Why is slavery wrong?

[SkyWalker]

I think slavery is wrong from a subject perspective, dont get me wrong, yet I can't conclude why if I rationally try?? So I am just devil's advocate here:
-----

We keep livestock as cattle. Animals do work for us and we literally eat them. Because we farm animals we have more free time to do fun stuff. Although we dumb down the animals and domesticate them and abuse them and make them stupid and dependant and consider our farms just factories and degrade the life of the animal. all bad, but WE GET FREE MEALS / FREE TIME.

hunter/gatherer is much more work, than to abuse a few animals.

Humans are animals too. Why is it wrong to "farm humans"? E.g. make them slaves, whether overt, or covert (like a debt slave, an employee slave or whatever).

You say it's bad because it's your own kind? Thats not a final meaning: why is it wrong to (spiritually) eat your own kind? Isn't an animal also my own kind, from a mamallian perspective instead of a species perspective? What makes a human better than a cow? Both live to be free?

Ok become vegetarian? Where does it end? vegetarians kill the plants! poor plants... thats DNA based life too?? the plant might have grown into a tree, but you stopped it and ate it. you took the plant's freedom by eating it! the plant now became your slave. the poor plant does its best to grow and grow, yet you twarth its plan and abuse it for food.

follow me? it becomes an idiotic meaning going nowhere.

and if life is just about eating other life, then why is it wrong for us to be human predators. and just ride other humans like a king and trap them in lies so they waste their lives for us, the king. so we have free meals & free time?

isn't that what the lion does when it eats a sheep?

does anybody have a clue on this issue?? i am confused: i subjectively feel using other humans is wrong, yet i objectively see in nature that it is natural? (and i subjectively think nature is always right as well, but it contradicts the first subjective feeling of wrongness)

is there any logic that can be applied here?

 

[Jesse]

Same reason why communism is wrong, you give people to much power and bad stuff happen.

 

[Peeps999]

I'm actually writing a song about this now. Maybe instinct wants our species to survive yet logic contradicts it. Think of it like when you raise a child with religion it's burned in the child's brain that the religion is right yet if they question it, then it becomes like a struggle within there mind because logic conflicts with something they have always known. Just because you were told or instinctively knew something doesn't necessarily mean it is right.

 

[Joz_helloworld]

Ok become vegetarian? Where does it end? vegetarians kill the plants!

I would suggest a relavant end would be that plants do not have a nervous system, and hence feel no pain. I would feel my only duty to a plant would be to not harvest it into extinction.

With animals I would suggest it is about conciousness and understanding. I kinda think factory farming of animals is wrong, a hen for example should be able to do hen things like stretch it's wings and peck for food etc before shortening its life for food... as opposed to cage hens whose time on earth is spent not being able to do what it knows it should be able to do.

The separation of humans and other animals extends as far as our unique conciousness.

The way I see the meaning of life, is that we are all here, trying to get the most out of life, as that is all we have.

By stopping another from enjoying the opportunity to get the most out of life, (with the restrictions that necessarily come from them stopping another similarly) is, therefore, in my view, wrong.

And how do you get to decide who has the right to enslave another? Strength? How can you justify physical strength as the determiner to who gets to enjoy life and who doesn't? What measure can you possibly put in place that can be justified?

You can justify strength only in a 'law of the jungle' scenario, only if 'society' has been completely disbanded.

In the law of the jungle scenario, any means can be applied, as we are then charged alone with getting the most out of life for ourselves, as individuals.

But humans entered into a society for the benefits that mutual co-operation brings. There are multiple skills people can bring to society, whose to say strength is the best and intellegence is not? Whose to say intellegence is the best and craftsmanship is not? Etc etc, we are therefore all equal etc etc..........

 

[alrai]

The separation of humans and other animals extends as far as our unique conciousness.

I 'm not sure about your point. Explain

 

[Joz_helloworld]

The separation of humans and other animals extends as far as our unique conciousness.

I 'm not sure about your point. Explain

Perhaps awareness would be a better term.

humans have a capacity for bigger picture understanding, ponder the meaning of life, abstract thinking, progress, inovation, morals/ethics and such.

Our awareness of injustice, and awareness of our situation, and the physical restrictions of such a condition, would lead those living under slavish conditions to be unable to live a full life and achieve their potential.

 

[H +]

Far too much emphasis is put on "consciousness" by the philosophy crowd.

Morality should be empathy-based. Empathy should be based on the ability to feel pain. It gets more complicated than that and cases need to be treated individually, but a strict objectivity-seeking morality system is unnecessary and dangerous.

Humans are no more deserving of empathy than other animals, generally speaking.

 

[Joz_helloworld]

Humans are no more deserving of empathy than other animals, generally speaking.

Humans have different needs to other animals.

a strict objectivity-seeking morality system is unnecessary and dangerous.

What do you mean and why?

You mean, morality based upon some test, right? Like what I posited?

Why do you think it is unneccesary and dangerous?

I tend to think it is useful and post-modernist thought is dangerous.

 

[alrai]

That is not the case.
Our awareness off injustice is only a suggestion of a direction, and lets face it, the structure of our society is highly individualistic, different from the "fantasy" world where the good prevails and the evil perish, such assumption are a gamble, if you cant tolerate being uncomfortable then your not prepared for our society.

You can acheive your potential in life without contributing to any acts of justice, in fact, those who violate their ethics seem more likely acheive success. "I am" trying to place myself in your shoes, but that the reason I'm reinforcing the idea of arriving to our own awareness, so I'm not sure where I stand with you, I would suggesting we start off at common grounds.

 

[pjoa09]

Before I become a slave I will kill you. I need a reason. Let's say slavery is banned. Oh you doing what is banned. oh you go to jail bad boy. So I did. So you die in jail and now I am not threatened by slavery.

Morally its cool. No issues. But if it weren't banned about 1/2 of the world's human being population would have felt threatened.

 

[Joz_helloworld]

@pjoa09 a good practical reason

@alrai

I can see where you are coming from, I think. We do not live in a fantasy world. People do get ahead by violating ethics, by trying to get something over another, etc.

Skywalker used the word 'wrong'. To me, that is an ethical/moral debate. I don't personally feel that morals are best determined by the practical world, but by the ideal world, and striving towards that or applying it best in the real world as best we can. Morals are ideals.

That is my moral stance at this particular moment, i don't expect everyone to agree. But of what use is a moral code based on what people do wrong?

You suggest 'success' is better achieved by violating morals, and Skywalker suggests the easy life is better served by having slaves and both these things are true, but my ethics suggest that neither is moral.

I'm not saying that humans should never have to feel uncomfortable. That would be futile given the nature of humans. But every person should be able to make their own way through the world without being unduly infringed upon by other people. Slavery would be such an infringement.

And this requires some sacrifice, such as, for the extreme example, someone who is grossly masochistic is unable to go on a killing spree, for a day-to-day example, you need to work to survive.

You do not think that there is a difference between animals and human needs, or what do you mean by 'suggestion of a direction'?

Well, that's what I think anyway.

 

[H +]

Humans have different needs to other animals.

Different!=Greater

Different=Different

What do you mean and why?

Objective moral systems have always resulted in violence, oppression, prevented the progression of society. They promote simplistic understanding and ignorance. They don't take circumstances of the situation into account and try to make one size fits all judgements which are counteractive to justice. See: Any theocracy.

I think moral objectivity and "consistency" is not only impossible, but should never be sought to begin with.

 

[Joz_helloworld]

See: Any theocracy.

For a start, theocracies are not based on any kind of rational moral system. Hmmm... I'm on my way out and won't have time to think enough to respond decently

What is the alternative to 'objective moral systems' in your view?

 

[SkyWalker]

Found something > Fruitarianism:
Fruitarianism involves the practice of following a diet that includes fruits, nuts and seeds, without animal products, vegetables and grains.[1] Fruitarianism is a subset of dietary veganism.
Some fruitarians will eat only what falls (or would fall) naturally from a plant; that is: foods that can be harvested without killing the plant

So you can actually live without twarthing any life in it's life purpose, not even a plant. THATS QUITE PROFOUND (relevant to this thread).
If you only eat fruit, you will not harm any purpose of nature for your own benefit.
The plant actually makes the fruit for animals, so they eat it and spread the seeds inside. Thus the plant offers it to you and wants you to eat it.
You could still farm the plants: You will help plant the plants, you help them grow optimally and finish their purpose optimally, they will repay you with more fruit. It's a fair exchange.

--------

Since all ethics are strictly black-white: Slavery is either right or it's wrong.
If it's wrong then all debt-slavery, employment-slavery, animal-slavery, plant-slavery, etc is also wrong.

Thus if you choose wrong and are consequent in your ethics then you should also be a fruitarianist, otherwise you are a hypocrite! (a my-species-narcissist with a my-species-superiority complex).

P.S. I guess you could eat the meat of animals (including humans actually) if they are already dead anyway. Like a horse that fell from the rocks and died. Vultures have a bad image, but they are actually pretty ethical.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Slavery is a system where one person has total authority over another person. This is not innately wrong, granting the person under the authority of the other person retains their ability and right to choose their status as a slave. Some people like others dominating them, and not just sexually.

 

[Awaken]

I like to have sex with females of the human species. That doesnt mean I would have sex with females of the dog species. Your reasoning doesnt hold up.

 

[SkyWalker]

I like to have sex with females of the human species. That doesnt mean I would have sex with females of the dog species. Your reasoning doesnt hold up.

i dont see the relevance? what does sex have to do with slavery?

 

[SkyWalker]

Slavery is a system where one person has total authority over another person. This is not innately wrong, granting the person under the authority of the other person retains their ability and right to choose their status as a slave. Some people like others dominating them, and not just sexually.

Well yes, slave-fetish exists, I have no idea how that would feel for a slave-fetishist, but it feels sick to me??? Doesnt come off as very healthy to me??

Some people are more "serving", yes, but they always want something back for it. There is something they want. Thus it is not all one-way-traffic to the master.

Anyway I still don't know if slavery is right or wrong. I was just following the line of thought that it is wrong, but then one comes out as fruitarianist!
The other line of though is that it is right, but then one comes out as the ultimate human predator .

To go half-way is to stand for nothing. So what shall I choose now?
Be a fruitarianist?
Or be the new leader of the illuminati (ultimate human predator)?
Which one is correct??? and why?

 

[EditorOne]

"slavery is a system where one person has total authority over another person. This is not innately wrong, granting the person under the authority of the other person retains their ability and right to choose their status as a slave"

Really, you're going to choose to be a slave? Do you really think anyone would?

Slavery has always been a manifestation of power of some humans over others, not a rationale based on a willing yielding of liberty.

The argument used in this country in the 1850s against slavery was that anyone thinking it all right should try it for a while and report back. Try it, as in, be a slave. And if you don't think it all right for yourself, to have all your choices taken away right down to what food you eat, what rules you'll follow, and who you will mate with, then you have no basis for imposing that system on any other human.

The problem you face is that you haven't considered a system where you are the unwilling slave. The possibility that you might be in such a position hasn't occurred to you, yet it is that possibility that lead to some documents that generally invoke the principal that humans are entitled to common, basic rights simply because they are human. Freedom from enslavement is one of them.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." U.S. Declaration of Independence. It took both us and the French a long time to live up to the "liberty" part of that and the Rights of Man for the French, but still: Why would you want to give up your right? No one is free unless everyone is free.

None of that speaks to differing abilities and achievements. It speaks to ultimate compulsion and your right to be free from it. Certainly, if you wish to exist in a state of subjugation, you can voluntarily do so. Make your own private arrangements. Don't try to drag the rest of us back to the era of aristocratic privilege, ownership of other human beings, and a life expectancy of 42. We're having enough trouble with the arrogance of power manifesting itself among our economic elites without reverting to plantations and different laws for slaves and nonslaves.

 

[SpaceYeti]

"slavery is a system where one person has total authority over another person. This is not innately wrong, granting the person under the authority of the other person retains their ability and right to choose their status as a slave"

Really, you're going to choose to be a slave? Do you really think anyone would?

Since it happens, yes.

http://www.enslavement.org.uk/soyouwant

 

[A22]

I concur with Joz_helloworld.

I'm not a vegetarian though. I see no problem in extensive livestock farming. What I do not see as right is intensive livestock (factory) farming where the animal is caged or maltreated.

I do not eat chicken because I know it is factory farming here. I eat cattle though, since it is usually raised free where I live.

...

One may see ourselves and other animals (and plants and all living beings) as a bunch of cells, which are a bunch of chemical compounds. Thus one probably won't give much of a fuck about what one slaves, kills or eats. Well I don't see life like that.

 

[Words]

On a socio-moral perspective: Because it is detrimental to society. It empowers rebellions and unwanted resistance, risking lives, slowing development and risking the destruction of the state. If, however, there is an instance where slavery does not cause conflict, then it is not wrong.

 

[SkyWalker]

I'm not a vegetarian though. I see no problem in extensive livestock farming. What I do not see as right is intensive livestock (factory) farming where the animal is caged or maltreated.

I do not eat chicken because I know it is factory farming here. I eat cattle though, since it is usually raised free where I live.

You go half-way, which means you stand for nothing. You just comply with everything, you comply with 2 rationalities which are mutually contradictive > You combine death-wish upon the cow with care for the cow?

How does this make you think, I hope I can show it to you like this:
----


So if you give the cow (and yourself) the illusion of a good life for the cow, then it's OK to slaughter it?

because it is really an ILLUSION that we are good for the cow:
Let's say I carry your cow-pampering even further, to the limit: I treat the cow like a prince, carry it on a pillow, worship it, for years....and then...... slaughter it....then it's fine?? ITS STILL SLAUGHTER WHAT WE ARE AFTER, WE ARE JUST HIDING IT.

But if I am just practical and say: the goal of the farm is to slaughter the cow, so who cares if the cow lives like a prince or not, then everybody is thinking "THATS SO EVIL". But it's the same end-result!

Caring for the cow is just a waste of time if you slaughter it.

(It's just smart circumvention of your empathy instinct what we waste time on before slaughtering.)

Can you imagine those prince-lifestyle cows in a "free" farm, where one smart cow suddenly says: Guys guys guys we have to get out of here, they are going to slaughter us!! I found out!! The other cows will say: no man, they care for us, they provide us with everything! why would they care so much if they would slaughter us! that would NOT make sense! (cows are smarter than you think you see).

The goal of the farm is to slaughter the cow, which is mutually exclusive & contradictive from the goal of helping the cow have a good life. The only reason we treat the cows a bit better is because otherwise the people will rebel. Because there IS SOMETHING DEEP INSIDE PEOPLE that says its wrong, but its primitive and stupid and only works if it sees it in extreme in plain sight.

Sometimes we dont treat the cow better, but we just hide the farm from sight, works too to cancel the instinct that its wrong.

Is this instinct the truth? It's our inner nature after all?? Is it a fail safe mechanism? Should we listen to it? All (sane) kids are born with it. Or should we numb it out of us, what we all do as adults, so we can rule the world?

So whats right? it's an either-or answer. Half-way is not the truth here. Half-way rationality is internally contradictive on this subject.

Half-way is also not practical or useful, it makes you a useless nobody: it does not make you a rich predator (because you are afraid to go there) and it also does not make you do any good for the world (because you are afraid to go there).

 

[SkyWalker]

On a socio-moral perspective: Because it is detrimental to society. It empowers rebellions and unwanted resistance, risking lives, slowing development and risking the destruction of the state. If, however, there is an instance where slavery does not cause conflict, then it is not wrong.

Why are you speaking out for the state?

Do you own MAJOR shares in the state? Then I get your point.

(Or are you into speaking for the state, even though you have no major shares? Then I do not get your point)

You say society, but you mean state: the human farm

So if you make it too obvious in the human farm, and have full-blown overt slavery in it then the animals (humans) will rebel and leave the farm. So, as a state, you hide it? Well yes of course.

Conclusion: slavery is not bad in the eyes of the state, it's only bad in the eyes of pure human instinct. so the state numbs it out of you, since its not helpful to the farm, like the castration of an animal that otherwise becomes unhandleable in the farm.

 

[EditorOne]

Granfalloons. Everywhere.

 

[Solitaire U.]

This topic makes for a really shitty debate.

Live the question, know the answer.

 

[SkyWalker]

that is only perspective

live as a slave, know the answer that slavery is wrong

live as a master, know the answer that slavery is right

 

[A22]

Even if we didn't kill the cow but caged it all it's life to get it's milk I'd still think it's cruel.

I think raising the animal in a way it'll suffer all it's life is cruel (like slavery). I don't think killing a cow is "bad".

I eat meat like monthly. I don't think it's bad or wrong to do so.

So whats right? it's an either-or answer.

There is no "right or wrong" here. There are opinions on what is cruel to do. And it isn't a "yes or no" question.

 

[Solitaire U.]

that is only perspective

live as a slave, know the answer that slavery is wrong

live as a master, know the answer that slavery is right

Oh I heartily disagree, and I never specified any particular side of the equation...

 

[SkyWalker]

Even if we didn't kill the cow but caged it all it's life to get it's milk I'd still think it's cruel.

I think raising the animal in a way it'll suffer all it's life is cruel (like slavery). I don't think killing a cow is "bad".

I eat meat like monthly. I don't think it's bad or wrong to do so.



There is no "right or wrong" here. There are opinions on what is cruel to do. And it isn't a "yes or no" question.

Wow this is weird??

So you think its cruel to keep a cow for milk, but you don't think its cruel to keep a cow to slaughter it?

If I were a cow, and I was kept/caged anyway in both cases, then I'd rather give some milk than that they slaughter me... But if you were a cow, you'd rather be slaughtered than to give milk? That's a weird choice??

 

[SkyWalker]

Oh I heartily disagree, and I never specified any particular side of the equation...

so how would you live the question?

 

[SkyWalker]

Really, you're going to choose to be a slave? Do you really think anyone would?

To whom were you addressing this? I dont remember anybody volunteering for it in this thread.

Although SpaceYeti said that there are some people (slave-fetishists) who do.

 

[scorpiomover]

Slavery is banned under the Golden Rule: You wouldn't want to be a slave. So you shouldn't make someone a slave.

It was more significant in Western countries, because they inherited their laws from their ancestors in the Roman Empire, who held that slaves were property. You can do what you want to your chair. Ergo, you could do what you wanted to your slave. There are some accounts of plantation owners raping their female slaves regularly.

But it didn't change overnight. It took around 750 years for slavery to be abolished throughout Western countries for all people. It was a slow and gradual process. See the timeline.

In Muslim lands, it was a little different, because there, slaves had rights. They didn't have quite the same rights as you would afford to Bill Gates. But they did enjoy quite a good lifestyle, just less than their owners. I suspect that the modern Wage Slave is in a similar situation as the Muslim slave, except in the US, where, AFAIK, wage slaves have no rights at all.

Now that Western values have spread around the world, some for good, and some for bad, Muslims don't really keep slaves all that much. So now you get a lot of people who would probably have been slaves 200 years ago, and treated well, and instead, they are wage slaves, living on almost nothing.

The same has happened to animals and plants. A few hundred years ago, you could probably beat your cow, and no-one would bat an eyelid. Now you'd get arrested for animal cruelty. The laws against abusing animals and plants are a little behind the laws against abusing humans, because they seem less like us, and so it's taking us longer to realise that the same laws that apply to us, should apply to them.

 

[A22]

Being myself, I'd rather die around my 40's minding my own business than being a slave my entire life.

 

[Words]

Yourself is not someone else. Likewise, you're not the animal you eat.

 

[A22]

Should I ask the cow what it prefers?

"You shouldn't do anything to it"
yeah well, that's not how I see it

 

[NinjaSurfer]

I think slavery is wrong from a subject perspective, dont get me wrong, yet I can't conclude why if I rationally try?? So I am just devil's advocate here:
-----

We keep livestock as cattle. Animals do work for us and we literally eat them. Because we farm animals we have more free time to do fun stuff. Although we dumb down the animals and domesticate them and abuse them and make them stupid and dependant and consider our farms just factories and degrade the life of the animal. all bad, but WE GET FREE MEALS / FREE TIME.

hunter/gatherer is much more work, than to abuse a few animals.

Humans are animals too. Why is it wrong to "farm humans"? E.g. make them slaves, whether overt, or covert (like a debt slave, an employee slave or whatever).

You say it's bad because it's your own kind? Thats not a final meaning: why is it wrong to (spiritually) eat your own kind? Isn't an animal also my own kind, from a mamallian perspective instead of a species perspective? What makes a human better than a cow? Both live to be free?

Ok become vegetarian? Where does it end? vegetarians kill the plants! poor plants... thats DNA based life too?? the plant might have grown into a tree, but you stopped it and ate it. you took the plant's freedom by eating it! the plant now became your slave. the poor plant does its best to grow and grow, yet you twarth its plan and abuse it for food.

follow me? it becomes an idiotic meaning going nowhere.

and if life is just about eating other life, then why is it wrong for us to be human predators. and just ride other humans like a king and trap them in lies so they waste their lives for us, the king. so we have free meals & free time?

isn't that what the lion does when it eats a sheep?

does anybody have a clue on this issue?? i am confused: i subjectively feel using other humans is wrong, yet i objectively see in nature that it is natural? (and i subjectively think nature is always right as well, but it contradicts the first subjective feeling of wrongness)

is there any logic that can be applied here?

I think slavery still exists-- except that the "slaves" (us) often don't know we are being used as slaves.

I think the grocery bagger at the local Ralph's grocery store is a slave-- performing a job that a machine could easily replicate. Human labor is used where it is marginally cheaper but you already see machines taking over this job as well.

Just because one willingly performs a function in exchange for "money" doesn't make society any more "right" in my eyes. The fact that the system exists to place people in roles which devalue human existence is what I'm disgusted at promoting.

Why do we promote worthless jobs which encourage mediocrity, unhappiness, and keeping-the-man-down?

Why do we make arbitrary rules just to punish the offenders and create a superficial sense of orderliness where none inherently exists?

 

[Anthile]

I think slavery still exists-- except that the "slaves" (us) often don't know we are being used as slaves.

I think the grocery bagger at the local Ralph's grocery store is a slave-- performing a job that a machine could easily replicate. Human labor is used where it is marginally cheaper but you already see machines taking over this job as well.

Just because one willingly performs a function in exchange for "money" doesn't make society any more "right" in my eyes. The fact that the system exists to place people in roles which devalue human existence is what I'm disgusted at promoting.

Why do we promote worthless jobs which encourage mediocrity, unhappiness, and keeping-the-man-down?

Why do we make arbitrary rules just to punish the offenders and create a superficial sense of orderliness where none inherently exists?

That's not slavery. He can still go wherever he wants, marry whoever he wants and can perform whatever job he desires. There is no other person that can legally tell him what to do. Not everyone can become candy tester or astronaut and some people end up with the shitty jobs. That's just how it is. It has absolutely nothing to do with slavery.

 

[NinjaSurfer]

That's not slavery. He can still go wherever he wants, marry whoever he wants and can perform whatever job he desires. There is no other person that can legally tell him what to do. Not everyone can become candy tester or astronaut and some people end up with the shitty jobs. That's just how it is. It has absolutely nothing to do with slavery.

Anthile, while I agree with you on a purely literal basis-- I am alluding to the subtle brainwashing and mind control mechanisms in place in society-- call me a conspiracy theorist or whatever, my personality is inclined for that behavior!

subtle, but encultaration still counts as brainwashing in my dictionary, and conversely leads to slavery.

 

[SkyWalker]

literal slave, salary slave, debt slave, its all the same: to ride another person's back.

salary slave is just less in your face, debt slave is even more hidden. they are just more subtle versions of the old scam.

that why i am suggesting here that its either right or wrong, there is no half-way.

if you think it is right to eat an animal then you thus think it is right to enslave an animal (and you are literally enslaving animals by buying/consuming), and if so, then enslaving a human should be right for you as well.
otherwise it is hypocrite, but maybe thats just what we are?

 

[Jelly Rev]

literal slave, salary slave, debt slave, its all the same: to ride another person's back.

yup. people arrange themselves in a hierarchy, from disorder into order, with or without formalized slavery.
a wage slave is simply what come from a free market, its the most efficent and logical form to form a hierarchy within people. Every person's labor/person's worth(expertise) can be most effectively known by using a free market, wage prices communicate the worth to people. propose a better system for organizing people in a fashion thats less slaveish, truth is there isnt

As for animals in cages, their perspective cannot be taken if we were animal x bc as animal x our nervous system would not be able to think about in the same sense.

for animal cruelty I always lead with the argument where do u draw the line? by asking people is it alright for the kid next door to be burnin ants with his magnifying glass...most people with quickly respond with an ant isnt an animal..obviously it is and then I ask if he should go to jail?
The line for animal cruelty for most people is drawn somewheres between fish and reptiles.

As for plants not feeling pain...http://www.bbspot.com/news/2003/08/plant_pain.html ty MSU I love partyin there
so lets blow out Im a vegetarian bc I dont like making things feel pain

crap its time for class

 

[SkyWalker]

yup. people arrange themselves in a hierarchy, from disorder into order, with or without formalized slavery.
a wage slave is simply what come from a free market, its the most efficent and logical form to form a hierarchy within people. Every person's labor/person's worth(expertise) can be most effectively known by using a free market, wage prices communicate the worth to people. propose a better system for organizing people in a fashion thats less slaveish, truth is there isnt

some people are more productive than others. paying people what they are worth does not have anything to do with slavery. a free market is decentralized and is not hierarchical in nature. regulated markets are however centralized hierarchies: they have a central point of control.

 

[Lot]

It seems to me, Skywaler, you are asking whether humans and animals are on the same level. Your argument is coming from the stand point of they are the same. So do animals and humans have the same nature in and of them selves? Do different animals have different natures? So before we can answer right or wrong we need to answer "what is the nature of man?". Plato has many good writings on this as well as Aristotle. I'm not here to tell you if you are right or wrong in your assumptions, just here to help you on your journey for truth Skywalker. So maybe try reading these two philosophers. And I think these questions should be answered before we could came to any consensus.

 

[Bird]

Social conditioning and genetics.

 

[NinjaSurfer]

some people are more productive than others. paying people what they are worth does not have anything to do with slavery. a free market is decentralized and is not hierarchical in nature. regulated markets are however centralized hierarchies: they have a central point of control.

okay, point taken

how bout the imposition by the federal government forcing business owners to pay people MORE than they are worth (i.e. minimum wage)? This reflects an attitude within capitalism that promotes slavery (paying someone what they are "worth"). A business owner is often made to feel like a slave-owner for wanting to pay someone what they are "worth." For example, it would be much more cost-effective to roll down to Home Depot and pickup some illegal day laborers to get the job done. However, this would entail breaking the law. Still, to a certain point, I agree strongly with some Republican stances that we should be able to freely hire and fire and pay as we please, as business owners.

What happens when I think that some kid in China is only worth $0.50/hr? Is that considered slavery?

I don't believe the lines are so clearly drawn between "slavery" and "willing employment" when the subjective definition of a human being's "worth" is being debated. Often, it is capitalistic "fairness" that wins out at the expense of human rights. Money talks. And money gets politicians elected.

There is often a deficit between one's "worth" and what one "deserves."

I used to be much more "INTP" in my logical analysis of this situation-- much more favoring capitalism, every man for himself, "shit happens" ideology. I'm much more "INFP" these days, in sympathizing with the blight of my fellow-man, even though my own behavior and actions are very selfish and self-serving.

I used to be very much against federally imposed minimum wage and things like "affirmative action." However, I can see that when I was more immature in my life-- my subjective views were skewed by my own personal interests. If I widen my perspectives and try hard to care about all human beings, my views begin to soften up a bit and become more socialistic.

My own need to digress via online forums is really representative of my using the internet as an escape so I can momentarily relieve myself of the anxiety caused by my real life.

 

[Roni]

Slavery is either right or it's wrong.
If it's wrong then all debt-slavery, employment-slavery, animal-slavery, plant-slavery, etc is also wrong.

Thus if you choose wrong and are consequent in your ethics then you should also be a fruitarianist, otherwise you are a hypocrite! (a my-species-narcissist with a my-species-superiority complex).

Yes. These are logical conclusions from your original assumption that farming=slavery: either farming is as unethical as slavery no matter how well we treat the animal, or humans are a special case and different ethics apply.

I'm not particularly interested in challenging the farming=slavery assumption but there are a couple of related assumptions that really gave me 'food' for thought. (Boom Boom tish)

hunter/gatherer is much more work than to abuse a few animals.

Actually it's not. Living in industrialised societies requires more work.
This is mostly due to the concept of ownership. Nobody owns the land that feeds a hunter/gatherer culture. Our culture requires additional effort just to claim the right to the roof over our head.
When we first enslaved the land to our agriculture we also enslaved ourselves.
(I think Ninjasurfer might be thinking along these lines)

The goal of the farm is to slaughter the cow, which is mutually exclusive & contradictive from the goal of helping the cow have a good life. The only reason we treat the cows a bit better is because otherwise the people will rebel. Because there IS SOMETHING DEEP INSIDE PEOPLE that says its wrong.

I think you're giving humanity a little too much credit here. We enslave the cow because she has something we want. Taking good care of that is a necessary part of this slavery.
(similar to scorpionmover's comment)
She gets the best pasture so she grows big fast. She's vaccinated, wormed and safely fenced so she doesn't waste any of that good pasture fighting illness or healing injuries. -THICK- If she's headed for upmarket restaurants she gets a 6 week binge on yummy grains so her muscles marble with fat. -JUICY- She gets rubber-tyre-walled races to prevent bruises that discolour her meat. -RED- Then she's kept calm in the abattoir and dies unaware of her danger so no stress hormones make her taste gamey. -STEAK-

Now consider a creature that has nothing we want - a smelly old homeless guy wiped out on rotgut.
Life dealt him a little setback and he chose to take it hard, to dwell on the negative thoughts and let himself spiral into depression, to numb his pain with alcohol, to ignore signs the alcohol was impairing his judgement and damaging his relationships; he chose too often to spend the rent money on drink and to be too drunk for work; he's jobless, homeless and alone by the sum of his own choices. It's his freedom that allows us to take no responsibilty for his situation.

An enslaved cow has a higher quality of life than a free bum because she's our slave. We've taken responsibility for her welfare and she has no choice.
That she has no choice is what we abhor about slavery, but it's a disposable ethic.
If the cow had nothing we wanted we wouldn't enslave her. If the homeless guy had some value we'd force him to make different choices.

 

[SkyWalker]

Actually it's not. Living in industrialised societies requires more work.
This is mostly due to the concept of ownership. Nobody owns the land that feeds a hunter/gatherer culture. Our culture requires additional effort just to claim the right to the roof over our head.
When we first enslaved the land to our agriculture we also enslaved ourselves.
(I think Ninjasurfer might be thinking along these lines)
.

You are totally right that hunter/gatherer is less work generally, for the average human that is.

People in modern society are doing MUCH more work. TRUE! Even most slave-masters keep on working (expanding, making more money as a sport). So even the slave-masters get enslaved into the enslavement-super-system

However there are also a few "?smarter?" slave-masters who do not work much at all. They just collect free interest/dividend/rental income from a fairly young age until their old age. Their food is brought to them, they do not even shop. They are not the most ambitious parasites, but they are very succesful ones nevertheless. They surely have less work to do than a hunter-gatherer. But these are rare. And they never last, because they are still parasites, but lazy ones that dont watch their back, thus get taken down eventually. nobody can stay parasiting without effort. the lucky ones just live in a lucrative temporary time window you could say.

so the only long term solution for the max 4 hour working week = hunter-gatherer (e.g. a society where each member just reciprocates fairly instead of enslaving others).

 

[SkyWalker]

I think you're giving humanity a little too much credit here. We enslave the cow because she has something we want. Taking good care of that is a necessary part of this slavery.

I agree. But the original intent was not to take good care. The original intent was to enslave/eat. As long as you remember that.

Because some people forget that, they turn things around: they think a government or corporation was set-up to care for you, for example. Thats like saying the farm was set-up to care for the cow.

 

[exdeath]

Ok become vegetarian? Where does it end?

Already stopped to some people and is called frutarianism
Some only eat fruits that fell from trees.

isn't that what the lion does when it eats a sheep?

Lions are stupid, we cant use them as a basis to something.

 

[Dapper Dan]

Because some people forget that, they turn things around: they think a government or corporation was set-up to care for you, for example. Thats like saying the farm was set-up to care for the cow.

I'm surprised this hasn't been pointed out already, but this is a flawed analogy. A government and a farm are two different things.

I could also say the same for farming and slavery, but really the only difference is that one deals with livestock and one deals with humans. So (once again) the whole thing comes down to whether humans should be treated differently than other life.