I find these pretty disturbing. I like to think I'd never have stood by while someone enslaved someone else. But the banality of these ads makes it all seem quite commonplace and acceptable. Wicked times.
One thing to note, the same types of people who were slave drivers are still here. They have as little respect for another humans life as they always have, judging other peoples well being as worth nothing. You can see it when they make statements similar to 'I earned what I have so I deserve it, poor people deserve nothing, especially not from my pocket.' They are willing to let people die, although they may try to paper it over with statements like 'the dignity of work' to enforce slave like conditions.
Nearly all professionals in the west are in that position. They could give away most of their income to save desperately poor people, but they feel that they deserve it for themselves. It's a very broad blurry line between evil and respectable. Mostly dependent on whatever popular culture tells us it should be.
Yes, good point. I think the best way to go around it is supporting systems that prevent people having unnecessary horrible positions in life, starting at country or even state wide, and hopefully worldwide systems in the future. Also to help this, getting people to identify what sort of arguments value another persons life as nothing, is a great way of diffusing harmful ideas. It is that obvious that it has been mentioned in ancient times, such as the biblical "You will be judged as you have judged others". Putting an emphasis on the value of a persons life other than what can be taken from them, should support these better systems.
Back to what you have put forward, yes, it is very easy to forget the people who you just don't see.
Conflating child abuse and the subsequent government cock-up in to investigating it, with an institutionalised implementation of slavery with the full weight of the judiciary behind it, requires quite some imagination.
> But the banality of these ads makes it all seem quite commonplace and acceptable.
Yeah. Many bad things are commonplace and acceptable until progress marches on unfortunately. The majority has a bad habit of lacking empathy for those more vulnerable than themselves.
Slavery. Equal rights for minorities. Even the War on Drugs or providing access to proper care for women's health has abuses that are largely ignored because most people aren't regularly impacted in ways that motivates them to action.
The system has always been pretty wicked to those powerless to resist it.
Taxes are involuntary and people are locked in prison for not paying them, that is resembling a slavery. Some rationalization for slavery was similar too, e.g. people thought that it's not possible to have prosperity without enslavement.
Probably in the future present times will be seen as wicked too.
Something being involuntary does not make it 'resemble' chattel slavery. It takes a fair bit more than simply not paying your taxes to end up in prison. Your children don't go to prison if you don't pay your taxes.
Yes, it's more similar to a forced labor slavery, than chattel slavery. The forced labor convention (which for some reason wasn't ratified by US) specifically makes exception for civic obligations and compulsory military service because they are fitting the definition.
Children in this analogy forced to go to prison too, when they reach 18 years and refuse their taxes.
It's still not much of an analogy unless you believe that, say, driving on the wrong side of the road, uninsured and without a license is somehow comparable to any form of slavery.
Am I correct that you invoke a social contract as a justification for involuntary actions?
1) You are forced into this contract without your consent.
2) You can't quit this contract with your property intact.
This conditions wouldn't be enforceable if they were between ordinary parties, especially when there is inequality of bargaining power, why do they hold between a state and a person?
1) The IRS does not literally rape people as happened under American chattel slavery
2) Your analogy also has the problem that without taxes, it would not be possible to fund an organization that prevents other organizations from coming in and taxing you (aka "protection money"). Can point to a society of more than 500,000 members that has existed without taxes? I can point to several pre-1865 societies without slavery.
I agree that arguments against slavery were stronger in 1865, than against taxes, but absence of something is a bad predictor about possibility. You couldn't point to a liberal democracy before 18th century too.
On its own, absence is a bad argument. But combined with presenting a problem (that people will spontaneously form a government and collect taxes under threat of kneecapping) it is a stronger argument.
Property enforcement is just as involuntary as taxation.
Restriction of freedom is an inevitable consequence of scarcity. People cannot have everything they want, so you have to have some system which decides who gets what, and punishes people who try to step outside it.
Whether you're locking someone up for theft or tax evasion, it's equally coercive.
Yes, the property enforcement is involuntary, but in the absence of property slavery is not unethical. If there is no property, then why slaves have a better claim to their body and work, than someone else?
Either the idea of property is accepted implicitly, or it is ethical to enslave in some situations.
It's not exclusively some modern invention to be against slavery. There were people during the era of chattel slavery who thought of slavery as wrong too. Lots and lots of them. Almost 100% of the African-American population, for example...
Well, no. Africans (before they were captured and sold to the Dutch slave traders) had slaves. A lot of Africans were sold into slavery by other Africans, the ones they lost tribal wars to. Slavery was very well known in Africa, just as it was everywhere else in the world basically from the moment civilization was created.
Like most things, people were ok with it happening to others and only had an issue when it happened to them.
The idea that all slavery is wrong is a far more modern idea. Unlike the OP I do not present that as a bad thing.
Like most things, people were ok with it happening to others and only had an issue when it happened to them.
Bravo! People today will say that slaves were in pain and suffering. Their masters knew that.
The idea that all slavery is wrong is a far more modern idea.
Yes. People today are like those parrots - just repeating what everyone around them believes. It's like a religion. Religion people adopt is heavily influenced by parents and environment, not critical thinking. That's why I wrote people who are against slavery are not critical thinkers and introspective.
Unlike the OP I do not present that as a bad thing.
I do not think of human slavery as good or bad. I am NEUTRAL about it. I don't think that anything is inherently right or wrong. When people use those terms, they are expressing their personal feeling, not objective feature of the world.
A runaway domesticated animal may stand a significantly higher risk of injury than its wild brethren.
Domesticated animals also so often have a much higher standard of living than in the wild; it is hard to argue that an owned animal is deprived as much as an owned human.
A runaway domesticated animal may stand a significantly higher risk of injury than its wild brethren.
I'm talking about what's happening before the escape has happened. Why is domestication(slavery) allowed in the first place?
Domesticated animals also so often have a much higher standard of living than in the wild;
Slaves in USA had higher standard of living than if they had stayed in Africa.
it is hard to argue that an owned animal is deprived as much as an owned human.
How is a enslaved human more depraved than a horse? They both are under control of their master and get basics to survive. The difference between them is that horse and human are a different species. In terms of deprivation, it's about the same.
How edgy to you have to be to try and argue about the morality behind slavery.
When you prove that animals are self aware and conscious to the level of humans you can start to try and make half of this point but you're taking it way too far with this whole energy molecules thing.
What's next, comparing the Holocaust to fish farms?
Several writers, including Jewish Nobel Prize laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer, and animal rights groups have drawn a comparison between the treatment of animals and the Holocaust
"How edgy to you have to be to try and argue about the morality behind slavery."
How brainwashed do you have to be to mimic the beliefs of people around you?
"When you prove that animals are self aware and conscious to the level of humans you can start to try and make half of this point"
What do vague labels like 'conscious' and 'self-aware' have to do with slavery?
"...but you're taking it way too far with this whole energy molecules thing."
Are members of homo sapiens species not clusters of elementary particles? Have you studies physics or chemistry at all?
"What's next, comparing the Holocaust to fish farms?"
Absolutely. Why is it fine to enslave bio-chemical processes known as 'fish', but not okay to enslave 'humans'? Is it objectively wrong to enslave members of homo sapiens species? If aliens came to Earth and used humans the same way humans use fish, what would be wrong with that?
It's either disingenuous or just plain ignorant to set the bar at objectively wrong, or to imply that everyone thinks it's fine to have pets/eat animals, or that aliens would follow our ethical guidelines. Neither moral universalism nor realism have a dominance in the philosophy of ethics, and even then I highly doubt that those that do actually support those positions do so because of any argument involving being a cluster of elementary particles.
It's like you worked out that the intuitive emotional response that most people use for their moral compass isn't exactly well thought out, googled some phrase sceptical of ethics as a whole, found nihilism, potentially with a detour through scientism, and then burrowed down that rabbit hole without considering any other established school of thought.
You're not going to learn anything, nor teach anyone anything, by asking a bunch of silly comparison questions in a tech forum. Any response short enough for anybody to bother writing is going to need to take a whole bunch of premises as givens and rely on definitions for words you don't agree with. It'll just keep leading to chains of posts like this where you just keep asking stupid comparison questions like you're some form of internet Socrates, and being pleased when people don't reply adequately/at all because you're the one with the negative claim and consider anything other than a full argument from them as a default win for yourself.
He's thinking philosophically, not politically (trying to influence people). We should be quite free to think and discuss things in an objective way without having to continuously show that we agree with contemporary morals.
It might turn out that such a line of reasoning leads to the useless conclusion of "nothing is wrong" but it's certainly worth trying nonetheless. What we do know is that our current set of morals is somewhat arbitrary and could easily be full of "evil" things that make us no better than slaver owners. We just don't know because everyone agrees with us.
He's not thinking, he's typing. What he's typing is not a stream of consciousness nor shared with only himself, so he's obviously looking for some form of discussion (whether that's primarily because he wants to influence others is hard to say). However he's doing it while being combative and insulting. If that's what he wants then I'm here to provide.
>We should be quite free to think and discuss things in an objective way without having to continuously show that we agree with contemporary morals.
I agree completely however taking up this cause in the comment section of a tech forum, without putting any substantial argument down first, and then resorting to calling people brainwashed is a poor way to go about it. In fact by doing so that seems to be him saying he not only doesn't agree with contemporary morals but looks down on those that do.
>What we do know is that our current set of morals is somewhat arbitrary and could easily be full of "evil" things that make us no better than slaver owners.
I acknowledged in the post you're replying to that the conventional source of morality is intuitive emotion not well thought out concepts.