be farmed and created a wealth that improved the living standards for many which created a society that grew and prospered.
We would not have reached the level of benefits that we enjoy today without having slowly improved on the methods of past societies.
But in todays world we have machinery to replace slavery and that is by far more efficient. If for some reason all the machines were to dissapear then slavery would again be justified in order to maintain the large areas of food resources required to sustain a large population.
And it would have to be slavery because the economic cost of payed voluntary labour would be to great to support. Either we would have to drastically reduce the population or introduce slavery once again to maintain the level.
I to do not believe that slavery is a universal wrong in fact I do not believe there is such a thing as a universal wrong. All morality is subjective and a moral belief should be held by logic and reason not because society tells you so.
So I cannot argue that slavery is a universal wrong unless first you can show me that there is such a thing as a universal wrong. And you must do this if you are only willing to accept a universal wrong as an answer to your question.
But I can argue that slavery is an economic wrong in that it is an inefficient use of resources in todays world.
Machinery does not complain it does not rebel it will not stand up and shout :NO, I am Sparticus"

No. Liking or disliking something, though possibly related to morality, does not fully constitute morality unless morality is indeed thought of as subjective likes and dislikes. More people are likely to suggest moral standards that apply to a broader range of people, regardless of whether those people like those standards or not.

Disliking something is what morality is. And it is a personal choice to choose to like or dislike.
If we go with the statement that "moral standards that apply to a broader range of people, regardless of whether those people like those standards or not."
Then would you not have to prove that the majority of people are in favour of slavery in order to say it is moral?

[megadeth425]

There is nothing about being a person or being human that exempts us from being assigned as property, or traded as property.

So if there is nothing spectacular about humans, than what gives other humans the ability to make unfounded claims of superiority, force you against your will into unpaid labour, and treat you like shit? Surely if our lack of spectacular qualities goes one way, that it goes the other. If you were kidnapped from your tribe and sent on a boat accross the ocean to another continent where you'd live out your life the property of a chaughvanistic racist who thinks you're beneath him because of the color of your skin, wouldn't you use the same argument of us being nothing special to justify why he doesn't own you?