Is slavery wrong?

[Sy_Accursed]

I don;t see any other animal forming civilisations and such so there's a line to be drawn between how they are treated and how a human is treated.

Respectfully, I disagree. This idea is alarmingly close to the assumption that anything different from one's own culture is somehow inferior.

I'm not sure how failing to form anything you recognize as civilization is any less arbitrary than (for lack of a more thoroughly-beaten horse) skin color.

 

Because it is quite clear no other species has developed such an extensive spoken/oral language and written language or has, to the same degree, shaped the world to suit them. A few do use tools, but their tools are just singular objects used for a new purpose not some complexly fashioned and purpose made.

I by no means think animals should be treated badly and some species definitely do amazing and wondrous things; but you can't really class them as equals because they just aren't evolved to the same degree as a human being is.

 

And it's not as if it's an arbitrarily invented divided the divide between human and animal is scientifically there it can be quantified and proven.

[i_love_burritos]

I almost voted 'No' just to troll this whole thread.

 

"Almost" ? Pfffft, amateur.

[Ember]

.

[Sy_Accursed]

Because it is quite clear no other species has developed such an extensive spoken/oral language and written language or has, to the same degree, shaped the world to suit them. A few do use tools, but their tools are just singular objects used for a new purpose not some complexly fashioned and purpose made.

I by no means think animals should be treated badly and some species definitely do amazing and wondrous things; but you can't really class them as equals because they just aren't evolved to the same degree as a human being is.

You're still working on the assumption that these things are good, probably because that's what we do. Obviously, we are unparalleled.

 

These lesser beasts couldn't possibly have chosen to abstain from raping the earth. No, it is without a doubt that they are incapable of doing these things which all great beings must surely desire to do. They obviously lack the ability to communicate, to cooperate, and to think such noble thoughts as we do.

 

It's scientific facts that show they aren't as advanced or capable as humans. They don't have the mental capacity.

And I never claimed that all humans do is good, clearly we have mucked up thought to an extent the issues lie in a legacy of things begun/done before we knew better opposed to intentional destruction. (obv a few notable exceptions here like the rainforests etc.)

[Ember]

.

[The Observer]

Shouldn't try to police the world. In developed countries we have laws that protect the rights and freedoms of individuals because we realized that slavery (for example) is not good.

[Range_This11]

Finally a time to put my education to work! :razz:

 

Here's an economic take on slavery.

 

Eric Williams, in his book Capitalism and Slavery [1944], has argued that:

 

A racial twist has thereby been given to what is basically an economic phenomenon. Slavery was not born of racism: rather, racism was the consequence of slavery. Unfree labor in the New World was brown, white, black, and yellow; Catholic, Protestant and pagan

 

...

 

Here, then, is the origin of Negro slavery. The reason was economic, not racial; it had to do not with the color of the laborer, but the cheapness of the labor.... The features of the man, his hair, color, and dentifrice, his "subhuman" characteristics so widely pleaded were only the later rationalizations to justify a simple economic fact: that the colonies needed labor and resorted to Negro labor because it was cheapest and best.

 

In my opinion though, slavery is always morally wrong. One group of humans--ethnically grouped or not--exerting complete control over another group in order to benefit (while simultaneously disregarding the basic human rights of the enslaved) cannot possibly be morally justified under any circumstances.

[Zierro]

If your sole intention in life is to cause as much misery as you can to humanity, maybe you should be forced into a life of community service if the community is feeding you and all. Under pretty much any other context, no.

[Leonard12440]

Enslaving fellow humans is wrong. 'Our' ancestors, the Europeans that is, didn't think any different. They simply considered everyone that wasn't a christian to be sub-human, and therefore it was okay to enslave them. Other Christians weren't enslaved. Our opinion on slavery hasn't changed, only our opinion on whom can be considered 'human'. For most of us, anyway..

[Guest Rob]

Just to offer another angle perhaps, is it wrong to enslave, say, criminals, so that they have to do manual labor throughout their prison sentence?

 

Here's a more extreme example: A man set off a bomb, causing a few deaths, with say $2 million in damages. Should he be forced to work as a punishment and/or to help pay for the damages?

[Range_This11]

Enslaving fellow humans is wrong. 'Our' ancestors, the Europeans that is, didn't think any different. They simply considered everyone that wasn't a christian to be sub-human, and therefore it was okay to enslave them. Other Christians weren't enslaved. Our opinion on slavery hasn't changed, only our opinion on whom can be considered 'human'. For most of us, anyway..

The European model of slavery really didn't have much to do with Christianity.

[Leonard12440]

Enslaving fellow humans is wrong. 'Our' ancestors, the Europeans that is, didn't think any different. They simply considered everyone that wasn't a christian to be sub-human, and therefore it was okay to enslave them. Other Christians weren't enslaved. Our opinion on slavery hasn't changed, only our opinion on whom can be considered 'human'. For most of us, anyway..

The European model of slavery really didn't have much to do with Christianity.

I know there were a lot of other factors involved, but religion was important too. They considered the native Americans and the Africans soulless, and therefore they had no feelings and were basically nothing more than animals. They were fair game for slavery, basically. Of course, it was also simply convenient to use slaves, and I'm not sure to what extent the Europeans actually believed this. :D You're probably more educated on this subject

[obfuscator]

Robots can never have a sense of self or consciousness like we have. They could have only an illusion of it.

[Range_This11]

Enslaving fellow humans is wrong. 'Our' ancestors, the Europeans that is, didn't think any different. They simply considered everyone that wasn't a christian to be sub-human, and therefore it was okay to enslave them. Other Christians weren't enslaved. Our opinion on slavery hasn't changed, only our opinion on whom can be considered 'human'. For most of us, anyway..

The European model of slavery really didn't have much to do with Christianity.

I know there were a lot of other factors involved, but religion was important too. They considered the native Americans and the Africans soulless, and therefore they had no feelings and were basically nothing more than animals. They were fair game for slavery, basically. Of course, it was also simply convenient to use slaves, and I'm not sure to what extent the Europeans actually believed this. :D You're probably more educated on this subject

Those are accurate statements, but they did not believe that because those groups weren't Christians. The European model mostly traded slaves from the western coast of Africa (heavily concentrated in what is now Liberia) and native Americans were rarely used as slaves because more often than not they could not survive the strenuous slave labor (the same can be seen with natives in South America--specifically Brazil). Studies like this one are a better idea of why Europeans believed Africans deserved to be enslaved. While you are correct in saying they are "soulless", it was not simply because they weren't Christian. Christians believed in the Great Chain of Being and if studies like Crania Americana proved Africans (among other ethnicities) were biologically different from white Christians, i.e. another species, then--according to the Great Chain of Being--they were lower on the totem pole and deserving of their enslavement. Religion did play a part, but not as big a part as people may think. Like I posted before, the economic reasons far outweighed the religious. The religious reasons were only to justify an already existing slave trade system that was based on economic needs.

 

:mrgreen:

[h3art]

I voted Yes, because the concept of humans as commodities devalues all of us. Just because something was perhaps an economic necessity does not make it morally right. Also, the amateur moral relativism is making me giggle. I could talk about modern day wage slavery, but that's something slightly different. :unsure:

[sees_all1]

In my opinion, slavery is wrong in the context of the entire world history.

From a moral perspective, (I'll have to review the entire thread, but....) I don't think anyone today could rationalize slavery. Human beings are not possessions, and are created with free will. Slavery, in effect, infringes on individual free will.

 

From an economic perspective (which I believe some are arguing here), slavery was bad as a whole. If you take a look at economic historical data from America (I researched this about 8-10 years ago, and I don't think facts from 150-200 years ago have changed), you'll find that the North which didn't support slavery was absolutely kicking butt. The GDP was on the order of 2:1 in favor of the north, where the biggest difference between the two was slavery.

 

The other thing you'll find is that people under the extreme conditions don't have much incentive to be productive, often times slaves would do their best to be passive aggressive, in breaking tools and destroying property.

 

Slavery also allowed the south to keep a backward way of life - there was no incentive to invent with "free" labor.

 

 

In a modern context, we're still feeling the effects of slavery and the racial discrimination that followed. In my opinion, the best way to remedy the past is to educate everyone and raise awareness, but that's about as far as I'd like it to go. What happened in the past is inexcusable, but it is in the past and many, if not most of the people who suffered are no longer around and cannot be recompensed for their suffering. In my opinion (and from personal experience), this modern culture of affirmative action (special treatment for one race rather than class of people) to try and make the past right will only further divide everyone.

[obfuscator]

 

Also Strong AI vs Weak AI.

 

Strong AI would have actual knowledge while weak AI parrots it but doesnt know what its saying. I personally believe strong AI will eventually exist, of course you are right it is science fiction at the moment and for all I know you could be right and it could never be technically possible.

 

Speaking from the perspective of a computer programmer (which I do for a living, albeit as a student currently), it's impossible to create true human emotion. (or even animal emotion for that matter)

 

I can create a "robot" that will say "that makes me sad" whenever you type the sentence "you're an idiot", but at the end of the day, it's just bits being flipped and it's doing exactly what it's been told to do. It's no different from pressing the gas pedal of a car and expecting the car to move forward. If the car doesn't move, it's not (and cannot be) because the car somehow objects to moving, it's because it's been told not to, or something's broken.

[Guy]

 

Also Strong AI vs Weak AI.

 

Strong AI would have actual knowledge while weak AI parrots it but doesnt know what its saying. I personally believe strong AI will eventually exist, of course you are right it is science fiction at the moment and for all I know you could be right and it could never be technically possible.

 

Speaking from the perspective of a computer programmer (which I do for a living, albeit as a student currently), it's impossible to create true human emotion. (or even animal emotion for that matter)

 

I can create a "robot" that will say "that makes me sad" whenever you type the sentence "you're an idiot", but at the end of the day, it's just bits being flipped and it's doing exactly what it's been told to do. It's no different from pressing the gas pedal of a car and expecting the car to move forward. If the car doesn't move, it's not (and cannot be) because the car somehow objects to moving, it's because it's been told not to, or something's broken.

Doesn't quantum computing allow for a bit to be somewhere in-between though, so there can be a degree of uncertainty. If realistic AI is ever developed it would be naive to not hard code null feelings, and no robot revolution or whatever.

[Zierro]

In my opinion, slavery is wrong in the context of the entire world history.

From a moral perspective, (I'll have to review the entire thread, but....) I don't think anyone today could rationalize slavery. Human beings are not possessions, and are created with free will. Slavery, in effect, infringes on individual free will.

 

From an economic perspective (which I believe some are arguing here), slavery was bad as a whole. If you take a look at economic historical data from America (I researched this about 8-10 years ago, and I don't think facts from 150-200 years ago have changed), you'll find that the North which didn't support slavery was absolutely kicking butt. The GDP was on the order of 2:1 in favor of the north, where the biggest difference between the two was slavery.

 

The other thing you'll find is that people under the extreme conditions don't have much incentive to be productive, often times slaves would do their best to be passive aggressive, in breaking tools and destroying property.

 

Slavery also allowed the south to keep a backward way of life - there was no incentive to invent with "free" labor.

 

 

In a modern context, we're still feeling the effects of slavery and the racial discrimination that followed. In my opinion, the best way to remedy the past is to educate everyone and raise awareness, but that's about as far as I'd like it to go. What happened in the past is inexcusable, but it is in the past and many, if not most of the people who suffered are no longer around and cannot be recompensed for their suffering.

 

All very good points. I think most people who are trying to "justify the times" are perhaps just playing devil's advocate though.

 

In my opinion (and from personal experience), this modern culture of affirmative action (special treatment for one race rather than class of people) to try and make the past right will only further divide everyone.

 

As for this part, definitely. It's just another form of racism/segregation/discrimination - no matter what the reason.

[Range_This11]

In my opinion (and from personal experience), this modern culture of affirmative action (special treatment for one race rather than class of people) to try and make the past right will only further divide everyone.

 

As for this part, definitely. It's just another form of racism/segregation/discrimination - no matter what the reason.

Surprisingly, the group of people that benefits most from Affirmative Action is white women.