@HTMKSlave-Owner: There is never a case when human slavery is acceptable. You would really sacrafice someone else's freedom to save your skin?
You assume I am speaking from the point of view of the slave owner and not the slave. If you were given two options, death or slavery which would you choose?
So there is nothing worth dying for?
Yes, some things are worth dieing for. The hard part is figuring out which ones. If you and your spouse were on a lifeboat with your six children and one of you had to die so that the others could live how would you decide who would die?
I'm interested in whether we may still say something is "wrong" with any certainty in the face of relativism. Based on what he wrote, it sounds to me like Steve doesn't find anything wrong with slavery except for slave abuse. Can anyone say that's "wrong", or are we constrained by relativism to say, "Well, maybe in Steve's society, slavery is okay, so we shouldn't judge him or his society by our standards"?
I never said I saw nothing wrong with it. I simply stated that it could be seen as moral or acceptable in some situations (note I did not say what I thought of slavery.) Has no one ever heard of Oskar Schindler? Would you consider what he did to be moral, immoral or acceptable?
@HTMKSlave-Owner: There is never a case when human slavery is acceptable. You would really sacrafice someone else's freedom to save your skin?
You assume I am speaking from the point of view of the slave owner and not the slave. If you were given two options, death or slavery which would you choose?
Death.
Mrs. Macross didn't assume anything. Your post was written so poorly that it was really difficult to tell what you were talking about.
Based on what he wrote, it sounds to me like Steve doesn't find anything wrong with slavery except for slave abuse. Can anyone say that's "wrong", or are we constrained by relativism to say, "Well, maybe in Steve's society, slavery is okay, so we shouldn't judge him or his society by our standards"?
I never said I saw nothing wrong with it. I simply stated that it could be seen as moral or acceptable in some situations
Please give examples of situations in which you believe slavery "could be seen as moral or acceptable".
I think Steve is saying is that he wants to be my slave, as long as I don't abuse him. I will glady accept his offer. He can haev food, a bed, and a pot to piss in. He won't be paid, of course, or be allowed to travel freely. He'll also be forced to work 12 hours a day to earn his food and shelter, but it's ok because that's what he wants.
No gay sex? You're disappointing your yaoi fangirls, Scott.
Please give examples of situations in which you believe slavery "could be seen as moral or acceptable".
I am not pro slavery but:
Imagine you've lived 40 years with slaves in your house, your neighbors have slaves, your neighboring countries have slaves, its been like that for centuries, so all but one country that abolished it back in the day, would you, with the mentality of a person living in that reality would consider it moral to have slaves? I just point this out because some of the countries that still have slaves or female mutilation etc. are pretty much isolated from the rest of the world, for them, its that same situation, and until now, some strangers from far away come and say you are wrong, what would you think?
I think Steve is saying is that he wants to be my slave, as long as I don't abuse him. I will glady accept his offer. He can haev food, a bed, and a pot to piss in. He won't be paid, of course, or be allowed to travel freely. He'll also be forced to work 12 hours a day to earn his food and shelter, but it's ok because that's what he wants.
No gay sex? You're disappointing your yaoi fangirls, Scott.
Oh, I think there'll be lots of the gay sex. I predict a future life for Steve somewhat similar to that of The Gimp. I don't think Scott will be benevolent enough to treat him like Mr. Slave.
Please give examples of situations in which you believe slavery "could be seen as moral or acceptable".
Did you read all of my post? Did you not see the name Oskar Schindler at the end?
Yes, I saw that, and I don't quite get the connection. Did Oskar Schindler own slaves?
Please give examples of situations in which you believe slavery "could be seen as moral or acceptable".
I am not pro slavery but:
Imagine you've lived 40 years with slaves in your house, your neighbors have slaves, your neighboring countries have slaves, its been like that for centuries, so all but one country that abolished it back in the day, would you, with the mentality of a person living in that reality would consider it moral to have slaves? I just point this out because some of the countries that still have slaves or female mutilation etc. are pretty much isolated from the rest of the world, for them, its that same situation, and until now, some strangers from far away come and say you are wrong, what would you think?
I would think that I'm relieved I now know a better way and I don't have to stand for those shenanigans any longer.
An opportunistic businessman, Schindler was one of many who sought to profit from the German invasion of Poland in 1939. He gained ownership of an idle enamelware factory in Kraków from a bankruptcy court, and renamed the factory Deutsche Emaillewaren-Fabrik, or DEF. With the help of his Jewish accountant Itzhak Stern he obtained around 1,000 Jewish slave labourers to work there.
Oskar Schindler You've never heard of the movie Schindler's List?
I find it funny that you think you have tell me who Schindler was. I know who Schindler was. I also know that he did not own those "slaves", that those "slaves" were not really given the choice to die or be slaves as you posited, and that, technically, they weren't "slaves". Furthermore, I wouldn't put him forward as an example of how slavery can be moral or acceptable.
Please explain me how Schindler proves your contention that slavery can be moral or acceptable.
PS: please stop editing your posts for content after you post them. It causes much confusion and breaks the continuity of the discussion. Editing for spelling is fine.
Please. They were unfortunate enough to be caught up in the camps. They were used for labor. That doesn't make them slaves. Schindler didn't own them.
What Schindler did was highly moral. However, he did not do it because of the institution of slavery. You're very confused. Just sit for a moment and think about it, then write and explain why you think Schindler is proof that the institution of slavery is moral or acceptable.
Please. They were unfortunate enough to be caught up in the camps. They were used for labor. That doesn't make them slaves. Schindler didn't own them.
What Schindler did was highly moral. However, he did not do it because of the institution of slavery. You're very confused. Just sit for a moment and think about it, then write and explain why you think Schindler is proof that the institution of slavery is moral or acceptable.
Slave - A person who is held in bondage to another; one who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who is held as a chattel; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another.
Are you saying they were not slaves? Are you saying that Schindler did not use slavery in a moral manner?
I would think that I'm relieved I now know a better way and I don't have to stand for those shenanigans any longer.
It's not that simple, you are failing to see the picture by carrying over your current set of morality and standards to the fictitious slave owner. I'm pretty sure you'd scoff at them and say that it's been like that for centuries, etc. The slaves on the other hand, would probably like the idea though and with time would probably rebel, etc. But you the slave owner would probably die of age still thinking that having slaves is not morally wrong.
Steve. Think for a moment. You said that slavery could be acceptable or moral. That's an extraordinary statement. You need some extraordinary proof. Once more - you're arguing FOR slavery. Do you think you will win this argument? Everyone in the United States disagrees with you. Think about that before you get into one of these deals where nothing anyone else says can get you to accept that you're wrong. You've already made some pretty inflammatory statements. Think before you dig yourself a deeper hole.
Now to Schindler: You have to stretch the definition of "slave" quite a bit to call Schindler's charges slaves. If you want to be that loose with the definition, any person serving a prison sentence is a slave. However, even if we allow that they were slaves, Schindler's actions were taken in spite of their status, and used to subvert the system that made them slaves. Try to appreciate the distinction. You said that Schindler proves that slavery is moral or acceptable, but his actions were not taken to further slavery, or because he owned slaves.
I would think that I'm relieved I now know a better way and I don't have to stand for those shenanigans any longer.
It's not that simple, you are failing to see the picture by carrying over your current set of morality and standards to the fictitious slave owner. I'm pretty sure you'd scoff at them and say that it's been like that for centuries, etc. The slaves on the other hand, would probably like the idea though and with time would probably rebel, etc. But you the slave owner would probably die of age still thinking that having slaves is not morally wrong.
I'm not failing to see the picture at all. There would probably be people that you describe. However, there would also be people willing to embrace the new way. I like to think that I would be one of those.
Actually, in the land you describe, it would be highly unlikely that I would be a slaveowner. Knowing my luck in life, I would probably be one of the slaves.
Now to Schindler: You have to stretch the definition of "slave" quite a bit to call Schindler's charges slaves. If you want to be that loose with the definition, any person serving a prison sentence is a slave. However, even if we allow that they were slaves, Schindler's actions were taken in spite of their status, and used to subvert the system that made them slaves. Try to appreciate the distinction. You said that Schindler proves that slavery is moral or acceptable. His actions were not taken to further slavery, or because he owned slaves.
I never said I saw nothing wrong with it. I simply stated that it could be seen as moral or acceptable in some situations (note I did not say what I thought of slavery.) Has no one ever heard of Oskar Schindler? Would you consider what he did to be moral, immoral or acceptable?
I did not say that Schindler proves slavery to be moral or acceptable. I merely pointed out that Schindler used slavery to achieve a moral end. I consider his use of slavery to be acceptable. The treatment of his slaves is immaterial here, as far as Germany was concerned he owned those people as slaves.
You can not equate being a prisoner to being a slave. A prisoner still has rights (at least in our country they do) and their incarceration is due to something they did. A slave does not become a slave because of something they did but because of something someone else did to them.
I'm going to stop you right there and, out of pity, allow you to try and back out. Remember, you're taking up an argument IN FAVOR of slavery. Qualify it however much you want, you're still trying to justify slavery. That's pretty extreme, even for you. If I were you, I'd quit now.
You can not equate being a prisoner to being a slave. A prisoner still has rights (at least in our country they do) and their incarceration is due to something they did. A slave does not become a slave because of something they did but because of something someone else did to them.
None of these qualifications appear anywhere in the definition you provided.
I did not say that Schindler proves slavery to be moral or acceptable.
This is what you said:
I simply stated that it could be seen as moral or acceptable in some situations (note I did not say what I thought of slavery.) Has no one ever heard of Oskar Schindler?
Seems to me like you're putting Schindler forward as proof that slavery is moral or acceptable.
Allow me to give Steve yet another out, because really, he's going to need like a thousand to dig himself out of the hole he put himself in.
We have prisons. In some of those prisons, the prisoners are made to do labor. It could be a chain gang cleaning the highway. It could be stamping license plates. Is that not forced labor, and therefore slavery? Just because these people have broken the law, does that mean we are now free to forget our morals when dealing with them? If killing is morally wrong, or slavery is morally wrong, why is it not morally wrong with it's a convicted criminal being killed or enslaved?
I'm going to stop you right there and, out of pity, allow you to try and back out. Remember, you're taking up an argument IN FAVOR of slavery. Qualify it however much you want, you're still trying to justify slavery. That's pretty extreme, even for you. If I were you I'd quit now.
I am not justifying slavery as a whole, only in certain circumstances
You can not equate being a prisoner to being a slave. A prisoner still has rights (at least in our country they do) and their incarceration is due to something they did. A slave does not become a slave because of something they did but because of something someone else did to them.
None of these qualifications appear anywhere in the definition you provided.
As a lawyer I assumed you knew the definition of the word "prisoner". But, since you don't seem to know I'll post it here:
Prisoner 1. One who is confined in a prison. --Piers Plowman.
2. A person under arrest, or in custody, whether in prison or not; a person held in involuntary restraint; a captive; as, a prisoner at the bar of a court. --Bouvier.
I did not say that Schindler proves slavery to be moral or acceptable.
This is what you said:
I simply stated that it could be seen as moral or acceptable in some situations (note I did not say what I thought of slavery.) Has no one ever heard of Oskar Schindler?
Seems to me like you're putting Schindler forward as proof that slavery is moral or acceptable.
I have put forward Schindler as proof that some things (as immoral or unacceptable as they may be) can be acceptable under the right circumstances. You are drawing a conclusion that I did not make.
I am not justifying slavery as a whole, only in certain circumstances
You just won't stop, will you? Read what you just wrote. You wrote that you think slavery is justified in "certain circumstances". What circumstances would those be, pray tell?
You have actually, firmly placed yourself on the side of slavery. From now on, we'll all know that you are pro-slavery. That's pretty amazing, and not a very auspicious addition to your credibility.
Your refusal to admit you're wrong has now landed you on the same side of the slavery issue as Simon Legree. I hope you're proud.
I don't even care about the prisoner/slave distinction anymore. Scott explained it so that anyone can understand it. Have you read what Scott wrote? The problem, though, is that you won't read it to understand it. You'll just try and find some way to argue with it.
I am not justifying slavery as a whole, only in certain circumstances
You just won't stop, will you? Read what you just wrote. You wrote that you think slavery is justified in "certain circumstances". What circumstances would those be, pray tell?
You have actually, firmly placed yourself on the side of slavery. From now on, we'll all know that you are pro-slavery. That's pretty amazing, and not a very auspicious addition to your credibility.
Your refusal to admit you're wrong has now landed you on the same side of the slavery issue as Simon Legree. I hope you're proud.
I don't even care about the prisoner/slave distinction anymore. Scott explained it so that anyone can understand it. Have you read what Scott wrote? The problem, though, is that you won't read it to understand it. You'll just try and find some way to argue with it.
Again you put words in my mouth. I have not stated that I am pro-slavery. What I have done is point out an instance where slavery was used for good. Oskar Schindler used slavery to save people, even you agreed that what he did was good.
You can twist my words until the cows come home but you have already agreed with me. If Oskar Schindler were not able to buy those people as slaves he would not have been able to save them. That is my "certain circumstances".
No, I haven't put words in your mouth. This is what you said:
I am not justifying slavery as a whole, only in certain circumstances
Qualify it all you want. The plain language of that sentence means that you find slavery justified in certain circumstances. That means that you think that slavery is sometimes okay. That means that you are pro-slavery.
Oskar Schindler used slavery to save people
That demonstrates a sad, sad misunderstanding. Saying that he "used slavery to save people" is equivalent to saying he "used" the concentration camp system "to save people", or that he "used" Nazism "to save people". What he did was in spite of the system, not because of it.
Please explain how you think he used slavery to save people.
If Oskar Schindler were not able to buy those people as slaves he would not have been able to save them. That is my "certain circumstances".
Then your "certain circumstances" fail as extraordinary proof. You have not proven that Schindler bought any slaves, or that Schindler was a slaveholder, or that Schindler's actions came about as a result of the institution of slavery, or that, but for the institution of slavery, Schindler would not have been able to pursue his course of action, or, really, that Schindler's people were even slaves except in the loosest possible sense of the word.
Actually, go back to that definition you posted. I'd hazard that, under that definition, minor children would be classified as slaves.
But if a usually immoral action, could be used for good, can you say that it is inherently wrong? If by taking a slave you would save hundreds of lives (as ridiculous a hypothetical as that is) would it be wrong to do so?
But if a usually immoral action,couldbe used for good, can you say that it is inherently wrong? If by taking a slave you would save hundreds of lives (as ridiculous a hypothetical as that is) would it be wrong to do so?
Explain how such a situation could arise in reality. Just so you're clear, some guy coming up to you and saying, "Hey, if you don't take a slave, I'm gonna kill a hundred guys" does not happen in reality.
Explain how such a situation could arise in reality. Just so you're clear, some guy coming up to you and saying, "Hey, if you don't take a slave, I'm gonna kill a hundred guys" is not reality.
Also, if it were reality, there would be plenty of other choices besides taking the slave or not taking the slave.
Cute hypothetical moral dilemmas are fun to think about, and good for ethics class, but they really don't mean anything. Actual moral codes are built upon assumptions that we are living in the real world. If you create a hypothetical fantasy world, it is obvious that those same moral rules will not be able to stand up. In such a world, people would have different moral codes. I mean, just imagine how morals would change if we discovered a hole in the laws of thermodynamics, or really learned how the brain works.
Explain how such a situation could arise in reality. Just so you're clear, some guy coming up to you and saying, "Hey, if you don't take a slave, I'm gonna kill a hundred guys" is not reality.
Also, if it were reality, there would be plenty of other choices besides taking the slave or not taking the slave.
Cute hypothetical moral dilemmas are fun to think about, and good for ethics class, but they really don't mean anything. Actual moral codes are built upon assumptions that we are living in the real world. If you create a hypothetical fantasy world, it is obvious that those same moral rules will not be able to stand up. In such a world, people would have different moral codes. I mean, just imagine how morals would change if we discovered a hole in the laws of thermodynamics, or really learned how the brain works.
This is exactly what I said yesterday. Here-here, Mr. Rubin!
If you were arguing that there is no reasonable reason why we should tolerate or condone slavery, or any of the other things you mentioned at the beginning of this thread, then I agree with you completely. But you are arguing moral absolutism, meaning the act is inherently wrong regardless of any ramifications, good or bad. If you actually believe that, then I should not be able to come up a hypothetical in which you would say that taking a slave was the best course of action.
If you were arguing that there is no reasonable reason why we should tolerate or condone slavery, or any of the other things you mentioned at the beginning of this thread, then I agree with you completely. But you are arguing moral absolutism, meaning the act is inherently wrong regardless of any ramifications, good or bad. If you actually believe that, then I should not be able to come up a hypothetical in which you would say that taking a slave was the best course of action.
That only holds true if your hypothetical fits into reality. Since the morals of no slavery are only absolute in the real universe. If you create some other universe that follows different rules, then of course morals will be different. If you want to make a hypothetical, then it has to follow all the rules of the real world, thus allowing me to choose between any realistic alternative option I can think of, instead of arbitrarily limiting me.
The human imagination can come up with all sorts of crazy hypotheticals. I can say, "What would happen if I did a backflip and crawled up my own arsehole?" The mere fact that I can imagine it doesn't mean it's not impossible or not inherently wrong.
Comments
Mrs. Macross didn't assume anything. Your post was written so poorly that it was really difficult to tell what you were talking about. Please give examples of situations in which you believe slavery "could be seen as moral or acceptable".
Imagine you've lived 40 years with slaves in your house, your neighbors have slaves, your neighboring countries have slaves, its been like that for centuries, so all but one country that abolished it back in the day, would you, with the mentality of a person living in that reality would consider it moral to have slaves? I just point this out because some of the countries that still have slaves or female mutilation etc. are pretty much isolated from the rest of the world, for them, its that same situation, and until now, some strangers from far away come and say you are wrong, what would you think?
You've never heard of the movie Schindler's List?
Please explain me how Schindler proves your contention that slavery can be moral or acceptable.
PS: please stop editing your posts for content after you post them. It causes much confusion and breaks the continuity of the discussion. Editing for spelling is fine.
What Schindler did was highly moral. However, he did not do it because of the institution of slavery. You're very confused. Just sit for a moment and think about it, then write and explain why you think Schindler is proof that the institution of slavery is moral or acceptable.
Are you saying they were not slaves? Are you saying that Schindler did not use slavery in a moral manner?
Now to Schindler: You have to stretch the definition of "slave" quite a bit to call Schindler's charges slaves. If you want to be that loose with the definition, any person serving a prison sentence is a slave. However, even if we allow that they were slaves, Schindler's actions were taken in spite of their status, and used to subvert the system that made them slaves. Try to appreciate the distinction. You said that Schindler proves that slavery is moral or acceptable, but his actions were not taken to further slavery, or because he owned slaves. I'm not failing to see the picture at all. There would probably be people that you describe. However, there would also be people willing to embrace the new way. I like to think that I would be one of those.
Actually, in the land you describe, it would be highly unlikely that I would be a slaveowner. Knowing my luck in life, I would probably be one of the slaves.
You can not equate being a prisoner to being a slave. A prisoner still has rights (at least in our country they do) and their incarceration is due to something they did. A slave does not become a slave because of something they did but because of something someone else did to them.
We have prisons. In some of those prisons, the prisoners are made to do labor. It could be a chain gang cleaning the highway. It could be stamping license plates. Is that not forced labor, and therefore slavery? Just because these people have broken the law, does that mean we are now free to forget our morals when dealing with them? If killing is morally wrong, or slavery is morally wrong, why is it not morally wrong with it's a convicted criminal being killed or enslaved?
Prisoner
1. One who is confined in a prison. --Piers Plowman.
2. A person under arrest, or in custody, whether in prison or not; a person held in involuntary restraint; a captive; as, a prisoner at the bar of a court. --Bouvier. I have put forward Schindler as proof that some things (as immoral or unacceptable as they may be) can be acceptable under the right circumstances. You are drawing a conclusion that I did not make.
You have actually, firmly placed yourself on the side of slavery. From now on, we'll all know that you are pro-slavery. That's pretty amazing, and not a very auspicious addition to your credibility.
Your refusal to admit you're wrong has now landed you on the same side of the slavery issue as Simon Legree. I hope you're proud.
I don't even care about the prisoner/slave distinction anymore. Scott explained it so that anyone can understand it. Have you read what Scott wrote? The problem, though, is that you won't read it to understand it. You'll just try and find some way to argue with it.
You can twist my words until the cows come home but you have already agreed with me. If Oskar Schindler were not able to buy those people as slaves he would not have been able to save them. That is my "certain circumstances".
Please explain how you think he used slavery to save people. Then your "certain circumstances" fail as extraordinary proof. You have not proven that Schindler bought any slaves, or that Schindler was a slaveholder, or that Schindler's actions came about as a result of the institution of slavery, or that, but for the institution of slavery, Schindler would not have been able to pursue his course of action, or, really, that Schindler's people were even slaves except in the loosest possible sense of the word.
Actually, go back to that definition you posted. I'd hazard that, under that definition, minor children would be classified as slaves.
Cute hypothetical moral dilemmas are fun to think about, and good for ethics class, but they really don't mean anything. Actual moral codes are built upon assumptions that we are living in the real world. If you create a hypothetical fantasy world, it is obvious that those same moral rules will not be able to stand up. In such a world, people would have different moral codes. I mean, just imagine how morals would change if we discovered a hole in the laws of thermodynamics, or really learned how the brain works.