What is slavery / how do we define slavery?

I'm not really arguing for anything anymore. Just rebutting various points and whatnot. Rebutting things is interesting.

Still not on par with mind control. You can still do a number of things, even in spite of this situation.

And what about other fellow slaves? Couldn't you speak with them?

And to the latter, I was debating based on what was being discussed. If a master were to take in a person who willingly becomes a slave as an advantage, and isn't restricted, I argued that because they are not restricted they aren't really slave, but "legally" are. And put forward that such a state isn't somehow worse than living poverty just to avoid the title.

And now I'm debating how reasonable a martyr's death is in the face of cruel slavery.

I apologize for the confusion, the points were directed at two completely different topics within the debate.

If they order something unethical, then martyrdom is the only moral option; there I can agree.

Still not absolute control. As it is, it depends on the person whether or not pressing onward is possible, I suppose.

In my mind, the reason for continuing in life would be to find opportunities to help others, not keep myself in any decent or happy state.

It's still worth trying.

I don't see how it is nonsense. If you die, then somebody else will likely have to take up your yoke.

That doesn't exactly happen though, and it isn't reasonable to get child slaves to get themselves killed. Even a small rebellion is preferable to martyrdom.

T He prior point is the only one so far that I would truly call a good point, at least from my standard. As for the latter point, I vehemently disagree, but that's a different topic.

I would put forward that being a slave yourself is something of a necessary evil in order to aid others.

In that case, then, wouldn't it be best to try to do as much as you can? Sure, he might kill when/if he does find out that you betrayed him at some point, but that must be better to try than straight up dying.

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

If everyone thought the way you think then everyone would be unhappy.

Yes, and they'll cost money. That's the point.

If you want to do that, sure, but that's not exactly what you were arguing before.

You could be truly free if you just totally ignored that you were a slave in any way, but that's too dangerous for most people to attempt.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

I find fulfillment in helping others, and am touched by those who help me. If everyone thought this way, the world would be a vastly better place.

Pride, entitlement, and greed bring about horrible things.

As it is, thinking the way I do has worked plenty well for me thus far. Even as I make thoughtless sacrifices of my own self on a regular basis, I always pick up my slack and press onward.

This brings not only me happiness, but others happiness as well.

Think about it. There would never be any shortages of blood or organ donations, the poor would always be cared for, marriages would almost never end in divorce. I want to live in that world. Not one where it is every man for himself, as this one is.

But what about the person doing the replacing? How is this good for them?

Of all prisons, one's own heart is the greatest. If can act free, then you are, no matter how many chains engulf you.

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

But if everyone thought the way you do, nobody would ever act for themselves. And you can't be happy if you don't act for yourself, so nobody would ever be happy. So what would the point be?

You can't ever achieve happiness through the actions of others. They don't know who you are, they don't know what you want, they don't know what really makes you happy. You are the only one who can ever truly have your own best interests at heart. Ultimately you have to go out there and do what you want if you want to be happy.

And even besides that, if you constantly make sacrifies of your self, what's left? If you gave everything you have to the poor, you would have nothing. And if the poor gave everything they had to the poor, and if those poor and the poor afterwards continued to, property would just cycle around pointlessly with nobody to use it. Somebody, eventually, has to care for themselves. or else all the charity in the world is pointless.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Allow me to make three criticisms here.

1. If I am constantly sacrificing myself, I do so because it is my wish. If others are somehow thinking for me, it is only because they have to infringe on what I believe to be good and right in their thinking for me.
2. What you stated is a generalization, full stop. You might only be happy if you act for yourself, but I do not share that heart. (and I hope I never will)
3. Happiness isn't the be all and end all goal or emotion. It isn't the only goal, any other such thing. There are other things which one can consider far more important than happiness. Personally, I bank on demonstrations of love. For me, love's presence is the goal. I'll die a horrible and miserable death in its name. That I claimed in the other thread that I would choose slavery to be with my love. Sure, I could get over it and lead a happy life, but I would be doing so at the expense of love.

What's left? All of the best parts. We aren't just flesh blobs with stuff. Commodities aren't the only thing to be offered. And some things are gained by selfless sacrifice.

That cycling of stuff between everyone is a bit of a flanderization, by the by.

edited 7th Mar '11 1:18:03 PM by TheMightyAnonym

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

All people act for themselves, that's how human nature works.

However, those who are selfless know that when one acts for others they are acting for themselves as well.

There's no justice in the world and there never was~

How is it? It would be the logical outcome of true selflessness.

Unless you're only suggesting we should be selfless most of the time?

edited 7th Mar '11 4:38:15 PM by BlackHumor

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Ahh, sorry for misunderstanding. I thought that the first question was whether it is okay to make someone a slave if they end up treated better than they were while free.

Any condition that is entered willingly an knowingly I am alright with.

But any order an owner gives to an enslaved person is unethical by definition, because it is unethical to own people in the first place. As been said above, enslaving you is not any less wrong than enslaving other person - why should you assist owner with it?

Well, I wasn't talking about straight up suicide but of disobedience getting one killed

edited 7th Mar '11 9:01:20 PM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

We should be selfless unless nobody gains anything from selflessness.

For example, selflessly mucking things up by endlessly arguing over who should mow the lawn, or who is "sorrier". Much to my chagrin, I have actually seen arguments where people got mad because someone else wouldn't let them be selfless, because they wanted to be selfless.

That said, I would state that selflessness is an important principal, not an axiom in and of itself. All alone as an absolute axiom it accomplishes much, but has weaknesses - it's incomplete. It must be part of something else in order to be fully accurate.

In my case, I believe that love is the goal. Thus, there would be cases where the love of people is not best served by self sacrifice, though in most cases it is.

Because the only parties in a given circumstance are you and the master. If the master would have you take a course of action that harms a third party in any way, then that is unethical. What the master does directly to you is also unethical, but staying alive in order to accomplish good works is worth sticking around for in the face of this.

I suppose in this case, what should be noted are intentions, I suppose.

edited 7th Mar '11 9:32:42 PM by TheMightyAnonym

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

It’s also annoying when there’s no real position being defended other than just to play contrarian. There isn’t even a base for you to say this, because mind control is pure science fiction. In fact, I’d argue that if mind control actually existed, there would be no reason for “slavery” as an institution. Everyone would simply be reprogrammed to believe whatever the authority wanted them to believe. They’d have complete freedom otherwise. Real-life slavery, however, is something MUCH crueler. Especially if there is an alternative to it. Again, if you’re going to flip-flop the argument, then this is pointless. If the enslavement is against my will enough for my oppressors to want to restrict my speech, then you aren’t even arguing about a benevolent form of slavery anymore. And if you’re arguing whether or not death is better, then that would completely depend on how tight my liberties are suppressed. You’re speaking in complete hypotheticals, which is pointless to the argument. Allow me to demonstrate: let’s just say in this example that no, I cannot speak to my fellow slaves or anyone else for that matter. What now? Again, this is ignoring the definition of slavery in order to form a make-believe argument. Saying that someone “is a slave with no restriction” is like saying that someone is “alive with no life”. Being restricted is exactly what it means to be a slave, so this point is completely moot. Again, this point is moot, because it’s like asking “how much pain is someone allowed to feel before they can cry?” As I stated above, this is a position that’s speaking in complete hypotheticals—therefore, every single theoretical “benefit” you can think of to enduring through slavery will also have an completely contrary hypothetical detriment. Every person holds different values and not everyone can cope with the loss of those values in a positive way. Harsh as it may sound, but some people really would be better off dead after . . . let’s say . . . seeing their wife and children raped and murdered in front of their eyes or becoming maimed and disfigured until they only vaguely resemble something human. Coping is not something that every person can do with every single crisis. Sometimes, death is a feasible option.

Again, too hypothetical. It is just as possible that your continued existence would cause far more harm than good or enable others to be put in the exact same situation you are—or worse.

Only in theory.

And what was stopping them from simply enslaving the other person in the first place?

Slavery is not always immoral. It's perfectly good punishment for certain offenses.

For example: Any law enforcement officer has spent most of his life depriving folks of their liberty for conspicuous non-crimes that ran afoul of a moral panic (e.g. prostitution, gambling, drug use/trade, weapons posession, underage drinking, you get the idea). Turning such officers into slaves and auctioning them off as compensation to their victims would be completely fair (as long as the politicians and the judges are also auctioned off). After all, they HAVE deprived innocents of their freedom. It would be fair to deprive them of theirs in return.

Making their descendants slaves is sort of iffy, though, and I'd oppose it. The children should not pay for the misdeeds of their parents. If slavery is a condition that can only be acquired through heinous deeds and does NOT pass to the offspring, it's not evil per se.

edited 8th Mar '11 5:33:31 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Agreed here

This one does not think so. It can be quite useful

edited 8th Mar '11 8:46:42 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

A genuine mind control device would be cruelest.

But outside of that, no one can truly bind a person's mind.

That depends. Are you absolutely certain that you will never have any effect on anything, and so on? If you constantly build up walls, then you make martyrdom a better option, however, doing so constantly skews things.

The entire situation is a hypothetical. What is right depends entirely on whatever situation it is.

I simply argue that martyrdom is isn't the best path unless no other options are available. If a couple of even remote possibilities are present, then they are best pursued.

Then what does make someone a slave in your mind?

So far as I'm concerned, if a person acts with no restrictions then they are free, even if there is someone who "technically" owns them and has the power to stop them.

We can't exactly step outside of the hypothetical now can we? Unless you become a slave, and I become a slave, then there isn't really any place to go with this.

There is no end to the variables involved in talking about this.

Situational, again. Although, with this item I would state that death is only a feasible option because the person involved eliminates all others on their own.

I would say that here, it's only hypothetical because we haven't been given a solid scenario. In the case of the slaves back in the early days of America, life would be a better option, as masters were often times killed by the slaves, and many other things happened that were of benefit because they survived.

The fact that they didn't need to. Resources -including time- are limited, so having one too many slaves would be detrimental. One would only want as many as they can handle.

too many would big things down and excessively divide what few supplies one spares.

I'll agree with you here, and then ignore the "for example" that came afterwords. Though I'd say that such "not always" scenarios are very, very, very limited/rare or even non existent. In theory they might exist, otherwise it is a bad idea.

edited 8th Mar '11 10:35:56 AM by TheMightyAnonym

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

@SH Will you take your damn anti-authority bias somewhere else?

No one deserves to be enslaved, no one.

There's no justice in the world and there never was~

Why don't they? This one thinks that people always deserve what they do to others.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

I'd say that people deserve punishment for wrongdoing, but it is wrong to inflict it if forgiveness and redemption are possible. Further, preventing more crime is what a "punishment" should be aimed at.

I suppose, I might restate this ideal like this: Everyone deserves a chance.

Opportunity for something better is a thing that everyone deserves, and no one should lose.

edited 8th Mar '11 10:51:36 AM by TheMightyAnonym

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

Not sure about that. This one is rather vary of having punishment tied with result instead of guilt. Which is not to say that it is not a reasonable position. Only the one I am afraid of.

As for forgiveness - this one would prefer to grant it, but only if it is asked and amendments are made. Not as the default option.

edited 8th Mar '11 10:55:46 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

@ Beholderess said it better than I do. If someone's job is to deprive people of their freedom, it is completely fitting that their freedom should be taken away in return.

Slavery could, and perhaps should, be the go-to punishment for any sort of civil rights violation.

edited 8th Mar '11 11:28:24 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Definitely a valid point. I'd rather not step away from my current position though, I think my position merely needs the addendum of additional rules.

edited 8th Mar '11 11:27:25 AM by TheMightyAnonym

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

A genuine mind control device would prevent the person controlled from ever even knowing they were controlled. Which would you rather be: living the rest of your life knowing that your dreams/hopes will never be fulfilled or blissfully satisfied with your current lot?

Which is still pointless, because "options" are based on perception. What I see as an option you may not. And for that matter, "martyrdom" IS an option, so you can't treat it like it's mutual exclusive.

"In my mind" (as in, by the definition of the term) a person cannot be "free" and a slave at the same time. That's an oxymoron. Being a slave means you are restricted—period. If you have no restrictions, you are not a slave. Therefore, they are "technically a slave" anymore than a corpse is "technically breathing".

Except that slavery exists in Real Life. Instead of trying to stack the deck and creating an ad hoc, make-beieve situation to support an "ethical" slavery, why not actually use some examples that have existed throughout the thousands of years of human history?

Thus my point. Your entire argument is hinging upon what is best for the enslaved person. If you can accept that martyrdom can be subjectively superior to living in servitude, then we have nowhere left to go.

What hurts your argument here is that there were MANY martyrs who died in the fight against the slave trade. Abolitionists often used them as rallying points to try and draw them to their side. Hell, the Civil War was basically the North telling the slaves "fight and die on our side or live and stay in servitude".

See, then what you're basically saying is that "once their slaveowner acquires more resources, they can afford more slaves", correct? I mean, if you're arguing the inverse, then THAT must be true as well, right?

Again, this is EXACTLY why I was saying that slavery in itself tends to empower itself as an institution. When you acquire property, you employs slaves, and you acquire resources/capital. With capital, you acquire more property, thus you employ more slaves. This was pretty much the entire economic system the South ran on prior to the mid-19th Century.

---

Now, as for slavery as incarceration: they are two different things, although there IS overlap. In the US, we do not allow for "cruel and unusual" punishment by Constitutional law. Yeah, the govt has skirted this issue on more than one occasion, but the fact remains that American criminals are still considered people and thus have rights. They have less FREEDOM, but the same rights.

edited 8th Mar '11 11:37:10 AM by KingZeal

I'd rather live in knowledge of what is happening.

It's a different option though, as it involves one's death, separating it from the other options.

Then what if you could be restricted by someone if they chose to do so, but they do not? Are you slave in this case?

I'm not supporting an ethical slavery. Earlier I stated that there were two different concepts I was debating at once.

Said concepts were:

• The eligibility martyrdom vs staying alive and looking for options.
• Whether or not you would be a slave if a person could make you do slave things, but they do not. I.E., you can pursue whatever dreams you want, and do free-person things, but one could be prevented from these - though one never actually is prevented.

These two concepts entail different subjects. The former involves a cruel master, while the latter involves a person who could be a master, but never exercises this in any way.

Pretty much. I like to avoid words like "never" and "always". Martyrdom could be subjectively superior, or it could not. Which doesn't give us anything to talk about, really, other than where to draw the line.

I draw the line where martyrdom is absolutely the best option, whereas continuing in life is ambiguous. If that ambiguity of living is removed, and it is shown to be unusable, then martyrdom prevails. But if living is ambiguous in its potential, then it is a worthy gamble. You could always martyr yourself later if you wanted to.

I would put emphasis on the FIGHT here. If you're dead, you can't exactly fight. Though as before, it is ambiguous.

Again, we have something a bit ambiguous here, it would seem. Said point does nullify my point effectively.

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

I don't.

Why bother with punishment? It just spreads pain.

Besides, we are in agreement that slavery is the worst thing in the world here, right? Why would you inflict that on anyone else?

Nobody deserves slavery. Nobody deserves any kind of pain at all, but certainly nobody deserves slavery.

(Also, it annoys me that you're equivocating all these more petty denials of freedom with slavery. There's such a gigantic distance between slavery and the FCC it's not even worth considering. Not that the FCC is good, but if you think they deserves slavery I don't think your heart is really in this whole freedom thing.)

Now, I want to bring up here that we were originally arguing whether it's better to be a homeless bum than to be a slave.

Funny you bring up the American South; after the war, having just emerged from a legal status where they couldn't own property, most slaves were dirt poor. As in, literally did not even own any dirt.

And yet I guarantee you there wasn't a slave in the whole US who wanted to go back to slavery after the war. Every. Single. Slave. in the nation chose to be dirt poor over being enslaved.

I would rather know my dreams wouldn't be able to be fulfilled than not know, if they really weren't able to be fulfilled. Happiness (as in pleasure) is not the only good; unhappiness is not the only evil. Having your own will is worth all the pleasure in a human lifetime and more.

In fact I agree with TMA that mind control is the cruelest thing you can do to someone. It's a bit like murder and rape and some unique evils all mixed together in one horrible package.

If mind control actually existed, slavery would be only the second worst thing in the world.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Truth.

More specifically though, I argued that it would be better to be someone who is a slave in name but is well treated and isn't restricted, than a person who has no hope of anything and dies in the streets.

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

Like King Zeal keeps saying, "a slave that isn't restricted" is like "a healthy person that has cancer" or "a mythical creature that exists".

If you're a slave, by the very nature of slavery you're restricted. If you have a master, you must do what the master says even if the master doesn't say anything. That's a restriction. That's a very serious restriction that would be worth dying in the streets to avoid.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

It should be noted that it's vastly different to be, say, a household Roman slave (most likely the household's cook or accountant, probably having a family that lives reasonably well at the domus's household and eventually looking forward to being freed), than for example a plantation slave in 18th century America (not having anything, eating whatever scraps are thrown at them, facing their families being split at a moment's notice, and generally having no hope for advancement or prosperity).

edited 8th Mar '11 2:41:44 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.