 |
Of course I know that slavery is wrong. This is a strictly an exercise in philosophical reasoning. It is easy to say the right things but it is far more important to understand why. So the question is; Why shouldn't I be able to own another human being?
In short: the human will is not to be owned by anyone... not even God, if that is your belief.
On the other hand, if one were to willingly give up their right to free will and become anothers slave, I see no wrong in the matter.
How would you like if another human being owned you and had you chained in shackles? The slaves were treated like animals instead of humans, they worked in mines or on plantations and were beaten or punished. Thank goodness Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery, he saw that slavery was morally wrong and spoke out against it, which started the Civil War. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by augustknight
Is it possible that legalized, volunteer slavery is currently in practice?
Are we not already corporate slaves, and our employer the slavemaster?
Do we not stand at the doorstep of big business and beg to be put to work?
Do we not complain and make snide remarks when our boss is strict and demanding?
I suppose it does not count since I receive a paycheck.
:)
Are we not slaves to our children or perhaps our parents?
Slaves to the desire to achieve, become wealthy, or famous?
Of course, the idea of slavery has earned quite the negative rep over the years. But then how could it not with all of the bad treatment that the slaves received?
Which of us would want to sit on the shelf at "Slaves -R- Us"?
Here in the land of the free, owning a slave would be to take away the freedom of another.
We are simply not for sale.
Really, I am no philosopher, but something inside me says that it is just not right.
Food for thought.
(WARNING: Although I mean NO OFFENSE by this post, some may take it that way... if you are sensitive in a way that true historical events may offend you, then you may want to skip to the next post)
Slavery is nothing more than being owned by another. We can look at history and say that slaves were abused and all that... but in the same context, we could say "being a Jew is wrong because look at the way the Jews were treated."
That doesn't make being a Jew wrong and that doesn't make being a slave wrong.
How does one come to "own" someone else?
Improper purchase of one human being may impose a moral issue but if one has nothing and allows himself to be purchased by another, does it make it wrong?
We own cats and dogs and we don't feed them poorly, abuse them, or make them do terrible things.
True that some people do, in fact, do this to cats and dogs... but simply because SOME do, are we going to now say that owning a cat or dog is also wrong?
It honestly does not make economic sense. In slavery a owner must first either buy or raise the slave. In that there will be a cost to get a productive worker.
You will have to have a labor job that is very labor intensive
As an owner you must feed, house, clothe and provide even if limited for the medical needs. If the slave is sick, hurt and can not work, you lose value and may not be able to sell the slave.
In an free economic society, you do not have any investment besides training. You do not have to worry or even care about the workers housing, food, medical needs and clothing besides that of the need at work. In a free society you may get rid of any worker who is too old, to sick or unable to preform the needed duties.
In a free society you may lower the number of workers without any loss of value of the workers and improve using techonogy for improvements.
The overall work to dollar spent, when spent at mim wage in the US and in third world nations or sweat shops in america, is much lower to product produced than it would be over a period of years using slave labor.
No one may own another person because we are equals.
That is the fundamental reason why slavery is wrong. It is a 'law' of humanity. We are all well aware of unequality in everyday life. And that is not necessarily immoral. If someone honestly earns riches, he than is entitled to his bounty. Some people are more intelligent than others and thereby may succeed in securing a better position in life. So in some sense we are not equal in all things.
What is undistillable is that we are all worth the same as humans. We are given life from outside of ourselves. It is not a commodity that can be bought or sold. As such no man can trade in human lives. To do so is immoral.
__________________________________________________ ________________
By asking ourselves the obvious it enables us to reach a higher understanding of the things we take for granted. If we are forced to do the thinking for ourselves we just may find that the common answers to things are just the shallow echos of other men's thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by augustknight
Because ownership violates a human right.
As you already probably know, human rights are based on the human condition which is:
1. Ability to reason.
2. Capacity to suffer both mentally and physically and to die.
3. The need for socialization in order to increase survival probabilities.
Each of these conditions places upon us a moral duty. Each of these duties has to be weighed against the other duties and a decision reached as to which will receive priority under any given circumstance. These duties are:
1. To respect a human's right to decide for himself what he will if within the bounds of decency. This in turn generates other duties: to respect the person's right to know the truth so as to make an informed decision, if such knowledge is deserved.
2, To refrain from causing unnecessary physical or mental suffering and to alleviate such suffering when it is within our power to do so.
3. To cooperate with others in order to create a social environment. Not to be a disruptive force within a just society.
Ok then given that... what would you say about using sentanced felons as slaves? People who have already lost their right to these freedoms? If someone is sentanced to life, rather than sitting in a cell, could they be sold off to a slave farm?
DrJizzle, why, yes, I want a killer as my personal slave. Wait... give me two rapist and a child molester... yes... that will do. As a retired prison guard, I can tell you that your run of the mill slave owner may not be equipped to handle this kind of slave; therefore, I have to say bad idea!
We are all slaves to the almighty dollar! Instead of chains and whips that dollar has all of us scrambling just to eat or feed our families. If there is someone out their who doesn't have to do the hustle thing on a daily basis then you must be rich, and most of us do not fit into that category. If you think you can get a loaf of bread just because your hungry think again. Every time the price of much needed goods goes up does your paycheck? And who really cares if you work your whole life and see all your savings gone if you get sick. At least a slave knows he ain't worth a damn and has nothing coming but now we all think we are somebody but its still the same game except that dollar whips our butts now instead of a leather whip!:cool: :eek:
Lets roll back to the question"Why is slavery wrong?"
Slavery is not wrong... IF YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT GIVING UP EVERYTHING AND I MEAN EVERYTHING THAT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU...
Going to work is NOT slavery no matter how much you feel like it is.. lol
I agree with DrJizzle.. lets use the felons BUT lets use them for jobs that nobody wants to do..
I do not want to own one personally but by god I'll let him do any job the ILLEGAL immigrants are doing and make him do it for FREE(still not slavery) and if the ILLEGALS can beat that price then they DESERVE the job...
A criminal is deprived of freedom to travel wherever he wishes in order to prevent his violation of the rights of others. But he still retains other rights such as freedom from being subjected to unusual, cruel or unnecessary pain. That's why torture is no longer sanctioned as punishment. Also, most criminals retain their right to live and cannot be summarily dispatched. Slavery? Well, as Magprop pointed out, some criminals would not be fit for that since they would pose a grave danger the owner. Also, the owner would not be free to do with the slave whatever he wished since the slave retains certain rights based on his humanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJizzle
Slavery is wrong because it denies a human being their choice to be free.
If I own another human being, that indiviual has no choice about their freedom. I am responsible for that person, and free to do as I will with them. I may choose to neglect them. I may choose to give them freedom. They are not free to give up being a slave.
If someone volunteered themselves to work for me, without compensation, they would remain free to leave. So volunteers are not slaves because they retain their choice. ;)
Working for a living may seem like being a slave, but the reality is that your being compensted for your contribution. You may dislike the compensation your getting, you might "need" to work to pay your bills, however as a human being, you still retain choice... You can leave at any time.
Slaves under the British and USA system were compensated by being given food, lodging and shelter and medical treatment to keep them in working condition. Under the Portuguese and Spanish system they were also compensated by being allowed to work to earn money so they could eventually buy their freedom. Still they were viewed as being slaves and retained that status until slavery was abolished.Quote:
Originally Posted by phillysteakandcheese
That's not so much compensation but an investment on the owners part lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Starman
Could they leave at any time in order to find better employment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
No, they couldn't because of their condition of slavery. But Spain and Portugal had laws going back to the Roman Empire which protected those under that type of servitude. For example, separation of families was prohibited and a day was allowed to work and earn money to buy back their freedom. Also, unlike the other systems, a former slave could rise to high social positions. Other countries had no such protective restrictions or provisions as evidenced by the wanton cruelty which was perpetrated. Not to say that there weren't violatons of these protective laws. But if there were, it was a violation and not something considered lawful.
BTW
When it comes to the poor and unskilled and undereducated, employment underthe capitalist system has certain features which can be compared to slavery. For example unskilled under-eduacted workers are provided with barely enough for lodging, food and perhaps be able to procreate to in order to produce more workers. It's called exploitation, and it was what Karl Marx began to condemn. Please keep well in mind that in most instances for the under educated or unskilled worker the options of finding better employment are almost zero. So like the slave and the serf of the European supposed dark ages, they are forced to remain rooted in their position. Also keep in mind that the companies which inflict this type of condition are companies which are quite able to pay a decent salary of they wished to but don't because they want to squeeze as much profit from the worker as possible. So when such companies get a hold of someone who is even more vulnerable to the exploitation, like an illegal immigrant for example, they have a field day. That's why these employers resist any efforts at alleviating the situation. It would eat into their stuffed pockets. But that is different subject best left for another forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJizzle
Very true!
But the person under servitude might perceive it as compensation especially when the slave owner behave as if it were compensation and strove to make the slaves grateful for the care they received. In fact, slaves that protested were often viewed as being unjustly ungreatful.
When slavery was an issue just prior to the USA Civil War when there was controversy over that diabolic institution, slave owners used the compensation-argument as a means to show that slavery was not as evil as those northern abolitionists were saying. They would wax melodic about how well they were cared for and that this in itself proved the system was OK. In short, the southern plantation owner's argument was that lack freedom were compensated to a certain degree by the good physical care given those under servitude.
BTW
Humans don't like to feel guilty about their conduct so they rationalize their behavior in order to reduce any anxiety that would result from bad conscience. So slaveowners, who considered themselves good Christians sought ways to not feel condemned by God for what they were doing and even strove to make the slave believe that the system which had him under such servitude had God's blessings.
If we move this into present day life...
The poor and undereducated have some of the best opportunities to receive assistance - be it training, student loans, and other opportunities reserved for those in need. In the US and Canada, someone that is interested in working hard to improve their situation has the means to do so.
A great example -
I know several people that got into working with computers by simply going to the library, reading magazines, learning from their friends, and making contacts in the industry. After learning enough to land an entry-level job as a bench technician or helpdesk jockey, they continued to work and improve themselves, which had continued to advance their opporunities.
It's not a two week process, but I know - first-hand - people that have worked to build themselves a future following this exact path...
I'm sure there are parallel examples in other industries and businesses.
Certainly some people are exploited, but there are also plenty of people that are interested working "just hard enough" to get what they minimally are willing to accept.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:36 PM. |