Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Philosophers justifying slavery

Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 1:36:49 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

tl;dr
Many philosophers attempted to justify slavery not out of self-interest, but with honest intentions.

Aristotle believed people were naturally born slaves and naturally born non-slaves. Without masters, natural slaves wouldn't be able to run their own lives because they are naturally born incomplete, and lack the characteristics of the soul that could make them independent.

Plato thought it was better for the superior to rule over the inferior
"...nature herself intimates that it is just for the better to have more than the worse, the more powerful than the weaker; and in many ways she shows, among men as well as among animals, and indeed among whole cities and races, that justice consists in the superior ruling over and having more than the inferior."
-Plato, Gorgias

St. Augustine thought it was the natural result of sin in the world and, as a result, is an inevitable part of life.

Thomas Aquinas followed Aristotle mostly, arguing that men are naturally meant to lead and some to follow based on their naturally born intelligence. People are intended by nature to act as servants or masters. Aquinas does hold a higher value of slaves though, arguing that they have certain rights and that mercy to a slave is better than punishment.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 3:28:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 1:36:49 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

tl;dr
Many philosophers attempted to justify slavery not out of self-interest, but with honest intentions.

Aristotle believed people were naturally born slaves and naturally born non-slaves. Without masters, natural slaves wouldn't be able to run their own lives because they are naturally born incomplete, and lack the characteristics of the soul that could make them independent.

Plato thought it was better for the superior to rule over the inferior
"...nature herself intimates that it is just for the better to have more than the worse, the more powerful than the weaker; and in many ways she shows, among men as well as among animals, and indeed among whole cities and races, that justice consists in the superior ruling over and having more than the inferior."
-Plato, Gorgias

St. Augustine thought it was the natural result of sin in the world and, as a result, is an inevitable part of life.

Thomas Aquinas followed Aristotle mostly, arguing that men are naturally meant to lead and some to follow based on their naturally born intelligence. People are intended by nature to act as servants or masters. Aquinas does hold a higher value of slaves though, arguing that they have certain rights and that mercy to a slave is better than punishment.

The truth is any social system is manageable in the right hands. The only example I can think of right now is slavery in Israel"s beginnings was used to deal with criminals such as a thief would sever his victim for a set time to make restitution, or he could be sold into slavery to make restitution. There was also the recognition of as servant that when his service was complete he could opt to remain in his lord"s house hold. Maybe he sees he is better off there where he is rather than strike out in the world with nothing looking at starvation in the streets or he actually cares for his lord. Lord and servant isn"t intrinsically evil no more than guns are intrinsically evil. But the abuse and or miss use of a thing to the detriment of others causes the social change.

Its like saying no one should own a dog because some kick their dogs. But in the case like slavery society had to remove it do to the ramped cruelty that was created with it.

So no righteous execution of any system for the wellbeing of persons, need be justified.
oo00
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 4:46:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 1:36:49 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

tl;dr
Many philosophers attempted to justify slavery not out of self-interest, but with honest intentions.

Aristotle believed people were naturally born slaves and naturally born non-slaves. Without masters, natural slaves wouldn't be able to run their own lives because they are naturally born incomplete, and lack the characteristics of the soul that could make them independent.

Plato thought it was better for the superior to rule over the inferior
"...nature herself intimates that it is just for the better to have more than the worse, the more powerful than the weaker; and in many ways she shows, among men as well as among animals, and indeed among whole cities and races, that justice consists in the superior ruling over and having more than the inferior."
-Plato, Gorgias

St. Augustine thought it was the natural result of sin in the world and, as a result, is an inevitable part of life.

Thomas Aquinas followed Aristotle mostly, arguing that men are naturally meant to lead and some to follow based on their naturally born intelligence. People are intended by nature to act as servants or masters. Aquinas does hold a higher value of slaves though, arguing that they have certain rights and that mercy to a slave is better than punishment.: :

Our Creator chose all the leaders and followers in his program so Aristotle was correct to say that there are natural born slaves. Natural born slaves do not get ideas in their minds to build false gods but they do help build them with their human hands.

There are many slaves working for Apple Inc. today.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 5:21:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 3:05:21 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
What is wrong with slavery?

It violates an individual's autonomy and causes suffering on that individual. It also suggests a lower moral standard for that human being which cannot be justified
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 5:22:23 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 4:46:30 PM, oo00 wrote:
At 4/29/2016 1:36:49 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

tl;dr
Many philosophers attempted to justify slavery not out of self-interest, but with honest intentions.

Aristotle believed people were naturally born slaves and naturally born non-slaves. Without masters, natural slaves wouldn't be able to run their own lives because they are naturally born incomplete, and lack the characteristics of the soul that could make them independent.

Plato thought it was better for the superior to rule over the inferior
"...nature herself intimates that it is just for the better to have more than the worse, the more powerful than the weaker; and in many ways she shows, among men as well as among animals, and indeed among whole cities and races, that justice consists in the superior ruling over and having more than the inferior."
-Plato, Gorgias

St. Augustine thought it was the natural result of sin in the world and, as a result, is an inevitable part of life.

Thomas Aquinas followed Aristotle mostly, arguing that men are naturally meant to lead and some to follow based on their naturally born intelligence. People are intended by nature to act as servants or masters. Aquinas does hold a higher value of slaves though, arguing that they have certain rights and that mercy to a slave is better than punishment.: :

Our Creator chose all the leaders and followers in his program so Aristotle was correct to say that there are natural born slaves. Natural born slaves do not get ideas in their minds to build false gods but they do help build them with their human hands.

There are many slaves working for Apple Inc. today.

http://www.debate.org...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 5:25:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 3:28:42 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/29/2016 1:36:49 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

tl;dr
Many philosophers attempted to justify slavery not out of self-interest, but with honest intentions.

Aristotle believed people were naturally born slaves and naturally born non-slaves. Without masters, natural slaves wouldn't be able to run their own lives because they are naturally born incomplete, and lack the characteristics of the soul that could make them independent.

Plato thought it was better for the superior to rule over the inferior
"...nature herself intimates that it is just for the better to have more than the worse, the more powerful than the weaker; and in many ways she shows, among men as well as among animals, and indeed among whole cities and races, that justice consists in the superior ruling over and having more than the inferior."
-Plato, Gorgias

St. Augustine thought it was the natural result of sin in the world and, as a result, is an inevitable part of life.

Thomas Aquinas followed Aristotle mostly, arguing that men are naturally meant to lead and some to follow based on their naturally born intelligence. People are intended by nature to act as servants or masters. Aquinas does hold a higher value of slaves though, arguing that they have certain rights and that mercy to a slave is better than punishment.


The truth is any social system is manageable in the right hands. The only example I can think of right now is slavery in Israel"s beginnings was used to deal with criminals such as a thief would sever his victim for a set time to make restitution, or he could be sold into slavery to make restitution. There was also the recognition of as servant that when his service was complete he could opt to remain in his lord"s house hold. Maybe he sees he is better off there where he is rather than strike out in the world with nothing looking at starvation in the streets or he actually cares for his lord. Lord and servant isn"t intrinsically evil no more than guns are intrinsically evil. But the abuse and or miss use of a thing to the detriment of others causes the social change.

Its like saying no one should own a dog because some kick their dogs. But in the case like slavery society had to remove it do to the ramped cruelty that was created with it.

So no righteous execution of any system for the wellbeing of persons, need be justified.

It seems like you reject that slavery is inherently immoral. Slavery is inherently immoral because slavery necessitates treating the slave on a lower moral standard. This is because the definition of slavery is treating the being in question as property. Property does not have the same values a sentient being such as a human would have. This is obviously false beause the slave is still a human, and there is no justification for treating them on a lower moral family. They are just as sentient, they don't lack any inherent rationalization skills, they are morally-acting beings, have free-will. There is no justification for a lower moral family. Thus treating them as such becomes inherently immoral.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 5:50:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 1:36:49 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

tl;dr
Many philosophers attempted to justify slavery not out of self-interest, but with honest intentions.

Aristotle believed people were naturally born slaves and naturally born non-slaves. Without masters, natural slaves wouldn't be able to run their own lives because they are naturally born incomplete, and lack the characteristics of the soul that could make them independent.

Plato thought it was better for the superior to rule over the inferior
"...nature herself intimates that it is just for the better to have more than the worse, the more powerful than the weaker; and in many ways she shows, among men as well as among animals, and indeed among whole cities and races, that justice consists in the superior ruling over and having more than the inferior."
-Plato, Gorgias

St. Augustine thought it was the natural result of sin in the world and, as a result, is an inevitable part of life.

Thomas Aquinas followed Aristotle mostly, arguing that men are naturally meant to lead and some to follow based on their naturally born intelligence. People are intended by nature to act as servants or masters. Aquinas does hold a higher value of slaves though, arguing that they have certain rights and that mercy to a slave is better than punishment.

While I don't buy Aristotelian natural subordination and do not support slavery, I think these philosophers did have a point when they said that some people are born to lead and others to follow. It is clear that some people are wiser, have better leadership skills and possess greater political acumen, and thus are better qualified to take up the driving seat (or, to borrow Plato's analogy, assume the position of a ship's captain).
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 6:02:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 5:50:33 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 4/29/2016 1:36:49 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

tl;dr
Many philosophers attempted to justify slavery not out of self-interest, but with honest intentions.

Aristotle believed people were naturally born slaves and naturally born non-slaves. Without masters, natural slaves wouldn't be able to run their own lives because they are naturally born incomplete, and lack the characteristics of the soul that could make them independent.

Plato thought it was better for the superior to rule over the inferior
"...nature herself intimates that it is just for the better to have more than the worse, the more powerful than the weaker; and in many ways she shows, among men as well as among animals, and indeed among whole cities and races, that justice consists in the superior ruling over and having more than the inferior."
-Plato, Gorgias

St. Augustine thought it was the natural result of sin in the world and, as a result, is an inevitable part of life.

Thomas Aquinas followed Aristotle mostly, arguing that men are naturally meant to lead and some to follow based on their naturally born intelligence. People are intended by nature to act as servants or masters. Aquinas does hold a higher value of slaves though, arguing that they have certain rights and that mercy to a slave is better than punishment.

While I don't buy Aristotelian natural subordination and do not support slavery, I think these philosophers did have a point when they said that some people are born to lead and others to follow. It is clear that some people are wiser, have better leadership skills and possess greater political acumen, and thus are better qualified to take up the driving seat (or, to borrow Plato's analogy, assume the position of a ship's captain).

Not necessarily, most of this comes from upbringing, not genetic inherence if thats what you are talking about. This creates an illusion of that idea though, because those born into slavery won't have the upbringing to become a "leader" and those born into slave owners have the upbringing to becomes that leader. Although genes play some role, the majority of it is environment
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 6:10:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 6:02:41 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 5:50:33 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 4/29/2016 1:36:49 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

tl;dr
Many philosophers attempted to justify slavery not out of self-interest, but with honest intentions.

Aristotle believed people were naturally born slaves and naturally born non-slaves. Without masters, natural slaves wouldn't be able to run their own lives because they are naturally born incomplete, and lack the characteristics of the soul that could make them independent.

Plato thought it was better for the superior to rule over the inferior
"...nature herself intimates that it is just for the better to have more than the worse, the more powerful than the weaker; and in many ways she shows, among men as well as among animals, and indeed among whole cities and races, that justice consists in the superior ruling over and having more than the inferior."
-Plato, Gorgias

St. Augustine thought it was the natural result of sin in the world and, as a result, is an inevitable part of life.

Thomas Aquinas followed Aristotle mostly, arguing that men are naturally meant to lead and some to follow based on their naturally born intelligence. People are intended by nature to act as servants or masters. Aquinas does hold a higher value of slaves though, arguing that they have certain rights and that mercy to a slave is better than punishment.

While I don't buy Aristotelian natural subordination and do not support slavery, I think these philosophers did have a point when they said that some people are born to lead and others to follow. It is clear that some people are wiser, have better leadership skills and possess greater political acumen, and thus are better qualified to take up the driving seat (or, to borrow Plato's analogy, assume the position of a ship's captain).

Not necessarily, most of this comes from upbringing, not genetic inherence if thats what you are talking about. This creates an illusion of that idea though, because those born into slavery won't have the upbringing to become a "leader" and those born into slave owners have the upbringing to becomes that leader. Although genes play some role, the majority of it is environment
https://en.wikipedia.org...
With all due respect, I think you misread the lead section of the article. It says that the significance of environmental factors dissipates as one enters middle age (which presumably is the age when people are fit to rule). Even in childhood, genetic factors account for 20-40% of the variance in intelligence, which is quite practically significant.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
ViceRegent
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 8:17:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 5:21:41 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 3:05:21 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
What is wrong with slavery?

It violates an individual's autonomy and causes suffering on that individual. It also suggests a lower moral standard for that human being which cannot be justified

So what?
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 8:50:12 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 8:17:51 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/1/2016 5:21:41 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 3:05:21 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
What is wrong with slavery?

It violates an individual's autonomy and causes suffering on that individual. It also suggests a lower moral standard for that human being which cannot be justified

So what?

Suffering is inherently immoral
ViceRegent
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 8:56:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 8:50:12 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 8:17:51 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/1/2016 5:21:41 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 3:05:21 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
What is wrong with slavery?

It violates an individual's autonomy and causes suffering on that individual. It also suggests a lower moral standard for that human being which cannot be justified

So what?

Suffering is inherently immoral

Says who? And what you say is "suffering", a slavemaster may say is justice and/or for the well-being of the slave. Who says you are right and not him?
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 8:57:39 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 8:56:14 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/1/2016 8:50:12 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 8:17:51 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/1/2016 5:21:41 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 3:05:21 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
What is wrong with slavery?

It violates an individual's autonomy and causes suffering on that individual. It also suggests a lower moral standard for that human being which cannot be justified

So what?

Suffering is inherently immoral

Says who? And what you say is "suffering", a slavemaster may say is justice and/or for the well-being of the slave. Who says you are right and not him?

Common sense. The slavemaster is objectively wrong because more sufferng isn't prevented by the slave suffering
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 8:57:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I can easily justify making convicted felons slaves during their term of incarceration. It's a no brainier to me. If they have time to sit in a cell 23 hours a day they have time to work ten hours a day 6 days week picking up garbage and painting over graffiti and a million other things that need done. Oh what if they escape. Well they already do escape. Simple, any attempt at escape means being shot on site. No trial. Shot on site where ever they stand. End of story. There is no perfect safe anything.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
ViceRegent
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 9:04:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 8:57:39 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 8:56:14 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/1/2016 8:50:12 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 8:17:51 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/1/2016 5:21:41 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 3:05:21 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
What is wrong with slavery?

It violates an individual's autonomy and causes suffering on that individual. It also suggests a lower moral standard for that human being which cannot be justified

So what?

Suffering is inherently immoral

Says who? And what you say is "suffering", a slavemaster may say is justice and/or for the well-being of the slave. Who says you are right and not him?

Common sense. The slavemaster is objectively wrong because more sufferng isn't prevented by the slave suffering

"Common sense" is the refuge for the man who has no argument. And where did you get the silly idea in the second sentence? You have to do better than this if you want to be taken seriously as a moral philosopher.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 11:58:11 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 9:04:07 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/1/2016 8:57:39 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 8:56:14 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/1/2016 8:50:12 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 8:17:51 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/1/2016 5:21:41 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 3:05:21 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
What is wrong with slavery?

It violates an individual's autonomy and causes suffering on that individual. It also suggests a lower moral standard for that human being which cannot be justified

So what?

Suffering is inherently immoral

Says who? And what you say is "suffering", a slavemaster may say is justice and/or for the well-being of the slave. Who says you are right and not him?

Common sense. The slavemaster is objectively wrong because more sufferng isn't prevented by the slave suffering

"Common sense" is the refuge for the man who has no argument. And where did you get the silly idea in the second sentence? You have to do better than this if you want to be taken seriously as a moral philosopher.

Some things are universal truths. If not, we could not conclude anything as true.
ViceRegent
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 12:00:53 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 11:58:11 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 9:04:07 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/1/2016 8:57:39 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 8:56:14 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/1/2016 8:50:12 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 8:17:51 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/1/2016 5:21:41 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 3:05:21 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
What is wrong with slavery?

It violates an individual's autonomy and causes suffering on that individual. It also suggests a lower moral standard for that human being which cannot be justified

So what?

Suffering is inherently immoral

Says who? And what you say is "suffering", a slavemaster may say is justice and/or for the well-being of the slave. Who says you are right and not him?

Common sense. The slavemaster is objectively wrong because more sufferng isn't prevented by the slave suffering

"Common sense" is the refuge for the man who has no argument. And where did you get the silly idea in the second sentence? You have to do better than this if you want to be taken seriously as a moral philosopher.

Some things are universal truths. If not, we could not conclude anything as true.

Let us assume that is true. How do you know this is one of those truths?
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 1:09:46 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 12:00:53 AM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/1/2016 11:58:11 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 9:04:07 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/1/2016 8:57:39 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 8:56:14 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/1/2016 8:50:12 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 8:17:51 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/1/2016 5:21:41 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 3:05:21 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
What is wrong with slavery?

It violates an individual's autonomy and causes suffering on that individual. It also suggests a lower moral standard for that human being which cannot be justified

So what?

Suffering is inherently immoral

Says who? And what you say is "suffering", a slavemaster may say is justice and/or for the well-being of the slave. Who says you are right and not him?

Common sense. The slavemaster is objectively wrong because more sufferng isn't prevented by the slave suffering

"Common sense" is the refuge for the man who has no argument. And where did you get the silly idea in the second sentence? You have to do better than this if you want to be taken seriously as a moral philosopher.

Some things are universal truths. If not, we could not conclude anything as true.

Let us assume that is true. How do you know this is one of those truths?

You should go here
http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 8:53:18 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 1:09:46 AM, Hayd wrote:
You should go here
http://www.debate.org...

He's defending moral nihilism...it isn't a very controversial viewpoint, so directing him to the Religion forum is mean, lol.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ViceRegent
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 9:01:31 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 1:09:46 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/2/2016 12:00:53 AM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/1/2016 11:58:11 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 9:04:07 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/1/2016 8:57:39 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 8:56:14 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/1/2016 8:50:12 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 8:17:51 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/1/2016 5:21:41 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/1/2016 3:05:21 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
What is wrong with slavery?

It violates an individual's autonomy and causes suffering on that individual. It also suggests a lower moral standard for that human being which cannot be justified

So what?

Suffering is inherently immoral

Says who? And what you say is "suffering", a slavemaster may say is justice and/or for the well-being of the slave. Who says you are right and not him?

Common sense. The slavemaster is objectively wrong because more sufferng isn't prevented by the slave suffering

"Common sense" is the refuge for the man who has no argument. And where did you get the silly idea in the second sentence? You have to do better than this if you want to be taken seriously as a moral philosopher.

Some things are universal truths. If not, we could not conclude anything as true.

Let us assume that is true. How do you know this is one of those truths?

You should go here
http://www.debate.org...

You should answer my Q.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 9:29:23 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
If the evil of slavery is a universal truth then how did Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas not see it that way?
Of course the sort of slavery Plato and Aristotle knew was relatively benign. Athenian slaves were not dehumanised. It is not automatic that their acceptance of the Greek model of slavery means they would see nothing wrong in the form of slavery practiced in the plantations of the old South or in the rocket factories of Peenemunde.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 1:20:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 8:53:18 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/2/2016 1:09:46 AM, Hayd wrote:
You should go here
http://www.debate.org...

He's defending moral nihilism...it isn't a very controversial viewpoint, so directing him to the Religion forum is mean, lol.

He's denying that suffering is inherently bad. And he's not advocating any kind of solipsism or anything
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 1:23:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 1:20:45 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/2/2016 8:53:18 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/2/2016 1:09:46 AM, Hayd wrote:
You should go here
http://www.debate.org...

He's defending moral nihilism...it isn't a very controversial viewpoint, so directing him to the Religion forum is mean, lol.

He's denying that suffering is inherently bad. And he's not advocating any kind of solipsism or anything

Why do you consider suffering "inherently bad"? I mean, I agree... but doesn't mean it's an indefensible position to not consider it bad. That's why moral nihilism is a sound position.

Anyone who advocates "solipsism" should be in the Religion forum. :P
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 1:35:36 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 1:23:09 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/2/2016 1:20:45 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/2/2016 8:53:18 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/2/2016 1:09:46 AM, Hayd wrote:
You should go here
http://www.debate.org...

He's defending moral nihilism...it isn't a very controversial viewpoint, so directing him to the Religion forum is mean, lol.

He's denying that suffering is inherently bad. And he's not advocating any kind of solipsism or anything

Why do you consider suffering "inherently bad"? I mean, I agree... but doesn't mean it's an indefensible position to not consider it bad. That's why moral nihilism is a sound position.

Meh I find it a truism. Don't know how you could really argue about it

Anyone who advocates "solipsism" should be in the Religion forum. :P

How would you define solipsism?
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 1:37:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 1:35:36 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/2/2016 1:23:09 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/2/2016 1:20:45 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/2/2016 8:53:18 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/2/2016 1:09:46 AM, Hayd wrote:
You should go here
http://www.debate.org...

He's defending moral nihilism...it isn't a very controversial viewpoint, so directing him to the Religion forum is mean, lol.

He's denying that suffering is inherently bad. And he's not advocating any kind of solipsism or anything

Why do you consider suffering "inherently bad"? I mean, I agree... but doesn't mean it's an indefensible position to not consider it bad. That's why moral nihilism is a sound position.

Meh I find it a truism. Don't know how you could really argue about it

I mean, I think it's "undesirable"... Question is whether "undesirable" entails "bad."

Anyone who advocates "solipsism" should be in the Religion forum. :P

How would you define solipsism?

The idea that "only one's mind exists and the world and other minds do not exist."
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 1:52:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 1:37:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/2/2016 1:35:36 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/2/2016 1:23:09 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/2/2016 1:20:45 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/2/2016 8:53:18 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/2/2016 1:09:46 AM, Hayd wrote:
You should go here
http://www.debate.org...

He's defending moral nihilism...it isn't a very controversial viewpoint, so directing him to the Religion forum is mean, lol.

He's denying that suffering is inherently bad. And he's not advocating any kind of solipsism or anything

Why do you consider suffering "inherently bad"? I mean, I agree... but doesn't mean it's an indefensible position to not consider it bad. That's why moral nihilism is a sound position.

Meh I find it a truism. Don't know how you could really argue about it

I mean, I think it's "undesirable"... Question is whether "undesirable" entails "bad."

If you define bad as,
"not such as to be hoped for or desired; unpleasant or unwelcome." Google

Anyone who advocates "solipsism" should be in the Religion forum. :P

How would you define solipsism?

The idea that "only one's mind exists and the world and other minds do not exist."

Nope,
"the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist" Google

Solipsism does not lie in nothing but the self exists, it lies in thy only the self can be *known* to exist. All else is assumptions
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 1:54:03 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 1:52:54 PM, Hayd wrote:
Solipsism does not lie in nothing but the self exists, it lies in thy only the self can be *known* to exist. All else is assumptions

I was referring to metaphysical solipsism.

"As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist."

https://en.wikipedia.org...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 3:00:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 1:54:03 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/2/2016 1:52:54 PM, Hayd wrote:
Solipsism does not lie in nothing but the self exists, it lies in thy only the self can be *known* to exist. All else is assumptions

I was referring to metaphysical solipsism.

"As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist."

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Ah, I don't subscribe to that. And I agree, that's not a reasonable position, although it's an interesting concept
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 4:10:43 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 5:25:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 3:28:42 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/29/2016 1:36:49 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

tl;dr
Many philosophers attempted to justify slavery not out of self-interest, but with honest intentions.

Aristotle believed people were naturally born slaves and naturally born non-slaves. Without masters, natural slaves wouldn't be able to run their own lives because they are naturally born incomplete, and lack the characteristics of the soul that could make them independent.

Plato thought it was better for the superior to rule over the inferior
"...nature herself intimates that it is just for the better to have more than the worse, the more powerful than the weaker; and in many ways she shows, among men as well as among animals, and indeed among whole cities and races, that justice consists in the superior ruling over and having more than the inferior."
-Plato, Gorgias

St. Augustine thought it was the natural result of sin in the world and, as a result, is an inevitable part of life.

Thomas Aquinas followed Aristotle mostly, arguing that men are naturally meant to lead and some to follow based on their naturally born intelligence. People are intended by nature to act as servants or masters. Aquinas does hold a higher value of slaves though, arguing that they have certain rights and that mercy to a slave is better than punishment.


The truth is any social system is manageable in the right hands. The only example I can think of right now is slavery in Israel"s beginnings was used to deal with criminals such as a thief would sever his victim for a set time to make restitution, or he could be sold into slavery to make restitution. There was also the recognition of as servant that when his service was complete he could opt to remain in his lord"s house hold. Maybe he sees he is better off there where he is rather than strike out in the world with nothing looking at starvation in the streets or he actually cares for his lord. Lord and servant isn"t intrinsically evil no more than guns are intrinsically evil. But the abuse and or miss use of a thing to the detriment of others causes the social change.

Its like saying no one should own a dog because some kick their dogs. But in the case like slavery society had to remove it do to the ramped cruelty that was created with it.

So no righteous execution of any system for the wellbeing of persons, need be justified.

It seems like you reject that slavery is inherently immoral. Slavery is inherently immoral because slavery necessitates treating the slave on a lower moral standard.

No it doesn"t, that"s on the owner or the slave"s lord. In capitalism most poor slobs go to work every day to be treated with the same distain by their employers bosslings. You"re talking about the integrity of the owner not the morals of whether slaver in and of itself is evil.

This is because the definition of slavery is treating the being in question as property. Property does not have the same values a sentient being such as a human would have. This is obviously false beause the slave is still a human, and there is no justification for treating them on a lower moral family. They are just as sentient, they don't lack any inherent rationalization skills, they are morally-acting beings, have free-will. There is no justification for a lower moral family. Thus treating them as such becomes inherently immoral.

again your assumptions are based on your judgements according to what you've been told, of the few owners, and not the many over the centuries, you've never met. in societies not like the ones of today.

the slavery issue didn't come to a head in the US until the southerner started storming homes in the north in the name of recovering slaves. of which was immoral in those states that did not maintain any right to slavery or owning people.

if a society agrees that there shall be no slavery within their borders, then it becomes immoral for those who are within the said borders to own slaves. otherwise it's not intrinsically evil, no more than killing is intrinsically evil. it's not about what is within a man's reach to do, it's what he does with it within the context of those he is in agreement with, that determines whether something is immoral or not.