View Full Version : Slavery - is it really wrong?
Please understand that I am quite serious with the question. I am not at all sure that slavery is morally wrong - which is not to say that I would enjoy being a slave, nor does it suggest I wish to own slaves. Rather, the issue I propose is a discussion of whether slavery is wrong in a moral sense, and, if so, why.
The seed for this line of thought was planted by Dusty in his post #49, at this LINK (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=367461#post367461). Quoting: "SC seceeded because of Lincoln's stance on slavery which, as every sane person knows, was correct; it's wrong."
My interpretation of the sentence is the assertion that slavery is inherently wrong - a view in harmony with that of present-day society. Of course, if I'm in error, I welcome correction. I contend that I'm sane, but there is some risk of bias on my part. :D
It appears that slavery was broadly accepted until around 1815, when European leaders condemned the practice. Then, England passed the Wilberforce act in 1833 which abolished slavery. LINK (http://www.victorianweb.org/history/antislavery.html)
So, let us reflect for a moment. From early times - 2600 BCE, according to the link above - slavery was an accepted element of human life. The Romans did it. The Egyptians did it.
As nearly as I can tell, neither the Christian bible, nor the Jewish Torah - or for that matter, the Talmud - nor the Islamic Koran oppose the practice. There is a commandment against murder, but no such prohibition against enslavement. (Note: So far as I am aware. I have no qualifications as a religious scholar). It appears that Hinduism substitutes an hereditary caste system with aspects of slavery, but (seemingly) Hinduism does not sanction the practice. LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_and_religion)
Why have slaves in the first place? I can see two reasons. First, as a source of labor. Second, as a mechanism for dealing with large numbers of prisoners. Let us examine these two possibilities further.
Slaves were the original renewable energy resource. So long as the slave was reasonably healthy, one could input a small quantity of food and extract a quantity of work that exceeded the value of the inputs. True, the margin wasn't very large - but there weren't any viable alternatives.
The problem lies in the margin. If slaves are captured, the cost of acquisition is relatively low. If purchased or created through reproduction, the costs are greater - the capital investment is such that the value of the return may cease to be worthwhile.
In addition, a captured prisoner represents an unproductive asset. In a society living with a small margin between production and required minimum consumption, maintaining an unproductive subpopulation may not be possible. Thus the question - what to do with enemy prisoners? The alternatives appear to be mass execution or slavery. In the case of slavery, the prisoners become net producers, and it is profitable to keep them alive. Therefore, slavery may have been the more compassionate alternative.
Now let's consider timing. Recall that the first stirrings of concern about slavery were mentioned in 1815. What other trend was developing at the same period? The industrial revolution, with its machines, coal, and steam. LINK (http://www.victorianweb.org/technology/ir/irchron.html)
Perhaps the real reason for the end of slavery was not a moral awakening, but rather the discovery of more profitable ways to do things. If so, slavery becomes an economic choice, with a balance between costs and profits. The only morality is that of the balance sheet and income statement.
What is the alternative? Why was something accepted as moral behavior for over 4,000 years suddenly seen as otherwise? Shall we suppose that our souls have enjoyed spiritual evolution, and that we are now more pure - more sensitive to issues of right and wrong?
Here's a prediction - with the timing suitably vague, so as to avoid easy verification. Should our current energy use paradigm, and its resulting mass affluence fail, we will see slavery again.
Let me rephrase to say "to take away a person's freedom is inherently wrong."
Freedom being what it was worth at the time of the War in discussion.
See, if you take a man's liberty from him, you oppress him.
Hmmmmmm
While reading through your post my mind drifted off to mental pictures of sharecroppers and people living in a company town, shopping at the company store and working in the company coal mine.
Are house servants in the Middle East under a similar employment status as slavery? Beaten to death with little notice from the law seems kinda' like ownership.
mojaveman
01-06-2011, 11:59
Slavery is an accepted element of human life only by those who have the power and ability to enslave the enslaved.
De oppresso liber.
Richard :munchin
See, if you take a man's liberty from him, you oppress him.
True. More pointedly, the person who is lost liberty will almost certainly be used, abused, and forced into a miserable existence.
And yet, such things have been a part of human existence for a long time. What makes it other than moral?
Hmmmmmm
While reading through your post my mind drifted off to mental pictures of sharecroppers and people living in a company town, shopping at the company store and working in the company coal mine.
Are house servants in the Middle East under a similar employment status as slavery? Beaten to death with little notice from the law seems kinda' like ownership.
Very true. And then there are the folks who work for a meager wage in various third-world countries. They get enough to survive - barely - in horrific conditions. When they get sick, or old, or cannot produce, they are no longer employed. A valuable slave might receive some care - but a mere employee would simply be replaced.
In these cases, labor is rented instead of purchased - a more efficient use of capital.
longrange1947
01-06-2011, 12:08
As an aside, slavery is practiced today in several parts of the world, so to say we have evolved is not the answer. To say we have found a cheaper slave n the developed world, ie machines, would be correct. As for those areas that slavery still thives, teh industrial revolution has passed them by.
And yes, there is still slavery today in the US, beatings and all. Think about it. :munchin
1stindoor
01-06-2011, 12:16
This is an interesting thread and I think some definitions of a "slave" are needed. Outright slavery is indeed wrong on many levels, yet I can not help but think that a good majority of Americans are slaves to their own jobs and lifestyles. Take the middle management corporate employee that trudges into and out of work every day. Leaves at 0-dark thirty, packs in his lunch, takes the train, walks from the station to his little cubicle and goes through the mundane existence that is his life. He wants to quit, he wants to slow down, he wants to relax and go fishing, read, etc. Yet with a hefty mortgage of an overpriced house in the suburbs, kids in school, college tuition on the horizon he knows he has to work to maintain and has neither the time nor the energy nor the resources to change his lot in life...his "hope" is that his children will have it better.
Perhaps the real reason for the end of slavery was not a moral awakening, but rather the discovery of more profitable ways to do things. If so, slavery becomes an economic choice, with a balance between costs and profits. The only morality is that of the balance sheet and income statement.
It was always my impression from listening to the old folks talk that Slavery had more to do with the ROI of the plantation owners that it did for the need of able bodied workers. And a large portion of non-slave owning whites resented the colored folk because they took their jobs.
For Example: Master Tom Moore might get 5 Good Blacks for the same amount he would pay yearly to a White.
Here's a prediction - with the timing suitably vague, so as to avoid easy verification. Should our current energy use paradigm, and its resulting mass affluence fail, we will see slavery again.
I already see it....every time I drive thru McD's or Taco ball, and every roofing crew I see working in the area.
1stindoor
01-06-2011, 12:20
...And then there are the folks who work for a meager wage in various third-world countries. They get enough to survive - barely - in horrific conditions. When they get sick, or old, or cannot produce, they are no longer employed. A valuable slave might receive some care - but a mere employee would simply be replaced.
In these cases, labor is rented instead of purchased - a more efficient use of capital.
And I submit, we as an collective "consumer" are responsible for a lot of those "horrific conditions."
Everyone wants the SuperWalmart and the $5.00 T-shirts. No one cares that the shirts were made for pennies by someone in Guatamala.
longrange1947
01-06-2011, 12:27
My reference to slavery today is about real slavery and not a notional slavery of being a slave to the grindstone. Big city dwellers see alot of slves every day and probably do not realize it or don't give a flying fart. However, the slaves exist in all parts of the US. Just becasue we are "civilized" does not mean that certain segments of our society also abhor slavery just as many in todays society see no wrong in dog and cock fighting. But to turn a blind eye and ignore the facts is aiding and abetting the worng doers.
My 2 cents and now STFU. :munchin
What is slavery?
To be a slave is to be controlled by another person or persons so that your will does not determine your life's course, and rewards for your work and sacrifices are not yours to claim. While people today most likely believe that slavery is a thing of the past, the practice is still thriving wherever poverty, social conditions, and gullability can be exploited. Estimates are that there are 27 million slaves in the world today. - Kevin Bales, Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy, University of California Press, 1999.
The International Labor Organization (ILO) says there are eight main forms of forced labor in the world today. ILO's definitions and the countries it cites as examples of where the practices exist:
Slavery - A "physical abduction" followed by forced labor.
Congo, Liberia, Mauritania, Sierra Leone and Sudan
Farm and Rural Debt Bondage - Workers see all their wages go to paying for transportation, food and shelter because they've been "locked into debt" by unscrupulous job recruiters and landowners - and they can't leave because of force, threats or the remote location of the worksites.
Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Cote d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Togo
Bonded Labor - Another form of debt bondage, it often starts with the worker agreeing to provide labor in exchange for a loan, but quickly develops into bondage as the employer adds more and more "debt" to the bargain.
Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistán, Sri Lanka
People Trafficking - Individuals are forced or tricked into going somewhere by someone who will profit from selling them or forcing them to work against their will, most often in sexual trades. Many countries are both "origins" and "destinations" for victims.
Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, China, Colombia, Cote d'Ivoire, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Ghana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Republic of Korea, Laos, Latvia, Malaysia, Moldova, Myanmar, the Netherlands, Nepal, Nigeria, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom, USA, Vietnam, Yugoslavia
Abuse of Domestic Workers - Maids and other domestic servants are sold to their employers or bonded to them by debts.
Benin, Cote d'Ivoire, France, Haiti, the Middle East
Prison Labor - The contracting out of prison labor or forcing of prisoners to work for profit-making enterprises.
Australia, Austria, China, Cote d'Ivoire, France, Germany, New Zealand, Madagascar, Malaysia, USA
Compulsory Work - People are required by law to work on public construction projects such as roads and bridges.
Cambodia, the Central African Republic, Kenya, Burma (also known as Myanmar), Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tanzania, Vietnam
Military Labor - Civilians are forced to do work for government authorities or the military.
Burma (also known as Myanmar)
Lots of info and things to think about on the topic here:
Human Rights Ed Associates - http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=1
Richard :munchin
1stindoor
01-06-2011, 13:42
What is slavery?
Thanks Richard for the definitions...If only there were someone...specially trained in human trafficking...someone who could draw upon his own experiences and train the rest of us...where could we find such a man?
What is slavery?
To be a slave is to be controlled by another person or persons so that your will does not determine your life's course, and rewards for your work and sacrifices are not yours to claim. ...........................
Dang, that kinda' reads like a female's life in the middle east.
But who are we to judge. All cultures are equal.
Where do we draw the line?
In the sand. ;)
Richard :munchin
GratefulCitizen
01-06-2011, 15:57
Suppose a system of indoctrination were put into place for the vast majority of the population, teaching people to behave like slaves.
Suppose the "rulers" went through a different system of indoctrination, teaching them to behave like masters.
Not all of the "slaves" would take to the indoctrination.
Not all of the "masters" would take to the indoctrination.
Suppose most of them did.
Would this be slavery?
Is restriction of important knowledge and the collection/limited sharing of secrets a form of slavery?
How long did the masses not know how their credit score affected them?
Is unequal credit a form of slavery?
People with more credit can wait until prices drop, buy up the supply of [X] on margin, withhold supply until prices increase, and sell at a profit.
People with less credit have to be price takers.
They usually labor for the money used in this rigged game.
Suppose people are being oppressed, but they can't quite detect that fact.
Are they still slaves?
Suppose a system of indoctrination were put into place for the vast majority of the population, teaching people to behave like slaves.
Suppose the "rulers" went through a different system of indoctrination, teaching them to behave like masters.
Not all of the "slaves" would take to the indoctrination.
Not all of the "masters" would take to the indoctrination.
Suppose most of them did.
Would this be slavery?
Is restriction of important knowledge and the collection/limited sharing of secrets a form of slavery?
How long did the masses not know how their credit score affected them?
Is unequal credit a form of slavery?
People with more credit can wait until prices drop, buy up the supply of [X] on margin, withhold supply until prices increase, and sell at a profit.
People with less credit have to be price takers.
They usually labor for the money used in this rigged game.
Suppose people are being oppressed, but they can't quite detect that fact.
Are they still slaves?
Did you take the blue pill?
GratefulCitizen
01-06-2011, 16:41
Did you take the blue pill?
Nope.
Wassily Leontief doesn't have me trapped.:D
I'm confused, Nmap. What, to you, is the logical bridge between something having existing for a long time and its morality? Do you think that ancient Egyptians were necessarily more moral then the people of today?
I think you and I have had a discussion on morality before. When you throw the word MORAL out there...do you make any distinction between "personal values" and "morality" or are they interchangeable terms? Morals are of society. What is moral in one culture might be immoral in another.
greenberetTFS
01-06-2011, 17:13
Another possibility is the Biblical slavery thats mentioned in the Old Testament where an indentured person voluntarily accepted it,rather than going to prison for owing money and being unable pay that individual............:(
Big Teddy :munchin
PedOncoDoc
01-06-2011, 17:25
Another possibility is the Biblical slavery thats mentioned in the Old Testament where an indentured person voluntarily accepted it,rather than going to prison for owing money and being unable pay that individual............:(
Big Teddy :munchin
I would argue that one who chooses to give up his freedom is a separate type of slave than one whose freedom is taken from him.
Slave by choice vs. slave by force. Living as the former I can't personally endorse, but is a choice (much like abortion), the latter is something that requires corrective action.
My $.02.....
Can a comparision be made today?
"I'll gladly give up my civil rights for x-dollars and gladly do what ever you ask of me, but please do not take my welfare check away and leave the x-box plugged in,...pass the Meth and spoon please".
“…If only there were someone...specially trained in human trafficking...someone who could draw upon his own experiences and train the rest of us...where could we find such a man?
According to TS, bill hillar left the country…. :( :eek: :D
I'm confused, Nmap. What, to you, is the logical bridge between something having existing for a long time and its morality? Do you think that ancient Egyptians were necessarily more moral then the people of today?
A pattern of behavior exists for thousands of years and is regarded as morally acceptable. Something occurs along about 1815, and thereafter the behavior is regarded as morally wrong. This causes me to wonder what that something was that caused the change. Why was slavery OK then, and yet now it is regarded as wrong? If we can understand that, perhaps we can understand the human condition more fully.
As for the Egyptians, they are simply one datapoint within a greater set. I suppose I find it more interesting that essentially all of the moral systems - including some active presently - regarded slavery as within the limits of moral behavior at one time, and yet have changed their position.
Guess nobody here has ever heard of events such as the Reformation with its 'liberty of conscience' doctrine and its impact on the thinking of such customs, or read the works of the philosophers of the period - such as Rouseau, Hegel, Locke, Hobbs, etc. :eek:
Our so-called Founding Fathers certainly did...and here we are.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
CombatMuffin
01-06-2011, 19:01
Great thread for discussion...
Slavery in the traditional sense is wrong, however practical it proves.
I strongly agree with the ideas posted by 1stindoor and, while Richard's definitions certainly cover a wide variety of types and forms, one can only guess what other more obscure types of the concept could be included.
Most opinions seem to coincide with the fact that free will is the driving force which classifies something as enslaved or otherwise. I would disagree to an extent, since free will can at times become rather subjective.Heres why I think so (I apologize in advance for the bad attempt at philosophy that now follows):
One could argue that choices are not 100% inherent to an individual person, but the result of strong influences from external sources. We make decisions based on the ways we were raised by our parents, peers, social pressure, etc. Sometimes we act in opposite directions, but influenced by them nonetheless.
I hate this example, since its a little extreme and controversial, but here it goes: a suicide bomber or a terrorist. On one hand, we can argue he is being enslaved by his doctrine/ideology/religion, however when viewed from the extremist's point of view, however distorted, he could be performing an act of pure free will, his religion liberating him.
Different example: we have historically always needed some form authority above us to function. Since ancient days, there has always been some form of person, perceived to be the best in the group, to make the decisions of the masses (whether democratic or not). You had the shamans, you had the kings, now you have presidents. Strong minds leading the rest. We show no signs of being able to function as an anarchy, yet.
I believe it was Team Sargeant who, in another post mentioned how charisma tends to bring in $$$$ and power to certain individuals, while not necessarily constributing something productive to society compared to other, more brilliant minds.
Would slavery be right, even if was our decision? Would it be slavery if we knew our freedoms were being taken away for something in exchange? The romans had a pretty organized slavery system, the law contemplated them in several shapes and forms, to the point where they could even gain their own freedom against their master's will (if they managed to escape and reach their homeland... ). Slaves were a basic and accepted element of their society. Nowadays, many would be willing to give away what we consider basic rights or even moral fiber in exchange for money, security, material wealth or even as basic as food or shelter.
What kinds of slavery involve free will? Consider how many people willingly sign contracts that will shape their future, sure those contracts are intangible, but they carry real consequences. Consider the example regarding religion above, one can be imposed religion, but it is not your religion unless you willingly accept it, and if you do, are you morally enslaved? Consider cultural influences, social trends: we willingly accept many of these, and they affect the way we live.
It sounds farfetched but I can't help but ask myself this question:
If I felt happy and fulfilled as a slave, would it still be considered slavery? Or slavery for the sake of slavery is inherently wrong, regardless of free will, happiness or otherwise.
Edit: I would also be careful in calling our current social structure as "evolved" from the past. The free countries that stemmed in part from the Enlightenment(sp?) and other Freedom movements in the past three centuries could be but a simple "hump," or trend, when we consider the entire timline of human civilization. In two or three centuries, it could be viewed as a social experiment proven wrong.
Dragbag036
01-06-2011, 19:25
As, I am open to many discussions on this site, and consider myself to be very open minded, I am trying to comprehend what it is that you are trying to discuss here, or what point you are trying to make. As this is a site of QP's, "De Oppresso Liber", as some here have stated comes first to mind. I would hope that you asked yourself the question of whether you would like being the slave, in any of its primitive forms.
I have not been a slave of the era that most comes to mind, so I can only remember conversations with my grandparents who were slaves. The Bible speaks of slaves in many forms, but Gods chosen people were also promised that they would only endure bondage for only so long. One can always find reasons to be for or against the topic, but to enslave any HUMAN BEING for the reason of personal property is wrong.
I can't even put words to paper properly on this subject, so all I will say is this; let someone take your loved ones for whatever their purpose may be, your children, wives, etc...And ask the same question to yourself
DB .00000002 cents
I would argue that one who chooses to give up his freedom is a separate type of slave than one whose freedom is taken from him.
Slave by choice vs. slave by force. Living as the former I can't personally endorse, but is a choice (much like abortion), the latter is something that requires corrective action.
My $.02.....
There are a few shades of grey in that comparison, that haven't seen covered in what I've read so far.
My tribe and I raid your tribe, successfully several times, and I pick up a couple of field hands and a second wife.
Your tribe unites with another stronger tribe and raids mine. This time I'm captured and the work I do for you is involuntary.
Now, have I been immorally pressed into slavery, or did I ante up and draw cards?
Is a dead drug dealer, armed and face down in the street a victim? Or is he, like the others who lived by tribal or street custom a voluntary player who finally lost?
Guess nobody here has ever heard of events such as the Reformation with its 'liberty of conscience' doctrine and its impact on the thinking of such customs, or read the works of the philosophers of the period - such as Rouseau, Hegel, Locke, Hobbs, etc. :eek:
Our so-called Founding Fathers certainly did.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Well...the reformation predated the events by more than 200 years. And then we come to Locke and Hobbes. Hobbes passed in 1697, and Locke did so in 1704. So their demise predated the shift by more than 100 years. As you point out, the founding fathers were persuaded by such views - and they, of course, influence us to this day.
Was the reformation the "something" that caused the shift? Were a pair of philosophers?
And yet, we seem to come back to mere assertions. Locke can argue that men have certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and property. Hobbes can argue for equality between men, and did. But these contentions, while elegantly stated as part of a philosophy, do not prove slavery per se to be moral or immoral.
It seems that the best we can say is that those mentioned were influential and persuasive. This resulted in a consensus among most societies (but not all) that slavery was "wrong".
Shall we conclude that a moral standard is nothing more than a popularity contest? If so, wouldn't it be more accurate to rephrase the term "wrong" to become "unpopular"?
As the Romans said, Vox Populi, Vox Dei - the voice of the people is the voice of God.
Shall we conclude that a moral standard is nothing more than a popularity contest? If so, wouldn't it be more accurate to rephrase the term "wrong" to become "unpopular"?[/COLOR].
Depends on whether you are principled.
As, I am open to many discussions on this site, and consider myself to be very open minded, I am trying to comprehend what it is that you are trying to discuss here, or what point you are trying to make.
The central point is morality, and how we determine whether a particular action (or situation) is moral or otherwise. In the case of slavery, we seem to have a shift, around 1815 (perhaps as much as 200 years earlier) when people decided that something that was OK was not OK. That shift, and how and why it occurred, is interesting.
As Richard pointed out, the founders of our nation supported liberty. QPs support that standard, as pointed out by the motto. I respect that. I am not arguing against it.
Please understand that I am not arguing in favor of slavery. I am well aware that I would not enjoy the condition. I do not suppose anyone would.
You have said that "but to enslave any HUMAN BEING for the reason of personal property is wrong." I respectfully invite your thoughts on why it is wrong, if you are so inclined and have the time.
mojaveman
01-06-2011, 19:53
Did the "Age of Enlightenment" have anything to do with the change in thinking regarding slavery?
Peregrino
01-06-2011, 19:53
As the Romans said, Vox Populi, Vox Dei - the voice of the people is the voice of God.
Well stated. Why detract from the exposition by reducing the Roman quote (a powerful comentary in its own right) to sarcasm?
Peregrino
01-06-2011, 20:01
Depends on whether you are principled.
What defines principled? That's as dangerous as annointing someone with "integrity". Hitler, Stalin, and innumerable other infamous persons were all principled men of integrity. Robert E. Lee was a principled man; yet he fought with dedication and skill to preserve an ideal that revisionists have spent the last 150 years denigrating. (Sorry - I didn't intend to pull a Richard on you but your statement was a little too open-ended to pass on.)
It appears that slavery was broadly accepted until around 1815, when European leaders condemned the practice.
Something occurs along about 1815, and thereafter the behavior is regarded as morally wrong.Nmap--
The sources you've consulted to develop this interpretation of the history of slavery have done you a great disservice.
Your interpretation disregards documents such as Resolutions of The Germantown Mennonites (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/men01.asp) (February 18, 1688), An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pennst01.asp), (1780), and An Act to Prohibit the Carrying on the Slave Trade from the United States to any Foreign Place or Country (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/sl001.asp) (1794).
More importantly, your "top down" approach does not account for the thoughts and activities among non-elites who opposed the institution of slavery nor for the resistance of slaves themselves. When slaves ran away, broke tools, loafed around, 'stole' food, pretended not to understand simple instructions, worshiped God, learned how to read, eavesdropped, helped other slaves to run away, petitioned courts for their freedom, got 'uppity,' or plotted to kill a whole lot of people, they were demonstrating their views on the morality of slavery.
PedOncoDoc
01-06-2011, 20:06
My tribe and I raid your tribe, successfully several times, and I pick up a couple of field hands and a second wife.
Your tribe unites with another stronger tribe and raids mine. This time I'm captured and the work I do for you is involuntary.
Now, have I been immorally pressed into slavery, or did I ante up and draw cards?
I would say the initial taken of other people as spoils of war is wrong, and 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Is a dead drug dealer, armed and face down in the street a victim? Or is he, like the others who lived by tribal or street custom a voluntary player who finally lost?
This has nothing to do with the other arguments IMO. This is a thug living a thug's life. The dealer chose his trade and knows the risks inherent therein (many have the, "that bad stuff won't happen to me," menatlity.) The only place slavery comes into this discussion is the people who have chosen to enslave themselves to his vices.
Nmap--
The sources you've consulted to develop this interpretation of the history of slavery have done you a great disservice.
Yes, your sources are far superior - I'll have to study them a bit.
More importantly, your "top down" approach does not account for the thoughts and activities among non-elites who opposed the institution of slavery nor for the resistance of slaves themselves.
True. But notice the dates on your sources. Now we start getting back to the reformation itself. Should we, then, regard the reformation as the central element in the change of views?
Is Martin Luther, rather than Locke and Hobbes, or Jefferson, the true author of the change in morality? Granted, he came up with a new view of the Bible - but, in the end, don't we come down to a persuasive fellow who got people to go along with him?
When slaves ran away, broke tools, loafed around, 'stole' food, pretended not to understand simple instructions, worshiped God, learned how to read, eavesdropped, helped other slaves to run away, petitioned courts for their freedom, got 'uppity,' or plotted to kill a whole lot of people, they were demonstrating their views on the morality of slavery.
True - but those in an unpleasant situation will surely oppose it. In addition, this adds to the balance sheet conclusion that slaves are inefficient (and undependable) labor and really too expensive. And yet, I suppose people mean more by the term "wrong" then "suboptimal business model".
Dragbag036
01-06-2011, 20:28
As Richard pointed out, the founders of our nation supported liberty. QPs support that standard, as pointed out by the motto. I respect that. I am not arguing against it.
Please understand that I am not arguing in favor of slavery. I am well aware that I would not enjoy the condition. I do not suppose anyone would.
You have said that "but to enslave any HUMAN BEING for the reason of personal property is wrong." I respectfully invite your thoughts on why it is wrong, if you are so inclined and have the time.
In short, what I should have stated is that being enslaved based on race, I believe, is wrong. Slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. Exodus 21:16 KJ "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."
As for the rest of the discussion, I will continue to read and be educated by those that may have a well searched and knowledgeable understanding into our history. I will go the way of the Old Team Room on this one, and sit in the corner until I have something educated to say.
turboprop
01-06-2011, 20:34
Seconding what Drag Bag said, the excessive jargon you use makes it hard to understand what you are getting at. Is slavery really wrong? Are you kidding? When was it ever acceptable? You cite a couple societies that used to practice slavery and make the connotation that it was morally acceptable until the emancipation proclamation? While it is probably not worth the time it takes to type this here goes:
That line of reasoning could argue that years from now people would be able to claim that since murder/rape/child abuse occur frequently that we as a whole consider those acts moral. Well, what are your thoughts on that?
The amazing thing about this board is those that wear/have worn that crest at the upper left of your screen have a moral compass tuned enough to know that slavery is really wrong without using pros and cons, what fallen civilizations practiced or scientific formulas.
Next...
Please understand that I am not arguing in favor of slavery.However, you are echoing those who have - without the least hint of irony--or self-consciousness.
Slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status.
Recorded History does not support such a position in the least.
However, yaawwwnnnnnnn...I think I'll just join DB036...and await the Mel Brooks version of this thread - should be a good one.
Richard :munchin
Seconding what Drag Bag said, the excessive jargon you use makes it hard to understand what you are getting at. Is slavery really wrong? Are you kidding? When was it ever acceptable? You cite a couple societies that used to practice slavery and make the connotation that it was morally acceptable until the emancipation proclamation?
I'll try to control the jargon. As you say, it's a bad habit.
Slavery seems to have been acceptable in lots of times and places - here's a LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery). The indigenous peoples of America had slaves. The Vikings had slaves, as did the Chinese. The Bible speaks of slaves. All of this lasted over thousands of years.
It appears that a lot of people thought it was morally acceptable.
While it is probably not worth the time it takes to type this here goes:
That line of reasoning could argue that years from now people would be able to claim that since murder/rape/child abuse occur frequently that we as a whole consider those acts moral. Well, what are your thoughts on that?
We have laws that prohibit such acts. When possible, we as a society punish those who do such things. This contrasts with slavery which was legal and widely accepted within the societies.
To explore this, we would need something that is legal today, and which people consider moral today - but which they would see as immoral in the future.
The amazing thing about this board is those that wear/have worn that crest at the upper left of your screen have a moral compass tuned enough to know that slavery is really wrong without using pros and cons, what fallen civilizations practiced or scientific formulas.
Next...
Yes, it is interesting. That's part of why I greatly value the perspectives available here.
However, you are echoing those who have - without the least hint of irony--or self-consciousness.
OK, but we come back to the original point - what makes it wrong?
Is it a case of an inner moral compass, something that one has that says, infallibly, this is wrong? Is that moral compass immune to the attitudes of existing society?
More and more, it looks as if "Vox Populi, Vox Dei" is the key factor.
I am going to make a broad statement that any can nit pick with examples that don't fit the case but...............
I think it boils down to force.
The sharecropper, coal miner in the company town or office worker in his gopher hole are not held against their will by a master. The economic "slave" still has choice.
The true end to slavery may have been a slow process as peoples came to see others as like themselves.
But that is an idea that may not last as long as the world remains a salad and not a melting pot. Scratch a civilized man and you'll see a savage.
Scratch a civilized man and you'll see a savage.
Ah-ha! You've been reading RL Stevenson again. ;)
Richard :munchin
craigepo
01-06-2011, 22:39
I would humbly submit that the thinkers of the Enlightenment refined and forwarded the idea that each individual human is of value ("natural rights", "inalienable rights", and others.).
From this idea that an individual human has value, it is relatively simple to come up with a lot of ideas that respect individual rights more than those of a nation/people as a whole. The Bill of Rights, guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", and the abolition of slavery are all examples of this train of thought.
To say that the Enlightenment ideas wholly originated in the Enlightenment era would be too simple. I would surmise that the thoughts were adopted from many different sources, then discussed, refined, and disseminated in Enlightenment-era salons, taverns, churches, Masonic lodges, etc.
Food for thought as always Dr. Nmap,
If you consider Darwin, as well as the stoics, particularly Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius, ironically one was a slave the other the ruler of the then civilized world. Nature is survival of the fittest, there is no tenure or equality, evolve or die. However as sentient social animals, humans have developed social contracts and codes as operating systems to co-exist, history has shown we are quite willing to violate them when expedient. The US constitution is a balanced and well thought out operating system for societal interaction, however IMHO someone who believes these inalienable rights we revere are based on anything other than our ability to defend them is naive.
As Americans our tradition of freedom and liberty, far from perfect historically, and not to the point of anarchy, is a vital ingredient along with our geography, industry, and resources for America's success. Due to this moral appeal, the best and the brightest worldwide want to come here for the freedoms, this benefits America in terms of natural selection. However we are ill advised to forget the universal lessons of nature, murder, rape, war, and slavery in some way shape or form exist despite religion, region etc. I do not feel slavery is any more evil than thunder or rain, if you don't have the sense to take shelter from the rain, or defend your freedom why blame or label the ensuing pneumonia evil? Inefficient or wasteful yes, especially if you believe such friction between haves and have nots eventually leads to societal upheaval, which I suppose a Darwinist would merely consider natural selection.
The wisdom of the stoics, though logical is hard to live. The notion the only things in life you can control are your thoughts and actions, and you should not be disturbed by that which you cannot control ( basically everything else) is a tall order and IMHO incomplete without a moral compass, some version of which is found in most religions or operating systems, the Christians for example call it the Golden Rule, simply " Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". IMHO this type of code is the glue that holds and stabilizes societies.
So while conceding there is no equality in nature, IMO the notion of slavery is morally reprehensible simply because we are a social species neither wholly animals or creatures of logic. Thus the thought of loved ones either friends or family undergoing the ravages and ordeals of slavery is repugnant to the point of not wishing this fate upon anyone since this would violate the moral compass which stabilizes society. This concedes an American bias for a belief in self determination which is not universal, though instead of judging other cultures perhaps just realize there will always be competition at every level for limited resources, we are all wired to survive though merely as beasts when without a moral compass.
I would say the initial taken of other people as spoils of war is wrong, and 2 wrongs don't make a right.
By the old idea of 2 wrongs not making a right, we wouldn't imprison kidnappers, would we?
Slavery is not evidence of our angelic nature. However, it doesn't stand out in my mind as a wrong above other aspects of human nature.
I feel the same thing seeing a fox in pursuit of a rabbit.
However, is that fox "wrong", or are we simply seeing that our true compete/survive nature is more than a stone's throw from those who go through the "wouldn't it be nice if rocks were softer" thought process to reach the conclusion that the world has been deprived of soft rocks by an unjust God
But the root question remains one of wrong vs. the sad realities of a world that includes tsunamis and earthquakes..
Warfare has historically had, as a basic intent, the imposition of the will of one people over others. An occupying force, whether a force of those with lofty ideals, or a force that we would perhaps term barbarians, enslaves an entire nation.
And, I work about three months of each year for no benefit to myself because those with power over me will punish me if I don't bend to their authority. And I don't have a choice that doesn't involve iron bars. :)
nmap
I think you have to pick the type of morality you are referring to.
The SEP defines it as having two sources;
The term “morality” can be used either
1.descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
a.some other group, such as a religion, or
b.accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2.normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
You seem to be using the descriptive term, when arguing that it has been accepted throughout history and therefore is moral.
If that is the case, are you then a cultural egoist? What percentage of a groups acceptance is adequate for a source of morality?
I would argue against slavery under the normative sense. Rational persons tend to believe that people are "ends in themselves" rather than merely a means. It very well may be that people are more rational in this sense today for a broad range of reasons but that does not then mean that previous generations were doing the moral thing in their ignorance.
I would suggest Kant's Groundwork might be a helpful read in this discussion.
As far as the previous point being raised that a slave might be held in better health than a freeman who is poor or unemployed...
All I could say to that is that I would rather die free and starving digging on my own land than be the healthiest slave.
This was all meant to address slavery in the traditional sense. The worker drone slavery is valid but I think are two different animals.
My undereducated $.02
PedOncoDoc
01-07-2011, 05:33
By the old idea of 2 wrongs not making a right, we wouldn't imprison kidnappers, would we?
Ah...so enforcing justice and removing evil from society is now a bad thing? I am in violent disagreement with that statement. Bad comparison IMHO.
And, I work about three months of each year for no benefit to myself because those with power over me will punish me if I don't bend to their authority. And I don't have a choice that doesn't involve iron bars. :)
If you are referring to taxes in the above quote, you are free to choose to live elsewhere. I'm sure you could find a cave in some third world nation you could live in so as to avoid the taxes. I would argue the taxes are the cost of living in our great nation. You do not have a choice that doesn't involve iron bars while still enjoying your present environment and quality of life.
If yor are not referring to taxes, how did you get into the aforementioned arrangement?:confused:
What defines principled? That's as dangerous as annointing someone with "integrity". Hitler, Stalin, and innumerable other infamous persons were all principled men of integrity. Robert E. Lee was a principled man; yet he fought with dedication and skill to preserve an ideal that revisionists have spent the last 150 years denigrating. (Sorry - I didn't intend to pull a Richard on you but your statement was a little too open-ended to pass on.)
Fair enough.
By "principled", I meant whether you listen to your conscience-your sense of right and wrong-and act in accordance. I made the statement under the assumption that everybody has that faculty, which is indeed open-ended.
If you lived in, say, 1855 and had a dog, would you beat it, or starve it? If not, it's because of principle, not law.
Same with the mistreatment of Negroes; assuming forced servitude falls under that category.
1stindoor
01-07-2011, 08:50
Fair enough.
If you lived in, say, 1855 and had a dog, would you beat it, or starve it? If not, it's because of principle, not law.
Why does it have to be a "dog" thing?
Sorry...I tried to stop myself...honest.
Why does it have to be a "dog" thing?
Sorry...I tried to stop myself...honest.
Ah Ite.
WholeManin2010
01-07-2011, 09:55
I think that all of these metaphorical references to voluntary forms of servitude lack relevance to the slightly bizarre question posed by this thread.
There is no justification for traveling to a foreign land, kidnapping suitable bodies for one's own selfish purposes and killing any who resist; transporting them like chattel thousands of miles on a ship where they are shackled and arranged like inventory, and where they die from rampant disease, malnutrition, OR live with the despair of not being able to move away from the rat and human shit that accumulates; forcing the survivors to work for NO compensation, beating them into nothingness to increase productivity or punish the lack thereof; raping the women at will, often for a lifetime, with no threat of retribution; and finally killing any who dare to attempt to escape this misery.
Doesn't matter when or why those who desire to continue to treat other humans this way were mostly forced to do so in the shadows. All that matters is that it's mostly over.
Entertaining the notion that it might not have been so wrong after all stinks of the logic that a pedophile might appeal to when attempting to justify that their deviance was in fact acceptable historically -- and is only now considered wrong because of the prevailing social contract we choose to adhere to.
Entertaining the notion that it might not have been so wrong after all stinks of the logic that a pedophile might appeal to when attempting to justify that their deviance was in fact acceptable historically -- and is only now considered wrong because of the prevailing social contract we choose to adhere to.
Which applies inversely to homosexuality.
Yesterday is not ours to recover, but tomorrow is ours to win or lose.
- LBJ
Gawd...let me be the person my dog thinks I am.
Richard :munchin
The one gift more valuable above all other gifts is the gift of "Free Will".
Not even God would "force" me to obey His word, nor would I be His slave.
greenberetTFS
01-07-2011, 11:59
"and await the Mel Brooks version of this thread"..........;)
Big Teddy :munchin
GratefulCitizen
01-07-2011, 12:12
The one gift more valuable above all other gifts is the gift of "Free Will".
Not even God would "force" me to obey His word, nor would I be His slave.
This, plus Pete's comments on "force" lead to something interesting.
Sometimes force is used directly, sometimes it is indirectly against others through human government and other institutions (including propertly laws, tax codes, banking laws, etc.).
The distribution of power among humans is unequal.
Where it is too closely balanced there is strife; where it is too unbalanced there is oppression.
What restrains those who wield the most power?
Perhaps fear of/respect for something greater than their own power.
*************
*************
Is slavery wrong when it is for the greater good of a society?
-What degree of conscription qualifies as "wrong"?
-What if fixing oppression causes more harm than good?
I suspect the founders of this nation didn't have the answers.
Rather, they did the best they could to set a path towards as much freedom as was possible, given the circumstances.
Lasting freedom is always purchased in blood.
In the end, the boundaries are defined by the willingness of those who sacrifice that blood.
This, plus Pete's comments on "force" lead to something interesting.
Sometimes force is used directly, sometimes it is indirectly against others through human government and other institutions (including propertly laws, tax codes, banking laws, etc.).
The distribution of power among humans is unequal.
Where it is too closely balanced there is strife; where it is too unbalanced there is oppression.
What restrains those who wield the most power?
Perhaps fear of/respect for something greater than their own power.
*************
*************
Is slavery wrong when it is for the greater good of a society?
-What degree of conscription qualifies as "wrong"?
-What if fixing oppression causes more harm than good?
I suspect the founders of this nation didn't have the answers.
Rather, they did the best they could to set a path towards as much freedom as was possible, given the circumstances.
Lasting freedom is always purchased in blood.
In the end, the boundaries are defined by the willingness of those who sacrifice that blood.
I beleive the Founding Father's knew exactly what slavery was, and also knew the difference between indentured survitude and cheap labor.
They had a very clear understanding of the nature of man, the role men played in economies and equality. They also knew that more wealth could be made for "all" if "all" wher free to choose according to the dictates of their own conscience.
If all the "power", "influence" and "money" is in the hands of the few, so sad. More could be made, puchased, obtained and experienced by "all" if "all" had opportunites to succeed.
Many of the Founding Father's questioned to economy of salvery and only saw diminishing returns. Forget just having cheap labor, they had to feed these people, or they would starve and thier investments would be lost.
It was not the process of over breeding or selective breeding either. In my business of cattle and horses, I could have the very best of breed quality, but if I put a superior horse on poor feed, guess what I get? A poor horse. No amount of bad feed will help, regardless of his genetics.
I have few animals that some would view as "slaves". A large team of draft horses and a few good cow dogs.
They eat as well as my children.
First, thanks to everyone who has commented. I can think of nowhere else where so many insightful, cogent thoughts would come to bear.
nmap
I think you have to pick the type of morality you are referring to.
The SEP defines it as having two sources;
The term “morality” can be used either
1.descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
a.some other group, such as a religion, or
b.accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2.normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
Yes, 1a - where society as a whole defines behavior was my original meaning.
2, however, is an interesting area for consideration. Let's explore it, along with quotes from some other posts.
The amazing thing about this board is those that wear/have worn that crest at the upper left of your screen have a moral compass tuned enough to know that slavery is really wrong without using pros and cons, what fallen civilizations practiced or scientific formulas.
I would humbly submit that the thinkers of the Enlightenment refined and forwarded the idea that each individual human is of value ("natural rights", "inalienable rights", and others.).
From this idea that an individual human has value, it is relatively simple to come up with a lot of ideas that respect individual rights more than those of a nation/people as a whole. The Bill of Rights, guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", and the abolition of slavery are all examples of this train of thought.
To say that the Enlightenment ideas wholly originated in the Enlightenment era would be too simple. I would surmise that the thoughts were adopted from many different sources, then discussed, refined, and disseminated in Enlightenment-era salons, taverns, churches, Masonic lodges, etc.
So while conceding there is no equality in nature, IMO the notion of slavery is morally reprehensible simply because we are a social species neither wholly animals or creatures of logic. Thus the thought of loved ones either friends or family undergoing the ravages and ordeals of slavery is repugnant to the point of not wishing this fate upon anyone since this would violate the moral compass which stabilizes society. This concedes an American bias for a belief in self determination which is not universal, though instead of judging other cultures perhaps just realize there will always be competition at every level for limited resources, we are all wired to survive though merely as beasts when without a moral compass.
These all seem to suggest that people have a moral compass (conscience?) that tells them what is right or wrong. This compass transcends the judgment of society. Even if everyone around says that something is morally correct, the compass will inform the individual that the behavior is wrong.
It brings to mind a quote from the Declaration of Independence, "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."
The founders used the word "self-evident", which I take to mean that everyone's moral compass tells them (unerringly?) what is right and what is wrong.
Well...let's look at this. For thousands of years, the compass remained silent as people the world over enslaved others. Then, about 400 years ago, perhaps due to the effect mentioned by craigpo: "...the idea that each individual human is of value..." came into human awareness, and, again quoted from craigpo: "I would surmise that the thoughts were adopted from many different sources, then discussed, refined, and disseminated in Enlightenment-era salons, taverns, churches, Masonic lodges, etc.".
This seems to imply that an idea - particularly one in harmony with the conscience - is powerful and can (and did) transform societies. Perhaps it even transforms humanity as a whole.
And yet, Pete mentions:
The true end to slavery may have been a slow process as peoples came to see others as like themselves.
But that is an idea that may not last as long as the world remains a salad and not a melting pot. Scratch a civilized man and you'll see a savage.
So if the moral sea-change that caused a change of view on slavery was caused by an idea pricking the conscience of many, then we face a question. Does the change represent an evolution in humanity, one which precludes the return of slavery and other such things? Or, do we only hear our conscience when our bellies are full and our bodies comfortable, with our inner savage sated? Just how strong is that compass?
And that question, IMO, deals with far more than slavery. It deals with the underlying nature of all of us.
Nmap,
IMO this "moral compass" mentioned in previous posts is in fact akin to a compass a useful tool for navigation through society, however by no means infallible. As you mentioned it is quite possible not all members of society share these self evident truths. A psychopath for example may be fine with murder as it relates to his own moral compass, but once discovered his actions will violate the majority sensibilities and moral compass of his society on both a pragmatic and moral level, and they will deal with him just as any group of herd animals disposes of damaged goods.
A moral compass is a stabilizing pillar for society and a navigational aid towards civilization, however as you mentioned concerning our nature, the only self evident truth is your rights extend to that which you can defend whether you are a civilized man or a savage. However "savage" societies are much more draconian in their methods of dealing with damaged goods.
GratefulCitizen
01-07-2011, 15:58
Nmap,
IMO this "moral compass" mentioned in previous posts is in fact akin to a compass a useful tool for navigation through society, however by no means infallible. As you mentioned it is quite possible not all members of society share these self evident truths. A psychopath for example may be fine with murder as it relates to his own moral compass, but once discovered his actions will violate the majority sensibilities and moral compass of his society on both a pragmatic and moral level, and they will deal with him just as any group of herd animals disposes of damaged goods.
A moral compass is a stabilizing pillar for society and a navigational aid towards civilization, however as you mentioned concerning our nature, the only self evident truth is your rights extend to that which you can defend whether you are a civilized man or a savage. However "savage" societies are much more draconian in their methods of dealing with damaged goods.
Jonah Lehrer's book: How We Decide delves into this subject from a neuroscience perspective.
It's interesting to see that "morality" comes from the areas of the brain associated with emotion rather than the areas associated with logic.
He also forwards arguments supporting the idea that morality is rooted in empathy.
Concerning psychopaths, it turns out that there's nothing coming from this emotional/moral part of the brain.
The most dangerous among us are those who have lost everything but their power of reason.
Turns out that other primates exhibit some of this empathy and "morality".
The nature of social interactions at a very young age seem to have a big impact on empathy and morality, in humans and other primates.
Hmmm...
So why are various ideas being pushed at a younger and younger age in the public school system...
Holyfire23
01-07-2011, 16:11
So if the moral sea-change that caused a change of view on slavery was caused by an idea pricking the conscience of many, then we face a question. Does the change represent an evolution in humanity, one which precludes the return of slavery and other such things? Or, do we only hear our conscience when our bellies are full and our bodies comfortable, with our inner savage sated? Just how strong is that compass?
And that question, IMO, deals with far more than slavery. It deals with the underlying nature of all of us.
I do not think that the conscience is somehow strengthened by a full belly. The Romans were some of the most prosperous people on earth in their day, yet they still chose to hold slaves. In addition, they enjoyed watching gladiators kill each other and they also through slaves and an occasional Christian in there to be killed by either gladiators or animals. The blood-lust of the Roman Empire was almost insatiable. In general, those who do most of the oppressing throughout history have had a full belly, and are comfortable materially. But that is not to say that those who are rich accept things like slavery and torture by default. I think that point is evident in America. The way America defines poverty is irrelevant. I think a vast majority of Americans enjoy a lifestyle far superior to that of most people in the rest of the world.
The other option you presented was an evolution in the human "moral compass". This is a more complicated question, at least for me. Assuming a naturalistic worldview, I think the idea that humanity has evolved into a more moral creature is unsupported by evidence. Just look at the 20th century. More people died between 1900 and 2000 then ever before. That death toll continues to rise in the past 11 years. Now there are various religions that do not attribute morality to something that is physical, but rather, something spiritual. For instance the Christian religion believes that God has instilled within every human a conscience, but that that conscience was corrupted by Adam and Eve, and only through Jesus can that conscience be restored. I'm not trying to preach here. I am simply stating that so far in this thread, two foundations have been used to determine morality. Man as an individual, and society i.e. a group of humans. I think there is a whole other dimension to this discussion that has remained untouched and that is the role of religion. Whether positive or negative, religion, or I should say, worldview, plays a huge role in how one views morality. Might I suggest that the origin of morality lies in a person's worldview, and not in their physical bodies, or in society?
....and they will deal with him just as any group of herd animals disposes of damaged goods.
A moral compass is a stabilizing pillar for society and a navigational aid towards civilization, however as you mentioned concerning our nature, the only self evident truth is your rights extend to that which you can defend whether you are a civilized man or a savage. However "savage" societies are much more draconian in their methods of dealing with damaged goods.
Herd animals are not predators, they do not perform "mercy" killings. I did see a lioness kill her own cubs, because there was little too provide with, (i.e., lack of water meant lack of gazelle, other deer, etc.). In that she opted for a quick death for them rather than watch them starve to death. It was not hunger on her part, she simply left them once dispatched. I've often wondered if she felt remorse, but showed love my not eating them.
The Hyenas thought otherwise.
What if I were a "Noble Savage", having passed judgement on a fellow villager for killing my brother. Do I kill, or do I subject them to walking the earth alone? Even the most skilled aboriginal people have difficulty surving alone over a lengthy period.
All living things, from bug to whale has a right to defend themselves. Often they do, and we call it natural selection. Many an ant colony will remove a non-team player, but will not kill a fellow colonist. Perhaps living outside the shelter of the colony is punishment enough, and will provide a meal for something larger.
I beleive all who witnessed the deaths of Gladiators felt it was wrong dispite the entertainment value of the games.
Moral compass: Just because it is ignored, does not mean it doesn't exist.
Ask those who served on ODA 525, Desert Storm, 1991 - "I did not come here to kill a child".
I think what is really wrong is the title of this thread.
IMO it should read, "Slavery - it is really wrong."
Richard :munchin
Herd animals are not predators, they do not perform "mercy" killings.
Agreed, I should have been more precise, pack animals, whether elephants teaming up against a rogue who threatens the calves etc. or carnivores. As you said communal self defense vs. mercy killings.
I think what is really wrong is the title of this thread.
IMO it should read, "Slavery - it is really wrong."
Richard :munchin
Clearly, that's the consensus.
So, since that conclusion has been reached, perhaps some kind gentleman can do the honors and make the change?
Ah...so enforcing justice and removing evil from society is now a bad thing? I am in violent disagreement with that statement. Bad comparison IMHO.
You have every right to disagree with what you said. Those certainly weren't any of *my* words :p
If you are referring to taxes in the above quote, you are free to choose to live elsewhere. I'm sure you could find a cave in some third world nation you could live in so as to avoid the taxes. I would argue the taxes are the cost of living in our great nation. You do not have a choice that doesn't involve iron bars while still enjoying your present environment and quality of life. :
Love it or leave it?
I have a different reaction when I look at the "cost of living in the US". If I labor, and there are those who gain from my labor, and who offer me no compensation at all then it doesn't *feel* like I'm simply paying my share. And,,,,, wouldn't it be those who aren't paying who should be leaving. I don't hear of people being evicted for paying what they "owe".
Slavery isn't a goal. However it also isn't outside the normal range of human reactions. Nor is it evil.
SparseCandy
01-08-2011, 23:01
Moral compass: Just because it is ignored, does not mean it doesn't exist.
Ask those who served on ODA 525, Desert Storm, 1991 - "I did not come here to kill a child".
My 2 cents. I would agree with this, but I would add that we have to enable people to listen to that inner voice. Look at the milgram experiments (and the dozens of replications that shows the same results) or the stanford prison experiments, or look at all the incidents of torture in history. I could walk outside tomorrow with a couple friends and if I put on a lab coat I could convince 90% of the people I met on the street to ignore helping an injured person or to injure someone they had never met just to please me as an authority figure.
Humans are hard wired to be social and go along with the group. Our educational training does nothing but reinforce this deference to authority.
I would submit that the biggest stepping stone to slavery being understood as immoral was the printing press. Once we could disseminate ideas to the masses and allow them education if they sought it, they could see that they were not the only ones who felt slavery was wrong. Knowing that they were not alone, they were able to give voice to their moral compass and to gradually change the world. The same thing has happened with woman's rights issues and childrens rights issues.
In 100 years, our grandchildren may look back and say "I can't believe they used factory farms for food - how immoral!" They will be able to say that because they have the wealth to avoid needing large scale meat production for food and because they were able to openly communicate and group up to create change. And they will sit in a forum and have this conversation about why in all of history our moral compass didn't tell us that it was wrong to hurt living creatures this way.
What is our answer? Does anyone really look at a chicken in a tiny cage and think "forcing this creature to live in its own filth so I can have dinner is morally right"? (I say this as a chicken eater - no stones being thrown.) I would imagine many slave owners were the same way. They didn't follow their inner moral compass for the same reasons we don't insist on only eating meat that was treated compassionately prior to slaughter, or refuse to eat meat at all. It's far easier to go along than it is to make sacrifices no one else is making due to that little inner voice.
Or society could collapse and no one will care because we are too busy surviving to worry about it. :)
The morality of an action never changes - only our willingness to recognize it and ability to act upon that knowledge.
What is our answer? Does anyone really look at a chicken in a tiny cage and think "forcing this creature to live in its own filth so I can have dinner is morally right"? (I say this as a chicken eater - no stones being thrown.) I would imagine many slave owners were the same way. They didn't follow their inner moral compass for the same reasons we don't insist on only eating meat that was treated compassionately prior to slaughter, or refuse to eat meat at all. It's far easier to go along than it is to make sacrifices no one else is making due to that little inner voice.
I have argued this same point regarding judging other cultures, for example advances in food technology etc, could result in future vegan generations judging us , the way we do slave owners from our past. Imagine some historian in 2500 writing " Reagan was a great leader, but an omnivore like most men of his time." However the difference in this case is humans like all mammals who are predators/omnivores have incisors and forward facing eyes, which IMHO contradicts the notion we are meant to be exclusively vegetarians. Whether or not slavery is a natural part of human condition for sentient beings, as evidenced by this thread appears to be a complex social question.
WholeManin2010
01-09-2011, 00:41
I have argued this same point regarding judging other cultures, for example advances in food technology etc, could result in future vegan generations judging us , the way we do slave owners from our past. Imagine some historian in 2500 writing " Reagan was a great leader, but an omnivore like most men of his time." However the difference in this case is humans like all mammals who are predators/omnivores have incisors and forward facing eyes, which IMHO contradicts the notion we are meant to be exclusively vegetarians. Whether or not slavery is a natural part of human condition for sentient beings, as evidenced by this thread appears to be a complex social question.
A complex social question indeed, but the lack of parity between contemporary methods of agriculture and the systematic, lifelong, physical torment and oppression of other human beings is pronounced. Anyone attempting to establish some correlation between the two now or 500 years from now could not do so objectively.
The answer to that question is a resounding NO.
..... That's like asking, "What" is it that makes infringing on human rights and freedoms wrong? .............
Could you define what you consider "human rights and freedoms"?
Are those "human rights and freedoms" applied equally around the world?
Should they be?
If so - then who should inforce them?
Surely not us, the US, since the UN considers us to be one of the prime violators of human rights.
Imagine a would-be dictator: "'What' is it that makes it wrong for me to enslave societies, to slaughter millions of people?"
Like Pol Pot or Chairman Mao?
A complex social question indeed, but the lack of parity between contemporary methods of agriculture and the systematic, lifelong, physical torment and oppression of other human beings is pronounced. Anyone attempting to establish some correlation between the two now or 500 years from now could not do so objectively.
The answer to that question is a resounding NO.
Not necessarily. Consider factory farms, with chickens caged throughout their lifetimes - and the cages so small they cannot stand.
Here's a video that presents that perspective: LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEkc70ztOrc)
This also supposes that the slave is subject of physical torment - but that isn't a given. There have been well-treated, well-respected slaves through history.
I am actually rather surprised by this thread. "What" makes slavery wrong? That's like asking, "What" is it that makes infringing on human rights and freedoms wrong?
Imagine a would-be dictator: "'What' is it that makes it wrong for me to enslave societies, to slaughter millions of people?"
Well....what does make it wrong to enslave societies? Governmental leaders throughout history have subordinated individual rights (and needs) in order to advance group objectives. It's really a matter of degree, isn't it?
Take Switzerland - they have universal military service, as I recall. So they force their citizens to spend time doing something other than what they might freely choose. One might even call it involuntary servitude, mightn't one? But notice that others make a good case that such universal service is of great benefit to society. Much depends on perspective, does it not?
Now let's take slaughtering millions. That seems easy enough, right? Is it wrong to slaughter millions of people?
But the UN has imposed harsh sanctions on various regimes - and the other side generally complains that a great many people are dying as a result. And yet, those sanctions may exist in order to advance policies some view as good.
With all due respect, I think it's tempting to make a quick judgment on some of these issues - but when one looks more deeply, it may not be so easy.
Here's a moral question for reflection. Let us suppose we have grandma, lying in a bed - grandma, who never spoke a harsh word. Grandma, always kind and gentle. Grandma who made the best cookies ever. But grandma is sick - fortunately, she can be kept alive for several years. Sadly, keeping her alive is quite expensive. And she is not wealthy, nor are her relatives.
So...does our society withhold care and let her die? Does it euthanize (in other words, kill) her? Or does it bankrupt itself keeping her alive?
Your choice. Or, more accurately, society's choice. It's being made now, you know - because Medicare is not financially sustainable. Shall we enslave you and others with high taxes to keep her going? Or is her early death acceptable because she has, after all, led a "rich, full life".
Not necessarily. Consider factory farms, with chickens caged throughout their lifetimes - and the cages so small they cannot stand.
Here's a video that presents that perspective: LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEkc70ztOrc)
People are not chickens. As proof I submit that we do not eat people on a regular basis. I am not sure it is productive that we use animal analogs in the question of human bondage and treatment.
People are not chickens. As proof I submit that we do not eat people on a regular basis. I am not sure it is productive that we use animal analogs in the question of human bondage and treatment.
Again, depends on perspective. And cannibalism has existed in societies on a regular basis.
Please notice the unifying factor. The central question of: What makes something right or wrong? Why - why precisely - is an act right or wrong?
Again, depends on perspective. And cannibalism has existed in societies on a regular basis.
Please notice the unifying factor. The central question of: What makes something right or wrong? Why - why precisely - is an act right or wrong?
You nailed it. What's wrong with a little long pig every now and then, right?
You nailed it. What's wrong with a little long pig every now and then, right?
What gets me is that this question could be posed with regards to anything. What makes it wrong to torture animals? What makes it wrong to rape women? What makes it wrong to steal? And so forth. It is wrong to enslave societies because you are infringing on their human rights.
These two posts cut to the heart of the issue. When we identify an issue - any issue - the question of what makes it wrong remains.
Saying that it infringes on human rights doesn't help. It simply transforms the question to what human rights are, and from whence they come.
Whether one wants moral absolutes or moral relativism, somewhere there needs to be a foundation for beliefs. I perceive three choices, as have been mentioned before:
1) personal opinion. (I think it's wrong, so that's that)
2) some moral authority (Someone with a funny hat thinks it's wrong, so that's that)
3) cultural consensus (The neighbors think it's wrong, so there you have it.)
Perhaps there are other options, which are certainly welcome.
Now if we suppose that moral relativism is a bad thing, then the alternative seems to be that there are moral absolutes. If such absolutes exist, they are, I suppose, based on something. If so, what? Because if there isn't some rock-hard foundation, it sounds as if it's all just strongly-held personal opinion.
By the way - I think long pig is probably wrong for all three reasons above. Plus, the meat would probably be unhealthy.
You are being a moral relativist here. Yes, one could conclude that ultimately nothing is really "right" or "wrong," but that makes way for dictatorships and tyranny.
Moral absolutes tend to lead to the same end.
Whether one wants moral absolutes or moral relativism, somewhere there needs to be a foundation for beliefs. I perceive three choices, as have been mentioned before:
1) personal opinion. (I think it's wrong, so that's that)
2) some moral authority (Someone with a funny hat thinks it's wrong, so that's that)
3) cultural consensus (The neighbors think it's wrong, so there you have it.)
Were does education fall into those 3 categories?
The reason I ask is that last evening my 10 year old informed that Energy Plants are bad because of all the smoke and toxins the belch out.....all of which he is taught at school......which brings to mind a new type of slavery a generation or two down the road.
That said, it is likely that the reason we think or feel slavery is bad or evil is large part due to how we have been educated.
Were does education fall into those 3 categories?
The reason I ask is that last evening my 10 year old informed that Energy Plants are bad because of all the smoke and toxins the belch out.....all of which he is taught at school......which brings to mind a new type of slavery a generation or two down the road.
That said, it is likely that the reason we think or feel slavery is bad or evil is large part due to how we have been educated.
Well...where do our current educational policies come from? To some extent from John Dewey. You can read more about him HERE (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Dewey).
So many of our modern educational precepts come from one person with strongly held personal beliefs.
Take a look at the current environmental issues. Granted, such things are often garbed in scientific jargon (some would say pseudoscience). Notions of right and wrong are based on personal opinions combined with a supposed scientific (moral?) authority.
But I think you make a strong point about the way we're educated determining our views.
I don't think it is difficult to define what human rights are. As for where such rights come from, they come from a higher power or plane of understanding.
I don't think anyone with a moral compass needs to be taught that slavery is bad or evil.
OK - so where does the moral compass come from? What puts it there? What defines where it points? Does it come from a higher power? If so, then let us say so explicitly.
Please understand that I don't think it's wrong (in a technical sense as opposed to a moral sense) to say that man has a moral compass (or conscience) which is placed within him by a higher power. But if that's what we're saying, we may as well be clear about it.
A complex social question indeed, but the lack of parity between contemporary methods of agriculture and the systematic, lifelong, physical torment and oppression of other human beings is pronounced. Anyone attempting to establish some correlation between the two now or 500 years from now could not do so objectively. The answer to that question is a resounding NO.
No one was trying to establish any such correlation, my post was trying to illustrate why these were different situations, and how the values of societies differ. As evidenced by my previous posts we share an opinion on the repugnance of slavery. However given the recurring history and prevalence of slavery, claims it is a natural part of the the human condition aren't baseless, and suggests only if there is a universal moral compass, mankind violates it when expedient.
ZonieDiver
01-09-2011, 11:25
Please understand that I don't think it's wrong (in a technical sense as opposed to a moral sense) to say that man has a moral compass (or conscience) which is placed within him by a higher power. But if that's what we're saying, we may as well be clear about it.
Well... if some 'higher power' placed within us a 'moral compass' I'd have to say that version of said compass given to a very significant portion of the earth's populace is very seriously defective.
Way back when during a graduate seminar on historiography, Thomas Cox (http://college.usc.edu/cf/faculty-and-staff/faculty.cfm?pid=1003184) was the guest one afternoon. Cox offered the students comments about his life and career before we proceeded to discuss a draft chapter of a biography on he'd been working on for many a year.
At one point, some guy jumped into the discussion and asked what he thought was an obvious question. Cox glared at the guy and asked him why the question was being asked. Cox said "You've got to give booty to get booty."
What Cox mean by that statement was clear. Before asking an especially difficult question on a delicate matter, it is often best to explain one's own position on the issue and to elaborate why the question is being asked.
Holyfire23
01-09-2011, 11:58
OK - so where does the moral compass come from? What puts it there? What defines where it points? Does it come from a higher power? If so, then let us say so explicitly.
Please understand that I don't think it's wrong (in a technical sense as opposed to a moral sense) to say that man has a moral compass (or conscience) which is placed within him by a higher power. But if that's what we're saying, we may as well be clear about it.
I agree. Whether or not one believes that morality is based off of a higher power will greatly determine whether they define morality as relative or absolute. This is where one's worldview comes into play. In order to conclude that morality is absolute or relative based off of a higher power, one must first verify the higher power. Otherwise the conclusion will be based off of something not founded in reality, and therefore, the conclusion won't be realistic either. I think the religious diversity of today, and throughout history, is directly correlated to the moral diversity we have seen through the ages up through this present time. I know that religious/worldview discussions are generally avoided because it involves calling that which is sacred into question. Nevertheless, I believe that ones definition of morality and one's worldview are unequivocally linked. Thus, if one is to be addressed then the other will make its way into the discussion sometime.
What Cox mean by that statement was clear. Before asking an especially difficult question on a delicate matter, it is often best to explain one's own position on the issue and to elaborate why the question is being asked.
It can be. But there's also a problem with that. In Cox's case, his position as an authority might have influenced the debate. In other cases, the individual's positions - no matter what they might be - can become the focus of discussions rather than the general principle.
That said, the central issue was (and is) the question of morality and its origin. Slavery is merely one facet of that greater debate. And, while it is sensitive, I suspect it is not the most sensitive. Its advantage is that it existed and was accepted, and then it wasn't.
My own position on morality? I know what I personally think is right and wrong - but that means nothing to anyone but me. Religion seems to vary on the subject, and also to have internal conflicts about specifics - and that without even opening the door to interfaith conflicts. Societal consensus varies all over the place. Something placed within people by God (or, if you prefer, a higher power) suffers from the issue brought forth by ZonieDiver.
A close friend who knows me well once commented about me that I did all the right things (in a moral sense) for all the wrong reasons. Perhaps you recall Twain's "The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg". I probably wouldn't have tried to claim the money because I would suppose that the fellow was some con-artist. So I would have seemed irreproachably honest, but the truth would have been mere paranoia. In the case of slaves, I would not want slaves because I wouldn't trust them either - a position I believe you hinted at in previous posts. Perhaps my moral compass if functional, but has a really bad paint job.
SparseCandy
01-09-2011, 12:13
People are not chickens. As proof I submit that we do not eat people on a regular basis. I am not sure it is productive that we use animal analogs in the question of human bondage and treatment.
Respectfully, it isn't about if people and chickens are the same. That's a strawman - of course they are not the same. (Although ask a slave owner 300 years ago if he was the same as his slave, and he would have uttered the same sentence.) I bring up chickens only because the animal rights movement is in many ways in the same place that the anti-slavery movement was in the late 1700's. Both were/are movements against an established historical practice with their only reason for abolishment being the "morality" of the practice. It doesn't matter that I agree with one and not the other, what matters is the parallel trajectory of the movements and what it can teach us.
It's about comparing practices that have been considered moral throughout human history until recently. You could also use child labor instead of chickens if you prefer - laws to protect 12 and 13 year olds have lagged behind even animal protection laws. Why is it wrong to use child soldiers, or have 13 year olds working in mines like they do in Africa? (and used to in America.) Or more importantly, what can cause a society to accept such a practice is morally wrong, since anyone looking at a 12 year old forced to a 16 hour day would understand it as wrong?
The question isn't "what is moral" because like wet dog, I believe that every person is born with an internal voice that tells them a couple major rights and wrongs. (A controversial viewpoint on its own.) The point is in understanding what is needed for a society to take moral steps forward. We all agree slavery is wrong on this forum (at least I hope so), but 400 years ago we all would have agreed that slavery was o.k. What changed, and why then when it had never happened before? Understanding that helps us learn how to advance moral causes across the world and makes it an important question.
Although I do have to say that I would much rather have been a house slave in america than a free man described in Tolstoy's "slavery of our times." Banning slavery didn't ban the mistreatment of others by those in power - in some situations it even made it worse. My moral compass says not to take advantage of others under any name. I'm exceedingly grateful to live in a time and place where I have the luxury of listening to it and that there are laws forcing others to listen to theirs as well.
Also, I know of no dictatorship that used moral relativism to achieve its purpose. In my limited study, they have always used the claim of being morally right to defend their choices. Stalin killed to protect Russia. Mao killed to build a better China. The Rwandan genocides were done to rid Rwanda of the opposing cockroaches and create more jobs for the "good" citizens. None of them justified their actions in context of their being no right or wrong. Indeed I would argue that blindly following what society has taught is right and wrong has killed FAR more people in the world than questioning why something is right or wrong ever has.
SparseCandy
01-09-2011, 12:33
[QUOTE=nmap;368071]OK - so where does the moral compass come from? What puts it there? What defines where it points? Does it come from a higher power? If so, then let us say so explicitly.
[QUOTE]
I believe in the moral foundations theory, although not the political conclusions it draws. We are neurologically wired at birth to recognize fairness, caring for others, loyalty, and authority. (I don't buy the purity one - I think that derives from authority.) Whatever society we are born into then shapes how much we listen to that innate knowledge.
In Cox's case, his position as an authority might have influenced the debate. In other cases, the individual's positions - no matter what they might be - can become the focus of discussions rather than the general principle.I can pretty much guarantee that Cox's position as an authority played an infinitesimal role in shaping how the guy asked the question or how he responded to Cox's "booty" remark. Or, as Cox put it when he called the professor teaching the class: "Who the [expletive deleted] was that guy?"That said, the central issue was (and is) the question of morality and its origin. Slavery is merely one facet of that greater debate. And, while it is sensitive, I suspect it is not the most sensitive. Its advantage is that it existed and was accepted, and then it wasn't.
My own position on morality? I know what I personally think is right and wrong - but that means nothing to anyone but me. Religion seems to vary on the subject, and also to have internal conflicts about specifics - and that without even opening the door to interfaith conflicts. Societal consensus varies all over the place. Something placed within people by God (or, if you prefer, a higher power) suffers from the issue brought forth by ZonieDiver.
A close friend who knows me well once commented about me that I did all the right things (in a moral sense) for all the wrong reasons. Perhaps you recall Twain's "The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg". I probably wouldn't have tried to claim the money because I would suppose that the fellow was some con-artist. So I would have seemed irreproachably honest, but the truth would have been mere paranoia. In the case of slaves, I would not want slaves because I wouldn't trust them either - a position I believe you hinted at in previous posts. Perhaps my moral compass if functional, but has a really bad paint job.IMO, you might have gotten better traction with this discussion if you had been more direct in opening this discussion.
The disadvantage to using slavery as an example is that it is a sprawling subject that arcs back to antiquity and continues to the present day. As history belongs to everyone, everyone is free to address the subject in the broad terms you have in this thread. That being said, the more successful efforts most often come after a lifetime of careful research, reading, reflection, discussion, and practice.*
To answer what I think are the core questions you've raised in this thread, here are my $0.02.
"Morality" is a cultural construct that allows us to balance our innermost individual desires with our apparent preference to be social beings.
The purpose of a human being's life is to reach a sense of self efficacy. Slavery is unsustainable because it impinges upon the individual's ability to reach that goal as his or her free will is subject to the master's whim.
________________________________________________
* For example, see Robert W. Fogel, The Slavery Debates, 1952-1990: A Retrospective, Walter Lynwood Fleming Lectures in Southern History, (Baton Rogue: Louisiana State University Press, 2003).
Well... if some 'higher power' placed within us a 'moral compass' I'd have to say that version of said compass given to a very significant portion of the earth's populace is very seriously defective.
If you were the first person on earth with no outside influences I could buy the ingrained moral compass theory. Since we are not, I would be of the opinion that your moral compass is largely based on the personal, political, economic, cultural and religious influences during your up bringing.
Hindu's consider the Cow sacred, we in the US eat them. In the US many consider dogs and cats sacred.....many other cultures eat them.
Personally I don't have to look any further than use of the 'N' word. The 'N' word was not tolerated by my parents or my Grandparents and all adults no matter their color were to be addressed as Mister, Misses or Miss. But in the households of my Southern Aunts and Uncles it was looked down upon 'not' to refer to blacks as anything other than Colored or 'N', Boy or Girl.
It is likely that if I had been brought up in my Southern relatives households rather than my parents I would have a substantially different perspective of Blacks and use of the 'N' word and thus my moral compass would have been shaped differently than it was.
In reality we in the US participate in and promote slavery every time we purchase a product from China.
The Reaper
01-09-2011, 14:45
I think a lot of this moral posturing disappears in the face of reality, and we are able to hold our high convictions because we are not in desperate straights.
You put yourself in an agrarian, pre-industrial society, you are the head of a household and inherited 200 acres of cotton to plow, weed, cultivate, pick and process for market, or you lose the farm and your family, kids and all are out on the street, you might be more morally flexible.
The Donner party did not set out to be cannibals, nor did the Uruguayan rugby team, but the members of the parties put aside their cultural objections did what they had to to survive.
Most of the SF guys on this board have worked by, with, and through people from other cultures whose values were significantly different from their own. In some cases, this might include slavery, rape, cannibalism, incest, corruption, spousal abuse, child abuse, adultery, drug abuse, etc. You do not have to adopt these practices, but at times, you may have to suppress your own values (or at least keep your mouth shut) in order to get the job done. On occasion, you may have to really work hard at respecting the cultural values of others.
Is a tribe in Africa enslaving their neighbors in accordance with their mores, beliefs, and laws really morally reprehensible? What if they are selling them to Northern or English slave buyers and shippers? Is the original slaver more or less morally responsible than the slave buyer, the ship owner, the slave seller, the slave buyer, or the overseers?
Are we so ethnocentric that we believe our values are the only correct ones for another people or another age?
Are there really universal moral laws that apply in all cultures and ages?
TR
Are we so ethnocentric that we believe our values are the only correct ones for another people or another age?
Are there really universal moral laws that apply in all cultures and ages?
TR
I actually am that ethnocentric, I guess, as it applies to enslaving a man.
Unless he's role playing with his ol' lady and she's Zorro this time. :D
I don't think it is difficult to define what human rights are. As for where such rights come from, they come from a higher power or plane of understanding.
I would love to hear a good definition from someone.
I'm old enough to see my "rights" and the "obligations of society" in how they might apply to a young individual who has just gained ownership of a few acres of land, has a few sacks of seeds beside him, and some tools.
This idea of some vaguely defined entity we refer to as society that owes us something in return for nothing, has always escaped me.
If someone walked me through my neighbors obligations in regard to my childrens dental care, my rightful portion of his crops should I not exercise a work ethic, and my obligation to assure that he reaches his full potential, I'd be much more capable in conversations with relative youngsters.
However, it seems that when I hear of rights, it seems to be mostly that "people like us" are owed by "people like them" and that, for some reason, it's obvious.
I think that's a good question - let me venture an answer to get things started. Or at least give others something to disagree with.
Once upon a time, societies were less mobile and tended to be more stable. In many ways they were monolithic instead of diverse. A village would have a common religion, shared beliefs, similar experiences, and so forth. Larger areas would still be far less diverse than are we.
By the way, diverse, in this instance, means differences in any factor - religious, cultural, educational, and so forth. Perhaps a better term would be variance - thus our village would have a smaller variance in religious beliefs than would a small town today.
When we combine the diversity/variance of today with the rate of change of the various beliefs and standards, we get an ambiguous social contract.
Example: Once, a gentleman opened doors for ladies. Now, in some instances at least, some feminists object. At one time, the child born out of wedlock was not well regarded. Now, so many children are born outside marriage that few would look askance at the child.
What do "we" owe "them"? Once it was, I think, well-defined. Now, it is not.
MOO, YMMV.
Once upon a time, societies were less mobile and tended to be more stable.
Nmap,
This nexus is unclear IMHO, we have time to debate such issues because few if any of us are worried about our next meal, a roof over our heads, or the warlord next door deciding our grain or womenfolk need liberation, challenges more likely way back when. Nor do I see diversity stifling stability as a given. Take the ancient Greek city states of Athens and Sparta, considered by many to be the cradle of Western civilization. The Athenians shared the same gods as the Spartans, but were a dynamic seafaring society which engaged in global trade, with exchanges of technology, ideas, etc. There were pronounced cultural differences. Some Athenians were hedonistic drunks, or ethnic Phoenicians, others who were stoics, farmers or artisans. Extremely diverse in relation to Sparta. The Spartans in contrast were relatively isolationist valuing tradition, discipline, and order. Military service was the only profession allowed for men, there was one religion and life, even marriage was regimented. For a number of reasons Athens is still a vibrant city, while Sparta for all her military glory is now a speck on the map. However the homogenous nature of Sparta and her features of big government, and obedient like minded citizens instead of fostering stability, accelerated their outcomes for better or worse, akin to an entire flock of birds flying into power lines while following their leader.
While there are clearly cultural differences across the globe, assuming ambiguous interpretations of social contracts based on ethnocentric, or religious lines IMO is myopic and simplistic, there are far more granular examples across humanity in general. Love, hate, jealousy, betrayal, courage, greed, cowardice etc. are not ethnocentric. Take cities as different as NY, Baghdad, or Nairobi. In each there are men of their word who do their duty, as well as rascals who would sell anyone out for anything, and the entire gamut in between. At the same time as TR mentioned, there are far harsher environments on the planet, with far baser priorities. This doesn't mean we shouldn't defend ourselves from them or any culture which threatens American interests, however YMMV, but judging them seems pointless.
IMO before we can discuss what human rights are, we should ask ourselves what universal features are inherent to the human condition...
Following this line of thought you could make a case for slavery. IMHO one person owning another is just wrong, no room for discussion.
"Col. Robert Stout: I'm Bobby Stout.
Lt. Colonel J.O.E. Vandeleur: Have you ever been liberated before?
Col. Robert Stout: I got divorced twice, does that count?
Lt. Colonel J.O.E. Vandeleur: That counts.";)
A Bridge Too Far 1977
GratefulCitizen
01-10-2011, 12:31
Not sure I've ever encountered anyone who had a perfectly functioning moral compass.
Humans bear the burden of having to choose somewhere on the continuum between the extremes of pure selfishness and pure selflessness.
Making the problem worse is imperfect knowledge.
No one can know the full consequences of every choice.
It does seem self-evident that we can't get it right.
But even without humans oppressing one another; suffering, injustice, and death still occur.
Humankind recoils at this, as if it is not natural or appropriate.
If it has always been part of the human condition, then why does it bother us?
Perhaps the root of morality is some inner knowledge that humankind was meant for something better.
MOO- Humankind knows we are meant for something better, but we are incapable of achieving it ourselves.
Someone/something greater is required to rectify the human condition.
Slantwire
01-10-2011, 16:10
What gets me is that this question could be posed with regards to anything. What makes it wrong to torture animals? What makes it wrong to rape women? What makes it wrong to steal? And so forth. It is wrong to enslave societies because you are infringing on their human rights.
I suppose it's fair to occasionally stop and reconsider fundamental assumptions. Occasionally you may realize something new. Why not ask about slavery as well? However, I wouldn't take much time on it.
Is slavery wrong? - Yes.
Why? - Because slavery takes away liberty.
So? - People have a right to liberty, which should not be infringed.
Why? - Because it's a bedrock principle of my worldview, gosh darn it.
Azimuth checked, and I'm still oriented the same way. On with life....
IMO before we can discuss what human rights are, we should ask ourselves what universal features are inherent to the human condition...
Great points! Thought provoking, certainly.
I'm not sure the common factors are quite what we're looking for, though. At the genetic level, humans and chimps are 98% the same. LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics). Likewise, and as you mention, there are always elements of love, hate, courage, and so forth. Something affects the way those basic elements are manifested, and that may be what we're looking for.
I keep coming down to fundamental beliefs - since those beliefs will, I suppose, drive values. The output of values is our moral compass (that's a speculation, of course).
Let's consider slavery again. You, I, and most here agree that liberty is very, very important. Thus, depriving someone of their liberty is bad. But what if a person believes something different? What if they regard - for whatever reason - liberty as being unimportant? Would they feel the same objection to slavery?
The beliefs...I would like to use the term "belief system" to represent all the various beliefs a person might have....seem like they drive individuals to the most amazing conclusions.
What do you think?
What do you think?
I think my belief system is based on influences/experiences throughout my life, but I would say most of what I believe was shaped prior to age 20.
But what if a person believes something different? What if they regard - for whatever reason - liberty as being unimportant? Would they feel the same objection to slavery?
Uday & Qusay Hussein and Kim Jung Ill might be good examples.
I think my belief system is based on influences/experiences throughout my life, but I would say most of what I believe was shaped prior to age 20.
Perhaps a lot earlier...say, in early childhood. And I would imagine much of it was established unconsciously.
Uday & Qusay Hussein and Kim Jung Ill might be good examples.
Clearly, they have no regard for others' liberty. But I think they are (or were) quite fond of liberty for themselves!
I'm thinking more along the line of the following:
Accept the things to which fate binds you, and love the people with whom fate brings you together, but do so with all your heart.
Marcus Aurelius
Adapt yourself to the things among which your lot has been cast and love sincerely the fellow creatures with whom destiny has ordained that you shall live.
Marcus Aurelius
But Uday & Qusay and Kim Jung's ideas were largely influenced by their fathers and the environment they grew up in. I don't believe they manifested from genetics.
I'm thinking more along the line of the following:
Accept the things to which fate binds you, and love the people with whom fate brings you together, but do so with all your heart.
Marcus Aurelius
Adapt yourself to the things among which your lot has been cast and love sincerely the fellow creatures with whom destiny has ordained that you shall live.
Marcus Aurelius
That reminds me of survival and teamwork
But Uday & Qusay and Kim Jung's ideas were largely influenced by their fathers and the environment they grew up in. I don't believe they manifested from genetics.
No question about that. But I get the impression that Saddam was indulgent. As for Kim Il Sung...I don't know. But I wouldn't be surprised if Il Jong got pretty much anything he wanted.
Those children would have seen the fathers take liberty from others - for that matter, take the lives of others. That would, I think, have molded them. So they would see enslaving as OK. But they might not (probably would not) see being a slave as OK.
Are there really universal moral laws that apply in all cultures and ages?
I don't want anyone to think that I have taken TR's question out of contect. I just thought it was a good question.
Many on this thread have discussed God, rights, moral law, attitudes, etc., but let me ask a question; What if there is no God?
What if this was just a big happy accident and we are all here by chance?
Some laws are universal, like the sun coming up and the earth spinning in one particular direction. Other laws say curtain chemicals work well together, while some chemicals do not. The laws of science, (math, chemistry, etc.), numbers, chance, all trend towards predictive outcomes.
Humans are the only primates that would not consider mating with the killers of our own children as a means to see that our natural order in selective breeding is not lost. The thought is morally reprehensible.
Women are the only mammals who can not choose to either menstruate or not, because humans, in viewing sex, would logically never have sex beacuse children disrupt our lives. Logically, who on earth would choose to have children? They cry, cost a lot of money, (food, clothes, education, healthcare, car, etc.). We would never contemplate procreation because it is not logical. So science says, "environment", "natural order", "instinct", "pleasure". Are these measurable? Science says yes, because we can introduce chemicals to cause an effect, a pleasure, stimulus, etc., in order to have a predictive outcome. Or we can elliminate said chemicals to reduce behavior.
Are these examples following a pre-disposition of law of the human experience? Perrhaps this then says, Man is different then the animals, and if we are different, then why?
Can we measure love? My son once asked me, "Dad, do you love me?" I said, "Yes". He says, "How much?" My reply was, (holding my arms out), "As big as the sky, and the sky has no end."
My son quickly glanced up recognizing the sky was big, it covered a large area, it was too large to measure and thought, good, my dad at least loves me alot. We as adults can measure the skies limits, to us it is finite, to a small child "infinite". He glady accepted my answer and went back to playing with his toys. If love is measureable - the give and take rule of you treat me the way I treat you, then maybe love has curtain laws associated with it.
Let's for example create a series of "love laws". Laws in science are rewarded and punishable, so Love with laws would be also.
Love Law #1, Charity. Love Law #2, Compassion. Love Law #3, Kindness. Love Law #4, Protection, etc. If I choose to break curtain love laws with Hate, Theft, Torture, etc., then I should expect a curtain outcome in behavior.
If a law giver (Science or otherwise) says, "Love one another, even as I have loved you", then the outcome should be measurable, agreed?
These are Wet Dog's proclamations for America in obeying the love law.
1. The United States of America is a new country, so as a child, it is learning the love law reward system. It has blooded its nose in fighting a brother nation, it has made friends with bullies of years past. It has forgiven debt, made enemies and fought other nations battles. It has fought for a sister country who could not defend itself only to not be invited to the wedding.
2. The United States of America, while started as a slave, colony, economic opportunistic country was the FIRST NATION IN WORLD HISTORY TO PROCLAIM SLAVERY AS WRONG, and it began to grow up and try humbly to free people around the world because IT FELT SLAVERY WAS WRONG no matter what you call it.
3. I do not expect the rest of the world to truely feel what it is like to have lived here in the good ol' US of A, but I hope that I can continue to obey the love law and treat my neighbor better then they have treated me and show up when needed.
I'm done, thanks.
ZonieDiver
01-11-2011, 00:43
Unless he's role playing with his ol' lady and she's Zorro this time.
I love the 'Zorro Game'! I'll be 'Bernardo'! I draw the line there at being 'Sgt. Garcia'! :D
bailaviborita
01-16-2011, 00:29
I think a lot of this moral posturing disappears in the face of reality, and we are able to hold our high convictions because we are not in desperate straights.
You put yourself in an agrarian, pre-industrial society, you are the head of a household and inherited 200 acres of cotton to plow, weed, cultivate, pick and process for market, or you lose the farm and your family, kids and all are out on the street, you might be more morally flexible.
The Donner party did not set out to be cannibals, nor did the Uruguayan rugby team, but the members of the parties put aside their cultural objections did what they had to to survive.
Most of the SF guys on this board have worked by, with, and through people from other cultures whose values were significantly different from their own. In some cases, this might include slavery, rape, cannibalism, incest, corruption, spousal abuse, child abuse, adultery, drug abuse, etc. You do not have to adopt these practices, but at times, you may have to suppress your own values (or at least keep your mouth shut) in order to get the job done. On occasion, you may have to really work hard at respecting the cultural values of others.
Is a tribe in Africa enslaving their neighbors in accordance with their mores, beliefs, and laws really morally reprehensible? What if they are selling them to Northern or English slave buyers and shippers? Is the original slaver more or less morally responsible than the slave buyer, the ship owner, the slave seller, the slave buyer, or the overseers?
Are we so ethnocentric that we believe our values are the only correct ones for another people or another age?
Are there really universal moral laws that apply in all cultures and ages?
TR
Great points!
I for one vote for the "pop-society determines what is right/wrong" option. Long ago I asked my dad why we treated the Native Americans so badly (back then it was still "moral" to call them "Indians"...). He told me to be careful when trying to judge people in the distant past. I thought a lot about that comment of his and came to the conclusion that I am largely the product of my times- and would have probably followed the popular culture of whatever time I was in- given a similar family/religious/educational upbringing.
I think it is useful to ask about slavery- since it wasn't condemned in works such as The Bible- a source for many "moral" issues for many. Likewise in other religions.
As for an innate since of right/wrong- after being involved in rearing two boys I have concluded we are born animals- but with the potential to learn. I see very little in-born ability to know right/wrong in kids. After 18+ years of steady indoctrination and constant reminders- they still seem to get the right and wrong you taught them wrong!
The last thing I'll submit is that I'm surprised at some of the logic thrown out here. Some seem to say that if you enslave only a certain race- that is wrong. Others seem to say that slavery is wrong if the slave is treated badly (the only reason they give for slavery being wrong is the terrible abuse many slaves have undergone in the past).
I'd be comfortable with saying that today, in most American's indoctrinated minds- that slavery is wrong and was wrong in the past, that slavery of one race is/was very wrong, and that slavery of Blacks by Whites was/is very, very wrong. But, objectively- I'd say that there might exist circumstances in the Universe where slavery- as we seem to have defined it here- is/would be not only morally acceptable- but immoral NOT to accept. Just because we cannot articulate those circumstances might have more to do with our upbringing/limited powers of imagination than it does with it not being true...
blue02hd
01-16-2011, 03:27
So,
Here I am, all excited to jump back on to PS.COM now that our internet is back up, and low and behold what do I see under "NEW POSTS"?
SLAVERY- Is It Really Wrong?
Are you people %#(& serious?
Ok, now knowing the humor and or intellectual composition of many of our respected members here I began to read the entire thread to find out what exactly could fill 9 pages of discussion over this "subject". My conclusion is that there are too many people online these days with TOO much time on their hands. Let me break it down to the intellectuals who are hanging on every post in here just waiting to respond to each other while making redundant points and failing to listen to anyone else: If this were in a bar I would have already grabbed my beer and walked away to go sit in the corner and make bets with said bar fly on who is gonna get punched in the face first and by whom.
Anyhow, to repeat what other QP's have asked during this thread, whats your point? It IS wrong, or else we as QP's would have a motto that says "Free the Not So Powerful as The Next Guy". Reading this thread makes me wonder if it is possible to be "Over educated". Well, I will admit to not ever having to be accused of that. But again I repeat? Whats your point? I don't think you have one.
The title is inappropriate in the least, but what the hell? Then again who am I to question any of you? I've been sitting in a freaking Afghan village drinking Chai with elders trying to convince them I'm their best friend in a culture where the women are treated two steps above livestock the entire time my internet was down so maybe I am just another 180 lb hypocrite in the room.
Shh,, don't tell the bar fly!
The title is inappropriate in the least, but what the hell? Then again who am I to question any of you? I've been sitting in a freaking Afghan village drinking Chai with elders trying to convince them I'm their best friend in a culture where the women are treated two steps above livestock the entire time my internet was down so maybe I am just another 180 lb hypocrite in the room.
hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adl93MQKu5o video of Sudanese Woman Flogged 100 Times for Wearing Panties
Stay safe out yonder.:D
bailaviborita
01-16-2011, 08:30
So,
Here I am, all excited to jump back on to PS.COM now that our internet is back up, and low and behold what do I see under "NEW POSTS"?
SLAVERY- Is It Really Wrong?
Are you people %#(& serious?
Ok, now knowing the humor and or intellectual composition of many of our respected members here I began to read the entire thread to find out what exactly could fill 9 pages of discussion over this "subject". My conclusion is that there are too many people online these days with TOO much time on their hands. Let me break it down to the intellectuals who are hanging on every post in here just waiting to respond to each other while making redundant points and failing to listen to anyone else: If this were in a bar I would have already grabbed my beer and walked away to go sit in the corner and make bets with said bar fly on who is gonna get punched in the face first and by whom.
Anyhow, to repeat what other QP's have asked during this thread, whats your point? It IS wrong, or else we as QP's would have a motto that says "Free the Not So Powerful as The Next Guy". Reading this thread makes me wonder if it is possible to be "Over educated". Well, I will admit to not ever having to be accused of that. But again I repeat? Whats your point? I don't think you have one.
The title is inappropriate in the least, but what the hell? Then again who am I to question any of you? I've been sitting in a freaking Afghan village drinking Chai with elders trying to convince them I'm their best friend in a culture where the women are treated two steps above livestock the entire time my internet was down so maybe I am just another 180 lb hypocrite in the room.
Shh,, don't tell the bar fly!
Totally agree with you that people have too much time on their hands and especially so-called "intellectuals"! ;)
The point- I thought- was gotten around to eventually by nmap- which was: at what point does something, and why, become "immoral". He used the topic of slavery- because at one point it would seem- not too long ago- it was thought to be "moral". The comparison to murder, rape- etc., wouldn't be good since no great religious/moral traditions (that I'm aware of) have okayed them.
One could probably make the same comparison to homosexuality or transgenderedness- not because they are similar to slavery, but because not too long ago homosexualty was seen as immoral and a mental condition- and transgenderedness is still seen as a mental condition (and there are people working to change that). At what point did homosexuality change from immoral to moral and not being a mental condition? And why?
I think nmap brings up a good point- if we knew the answer to those two questions, we might be able to better understand moral things today that we would like to make immoral and vice-versa. Think of pedophilia in Afghanistan- if we understood what prompted the Western World to decide that enslaving people was immoral- then maybe we can figure out how to encourage Afghan males to stop screwing little boys in better ways than just telling them it is "universally immoral".
To accept that slavery is just universally wrong without asking why it is and how it got that way (at least in our minds) is, IMHO, a cop-out that gets you nowhere to trying to understand how we might use the underlying knowledge to help us to "free the oppressed" of today. :)
Thank you, bailaviborita, for articulating the underlying ideas better than I probably would have.
Probing the concept of morality - of what is right and wrong - tells us a lot about ourselves, at least IMO. The discussion itself is revealing; for example, it showed that I may have too much time on my hands. ;)
...... Then again who am I to question any of you? I've been sitting in a freaking Afghan village drinking Chai with elders trying to convince them I'm their best friend in a culture where the women are treated two steps above livestock the entire time my internet was down so maybe I am just another 180 lb hypocrite in the room.
Shh,, don't tell the bar fly!
Would your actions have been any different if you were in an area that accepted slavery and the person who brought the Chai was indroduced as "My house slave."?
blue02hd
01-16-2011, 09:34
Would your actions have been any different if you were in an area that accepted slavery and the person who brought the Chai was indroduced as "My house slave."?
Not while I'm on the clock. Off duty, different story. I'll give kudo's and raise my glass to bailaviborita for boiling down 9 pages of fun so eloquently, I now understand the intent of the thread. I will drop HC and low crawl out yelling the following obscure passage over my non firing shoulder:
Bottom Line Up Front people!!!
I still think the conversation would be more suitable in the bar,,,,
With said bar fly,,,,
And a fight,,,,
I'm thinking about starting a thread; "Is eating shit really wrong?"
I'm thinking about starting a thread; "Is eating shit really wrong?"
Bear Gyrlls does it....he drinks piss as well :D
I still think the conversation would be more suitable in the bar,,,,
With said bar fly,,,,
And a fight,,,,
Now we're talkin'!
Richard :munchin
The Trainer
01-16-2011, 12:44
.......of my life that I'm never going to get back. If your going to give a thread a name, start one, or whatever, give it the appropriate name. This one should be called "Random thoughts of crap w/IMHO added for emphasis" or "Let's ask a dumb heated question" (to see how far off people are from the truth). Honestly, if you consider this intellectual thought, I'm more worried about our Republic now than I was two hours ago.
How do you hold a conversation and not produce facts to back up your conclusions (or beliefs as some people have posted)? If there is a moral compass who sets that standard? Man? society? Really? No, really?
One of my many favorites - "We are neurologically wired at birth to recognize fairness, caring for others, loyalty, and authority." Really? Well try this, take two toddlers (12 -18 months old), put them in a room and put one toy in the middle. Now observe how much fairness and caring is about to go on!
Have we achieved so much "intelligence" that common sense is no longer used or needed?
nmap - you stated that your beliefs didn't matter in this conversation, oh but they do sir. If your going to stand on a soap box and "provoke thought" there must be an end state, conclusion or agenda you want to push. Your beliefs are in play at a minimum for the common decency of your fellow citizen strolling by so he can decide straight away to listen and engage, or identify the though process and agenda and continue on.
I'm Charlie Mike, I have to find out who's making IED's in that Afghan area where that Warfighter was having tea!
Parting shot.......If you want to provoke thought here's a piece that has all of your topics; slavery, God, freedom!
Alexander Fraser Tyler, Cycle Of Democracy (1770)
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world’s great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to Complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.
And for you Leaders out there here's a bonus! -
http://orrinwoodward.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2008/11/6/3965183.html
bailaviborita
01-16-2011, 12:46
I'm thinking about starting a thread; "Is eating shit really wrong?"
Classic! :)
nmap - you stated that your beliefs didn't matter in this conversation, oh but they do sir. If your going to stand on a soap box and "provoke thought" there must be an end state, conclusion or agenda you want to push. Your beliefs are in play at a minimum for the common decency of your fellow citizen strolling by so he can decide straight away to listen and engage, or identify the though process and agenda and continue on.
The agenda I want to push? I want to learn how people decide what is right and wrong. I want to have a better understanding of morality, as seen by others. That agenda has been successful for me, because I have learned. And I value every single opinion and view that has been expressed.
Have other people enjoyed the discussion? It appears that they have. Although the bar fight option seems rather popular lately.
Parting shot.......If you want to provoke thought here's a piece that has all of your topics; slavery, God, freedom!
Alexander Fraser Tyler, Cycle Of Democracy (1770)
(snip)
And for you Leaders out there here's a bonus! -
http://orrinwoodward.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2008/11/6/3965183.html
Yes, I think often about Tyler's cycle - it does seem to apply. And I thank you for taking the time to add your thoughts.
Slavery is alive and well on planet earth.
Be it the clasic slavery in central Africa to human trafficing over a good portion of the world - money is being made off human bodies.
The US ended slavery 146 years ago. To some people today that is still a "hot button" issue. Nobody alive today was a slave in the US, nor their parents or grandparents (OK, said knowing there might be a couple of old as dirt people to whom that would apply.)
It is interesting that, I believe, the Cherokee Nation just had a court ruling go against them. The desendants of slaves they held are to be considered Tribal Members. Nobody rubs the Indian's noses in the fact they held slaves.
All those people who like to bang the drum about how bad the US is because we had slavery 146 years ago sure don't beat it very hard about slavery in Africa today. Or is it blacks over there now are worth less than blacks over here way back then? I would think people should be equal.
So as a grievance thing how far back should we hold a grudge and to who?
My major family groups didn't come to the US until the 1880s to 1910s so we didn't have anything to do with slavery here. BUT I'm of Viking desent so I'm pretty sure my family tree probably has some slave holders from the raiding days - and maybe a few were even slaves themselves. None of that defines who I am know.
No race or culture has a "lock" on this issue. Everybody did it at one time or another - and some are still doing.
WholeManin2010
01-16-2011, 14:01
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
My major family groups didn't come to the US until the 1880s to 1910s so we didn't have anything to do with slavery here.Is the history of slavery in America separable from the history of the legacies of slavery in America?
When does the past end and the present begin?
Is the history of slavery in America separable from the history of the legacies of slavery in America?
When does the past end and the present begin?
No the legacies were a direct result of the slavery.
But the present begins when you let go of the past.
But a case could be made that blacks in the 1950s were begining to let go. In the haste to "fix things" in the 1960s they were reshackled to the ball and chain.
As a person who likes to read about local history I've found out a lot about blacks in Fayetteville that blacks seem to want to forget about. Prior to the Civil War there were a great number of free blacks working at artisans and tradesmen near downtown - that disappeared after the war. What happened to them? They were not slaves so they don't count I guess. All their kids must have died because nobody wants to say they desended from them.
Seven Regiments of Colored Troops were raised in NC - one which saved the day at Olustee - no big deal is made of them in NC schools and they must not have had any kids either.
Then there is the man who gave food to widows - and the farmer out on Flea Hill. Sigh, I could go on.
There is a lot of "Black History" that is weaved all through American and local history. But is it used to inspire and uplift? Or is it pushed aside to teach the grievance and oppression side?
Every time a street comes up for naming around here I think for sure local blacks would want to name it Sippo Burton Blvd - but, No, most have forgotten who he was (He's from not that long ago).
As a side note I found it interesting how "white" some of the individual's locations were in the census data thread. When I look up and down my street I can't tell what type of people live in the house just by looking at it.
Maybe we'll all get along better when we learn more about each other instead of pushing our views on others.
No the legacies were a direct result of the slavery.
But the present begins when you let go of the past.
But a case could be made that blacks in the 1950s were begining to let go. In the haste to "fix things" in the 1960s they were reshackled to the ball and chain.
Outstanding point.
A kid who grows up expecting the government to provide him his livelihood is as much a slave as one who grows up with a master.
Can one separate legacy from historical event? If so, where should the separation take place? I am reminded of the numerous theories of causality - as well as the infamous Mrs. Palsgraf - and her fight with the Long Island Railroad Company.
Back to the topic at hand....IMHO, the subjugation of otherwise free men is generally repugnant and toxic to our civilized society. Now, does my opinion hold sway in a slave owning culture? Probably not, but you know what they say about opinions...and everyone has got one.
Dusty, IMO your observation regarding the child being taught to rely on the government being as much a slave as a child with a master is spot on.
Speaking of children - maybe we can appreciate a simple children's story attributed to an old slave - Aesop
Words attributed to an old slave:
A gaunt Wolf was almost dead with hunger when he happened to meet a House-dog who was passing by.
"Ah, Cousin," said the Dog.
"I knew how it would be; your irregular life will soon be the ruin of you. Why do you not work steadily as I do, and get your food regularly given to you?"
"I would have no objection," said the Wolf, "if I could only get a place."
"I will easily arrange that for you," said the Dog; "come with me to my master and you shall share my work."
So the Wolf and the Dog went towards the town together. On the way there the Wolf noticed that the hair on a certain part of the Dog's neck was very much worn away, so he asked him how that had come about.
"Oh, it is nothing," said the Dog. "That is only the place where the collar is put on at night to keep me chained up; it chafes a bit, but one soon gets used to it."
"Is that all?" said the Wolf. "Then good-bye to you, Master Dog."
Better starve free than be a fat slave
YMMV
No, the legacies were a direct result of the slavery.
But the present begins when you let go of the past.
But a case could be made that blacks in the 1950s were begining to let go. In the haste to "fix things" in the 1960s they were reshackled to the ball and chain....
....There is a lot of "Black History" that is weaved all through American and local history. But is it used to inspire and uplift? Or is it pushed aside to teach the grievance and oppression side?
Maybe we'll all get along better when we learn more about each other instead of pushing our views on others.
Pete, you are spot on!
http://www.nbra.info/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYK-HistoryTest
logisticsclerk
01-17-2011, 07:50
As a descendant of slaves, I find this thread fascinating. What is even more fascinating and encouraging is that this discussion is taking place among a group of men who are ethnically-diverse and well-versed in various cultural practices.
A point to note: most persons who were enslaved often became so as a result of losing tribal wars. The losers were sold into slavery by the winners. The irony of slavery is that descendants of slaves, regardless of origin, have tended end up much better off than the descendants of those who won the tribal wars and remained in their countries of origin. Historically, it may be the only instance where it pays to be a loser.
Final point from me: slavery is as much a label and state of mind as it is a concept. Ask any salaryman, serf, indentured servant or conscript if he/she can exercise freedom of choice, behaviour or movement to its fullest extent. God knows that when I was a recruit, I felt rather slave-like, especially when my training Sergeant Major announced " I am your lord and master". And he meant it.
Be careful, be safe, and if downrange, return home to your families whole and victorious.
A point to note: most persons who were enslaved often became so as a result of losing tribal wars. The losers were sold into slavery by the winners. The irony of slavery is that descendants of slaves, regardless of origin, have tended end up much better off than the descendants of those who won the tribal wars and remained in their countries of origin. Historically, it may be the only instance where it pays to be a loser.I've been saying this for years however, it's NOT PC to those whom gain financially from distorting the truth.:mad:
I've even had Africans while in Africa say the above to my face which, I'd reply:
"THANK YOU FOR BEING THE STRONGER TRIBE!":D
Stay safe.
I've been saying this for years however, it's NOT PC to those whom gain financially from distorting the truth.:mad:
I've even had Africans while in Africa say the above to my face which, I'd reply:
"THANK YOU FOR BEING THE STRONGER TRIBE!":D
Stay safe.
Must be Kenyan. Did they bow real low every chance they got, as well?
Must be Kenyan. Did they bow real low every chance they got, as well?First time was in Tunisia.
If anyone wants too view "modern-day" slavery at work.:eek: Just visit Dubai and travel AWAY from all the lights and glamour.:lifter
Stay safe.
sunsetsurfer
05-10-2011, 19:43
"As nearly as I can tell, neither the Christian bible, nor the Jewish Torah - or for that matter, the Talmud - nor the Islamic Koran oppose the practice. There is a commandment against murder, but no such prohibition against enslavement. (Note: So far as I am aware. I have no qualifications as a religious scholar). It appears that Hinduism substitutes an hereditary caste system with aspects of slavery, but (seemingly) Hinduism does not sanction the practice."
If you read the Mormon's "Book of Mormon" it teaches that slavery is morally and innately wrong.
1stindoor
05-11-2011, 07:03
"As nearly as I can tell, neither the Christian bible, nor the Jewish Torah - or for that matter, the Talmud - nor the Islamic Koran oppose the practice. There is a commandment against murder, but no such prohibition against enslavement. (Note: So far as I am aware. I have no qualifications as a religious scholar). It appears that Hinduism substitutes an hereditary caste system with aspects of slavery, but (seemingly) Hinduism does not sanction the practice."
If you read the Mormon's "Book of Mormon" it teaches that slavery is morally and innately wrong.
Interesting. In your 6 months with us you've made three posts, the first one as an intro. Then nothing until yesterday...then you explode on the scene with a Village People verse in one thread and remind us of the Book of Mormon in this one.
Interesting. In your 6 months with us you've made three posts, the first one as an intro. Then nothing until yesterday...then you explode on the scene with a Village People verse in one thread and remind us of the Book of Mormon in this one.
Maybe he's a macho, macho, macho man.:munchin
bailaviborita
05-12-2011, 05:52
I'm not sure I'd hold up the Mormon Bible or Church as an example on the subject. It would seem the early Church fathers didn't believe slaves should be freed or that Blacks were equal to others. Being Black- or cursed- was seen as tied to being a slave by the Mormons.
Just a cursory look on the web:
Brigham Young endorsed the doctrine that the curse of Cain was "the flat nose and black skin," and that blacks were further cursed to be "servant of servants" until that curse was removed (Journal of Discourses, 7:290).
By 1848, the LDS church instituted its "priesthood ban," wherein any Mormon with one black ancestor was barred from worshipping at the temple, and such males became ineligible for the priesthood (otherwise available to male Mormons beginning at age 12). That ban was not lifted until 1978.[138]
The Mormons believe that President Spencer W. Kimball begged God to abandon His curse on the descendants of Cain and God eventually relented.
-----
In 2 Nephi 30:6, the the Book of Mormon as originally translated (or written; opinions differ) by Joseph Smith said that if Lamanites accepted the true gospel,
"...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people."
After 1981, the term "white and delightsome" was changed to read "pure" -- an unusual action for a book considered to be inspired by God in its original version.
Although our tradition tied the equality of man to the Bible- I wonder if that was more for acceptance as opposed to a philosophical underpinning. Some of the Enlightenment writings and philosophy may have had more to do with the concept of equality than religious works...??
The natural state of man is freedom...if you disagree with me just ask a married guy :D
Blue
bailaviborita
05-12-2011, 06:26
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-idea-of-equality-in-america/
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-idea-of-equality-in-america/
Interesting that it was written in 1978. It could have been written last week.
But the class warfare idea is now cemented in the politics of the left.
bailaviborita
05-12-2011, 11:07
So, as I read that article, the writer makes the case that the concept of "equality" came from three different sources:
- The Enlightenment and philosophes like John Locke- who used Reason instead of Biblical doctrine (although one could argue at some level they were influenced by the beliefs of the day- namely the Judeo-Christian tradition)
- The "colonial experience"- or "frontier life" which damped down social, heredity, class and income advantages.
- and the "Reformation Tradition"- which stressed liberty.
So, if true, "equality" when it was bandied about by the Founding Fathers, was a much different concept than it is now. True, some saw inconsistencies in the concepts, but for the most part "equality of condition" seems to have come about much later and from a different tradition than "equality of opportunity"- arguably the original meaning of "equality". Eventually "equality of opportunity" was recognized as incompatible with slavery.
So, maybe slavery is wrong when seen through the lens of Enlightenment ideals that stress equality of opportunity- which I think was the original question of this thread.
I'm not an Enlightenment scholar, but I wouldn't be surprised if the philosophes didn't conclude that the "human condition" would improve if individuals were given "equality of opportunity". Equality of condition seems to have taken over later as a sense of guilt (perhaps of the rich?) at the obvious inequalities- some of which resulted from the era of slavery (or just an across-the-board "human condition" of inequality that emerged from evolutionary and population-behavioral forces) and from a worldview that posited that it was possible and morally right to overcome inequalities- even to the extent that it makes everyone have a lower standard of living (it is "fairer" for everyone to be miserable than for only a few to be miserable).
Sorry I missed a majority of this thread, but I did really enjoy some of the thoughts, viewpoints and replies throughout the thread. Most of what I would say has been covered quite well.
Though I do think it interesting that the South actually had written into their Constitution the prohibition against importation of any more slaves. As the South had three states that constituted 70% of the tax revenue for the country at that time (cotton was king), secession was not an option. I think it was more of a money thing.
And the Biblical viewpoint had stipulations. You had to set your slaves free every seven years, pay them back wages basically and all kinds of stuff. If they refused, then you could pierce their ear and take them as a kind of lifelong servitude deal, but almost part of the family. And slavers that targeted children was a death sentence. If your slave was captured in war, you had exceptions and you could have a child slave if they were enslaved with their captive family.
It has been said that there are more slaves today than at any other time in history. In Eastern Europe alone, according to the U.S. state department, 300,000 people were trafficked last year alone. It seems like an incredible figure and even I would like to know how they come up with their statistics. Especially as some organizations believe the true figure is actually about double this. The thing is, many of these countries have no social welfare to support the unemployed during this the worldwide economic crisis. To have tons of the unemployed disappear, is just better for the economy at the moment. That combined with the fact that our intel says that Russian Organized Crime owns a minimum of 70% of the banking system over there. This equates to no one wanting to put their foot down in Eastern Europe.
80% of these victims are women, 50% are children. 70% of the victims are used up in the sex trade. I say used up because they have around a 3-5 year shelf life before they die of abuse, illness or suicide, for the most part.
The thing is, this isn't just some overseas problem, this is a here problem. I have informants that tell me how girls are smuggled in to the port of Miami in containers. Around 60 girls to a container. They are drugged for the journey with air generators on board sometimes. They come in, lured by fake college summer programs they sign up for. Many have signed up with fake employment agencies, looking for work, as waitresses, etc. Some parents, who have no job, and little hope, sign their children up for fake educational programs that promise to educate their children, in exchange for a work program.
There are many ways they get these victims, but many of their outcomes are the same. At some point, they will have their papers taken, they will be beaten, raped, drugged and then sold. The average age is around 15. We have had a student lured out of one of our high schools in this state by a trafficking team. By the grace of God, she was found by her parents scouring the highways looking for her. She was drugged in the back of a mini-van that was headed to sell her in Mexico. I learned that case in a law enforcement class. And I can cite case after domestic case. it is believed that around 70% of our foster care runaways are sold through Mexico. This is the stuff whispered by law enforcement professionals during these courses and it kind of amazes me that we are responding so slowly.
Human Trafficking is modern day slavery and it is the second largest criminal enterprise in the world. It is growing so fast, it will overtake the drug trade and be number 1.
These girls make their owners from 150-over 200 thousand dollars a year. And they can reuse them over and over.
Now, from the thread responses I have seen, I am one of those that believes we all have a certain sense of right and wrong inside us. It is just either modified by culture or self justification. I am sure many of the Russian mafia guys trafficking have families of their own and look upon these girls as product, not victims.
But personally, I don't care where their moral compass is. I will seek to do what I can about this and impress my viewpoint of right and wrong on them most willfully. I don't care if this makes me less cosmopolitan, less reasonable or open minded. Sometimes things are wrong, from whatever context you want to put it in.
I myself have done shameful things in my past. I cannot and will not justify them, only take full responsibility and pay back as best I can. I was wrong, and I'm sorry. Sometimes things just are. I am sure anything shameful I have ever done would have perfectly acceptable for some ancient King or warlord, but even if I were such, I would be wrong. I believe this, so that is enough for myself.
I also have been around the planet and have seen different cultures and have kept my mouth shut. But my sense of self and right and wrong war with many things I saw. Now, I am not the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong and am perfectly willing to accept on judgment day, that I may have royally screwed up on some things I believed I was justified in but for now, sometimes a little black and white in the gray world makes for a little more sense.
I am so pissed at that poser Gellar for injecting his idiocy into a cause that needs to be fought for most vigorously. I assure you that my past will probably mean I will never get any glories or honors for what I do. And that suits me fine. What I do is for the victims, period. When you are getting raped up to 20 times a day, I doubt they are going to care if my armor is nice and shiny or tarnished, as long as I get them to safety, unharmed by myself or my team.
Man, and right after I said I would probably post less.
OK, probably once more if anyone makes a thread about how weak China is, according to one of their Generals.
Sorry I missed a majority of this thread, but I did really enjoy some of the thoughts, viewpoints and replies throughout the thread. Most of what I would say has been covered quite well.
Though I do think it interesting that the South actually had written into their Constitution the prohibition against importation of any more slaves. As the South had three states that constituted 70% of the tax revenue for the country at that time (cotton was king), secession was not an option. I think it was more of a money thing.
And the Biblical viewpoint had stipulations. You had to set your slaves free every seven years, pay them back wages basically and all kinds of stuff. If they refused, then you could pierce their ear and take them as a kind of lifelong servitude deal, but almost part of the family. And slavers that targeted children was a death sentence. If your slave was captured in war, you had exceptions and you could have a child slave if they were enslaved with their captive family.
It has been said that there are more slaves today than at any other time in history. In Eastern Europe alone, according to the U.S. state department, 300,000 people were trafficked last year alone. It seems like an incredible figure and even I would like to know how they come up with their statistics. Especially as some organizations believe the true figure is actually about double this. The thing is, many of these countries have no social welfare to support the unemployed during this the worldwide economic crisis. To have tons of the unemployed disappear, is just better for the economy at the moment. That combined with the fact that our intel says that Russian Organized Crime owns a minimum of 70% of the banking system over there. This equates to no one wanting to put their foot down in Eastern Europe.
80% of these victims are women, 50% are children. 70% of the victims are used up in the sex trade. I say used up because they have around a 3-5 year shelf life before they die of abuse, illness or suicide, for the most part.
The thing is, this isn't just some overseas problem, this is a here problem. I have informants that tell me how girls are smuggled in to the port of Miami in containers. Around 60 girls to a container. They are drugged for the journey with air generators on board sometimes. They come in, lured by fake college summer programs they sign up for. Many have signed up with fake employment agencies, looking for work, as waitresses, etc. Some parents, who have no job, and little hope, sign their children up for fake educational programs that promise to educate their children, in exchange for a work program.
There are many ways they get these victims, but many of their outcomes are the same. At some point, they will have their papers taken, they will be beaten, raped, drugged and then sold. The average age is around 15. We have had a student lured out of one of our high schools in this state by a trafficking team. By the grace of God, she was found by her parents scouring the highways looking for her. She was drugged in the back of a mini-van that was headed to sell her in Mexico. I learned that case in a law enforcement class. And I can cite case after domestic case. it is believed that around 70% of our foster care runaways are sold through Mexico. This is the stuff whispered by law enforcement professionals during these courses and it kind of amazes me that we are responding so slowly.
Human Trafficking is modern day slavery and it is the second largest criminal enterprise in the world. It is growing so fast, it will overtake the drug trade and be number 1.
These girls make their owners from 150-over 200 thousand dollars a year. And they can reuse them over and over.
Now, from the thread responses I have seen, I am one of those that believes we all have a certain sense of right and wrong inside us. It is just either modified by culture or self justification. I am sure many of the Russian mafia guys trafficking have families of their own and look upon these girls as product, not victims.
But personally, I don't care where their moral compass is. I will seek to do what I can about this and impress my viewpoint of right and wrong on them most willfully. I don't care if this makes me less cosmopolitan, less reasonable or open minded. Sometimes things are wrong, from whatever context you want to put it in.
I myself have done shameful things in my past. I cannot and will not justify them, only take full responsibility and pay back as best I can. I was wrong, and I'm sorry. Sometimes things just are. I am sure anything shameful I have ever done would have perfectly acceptable for some ancient King or warlord, but even if I were such, I would be wrong. I believe this, so that is enough for myself.
I also have been around the planet and have seen different cultures and have kept my mouth shut. But my sense of self and right and wrong war with many things I saw. Now, I am not the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong and am perfectly willing to accept on judgment day, that I may have royally screwed up on some things I believed I was justified in but for now, sometimes a little black and white in the gray world makes for a little more sense.
I am so pissed at that poser Gellar for injecting his idiocy into a cause that needs to be fought for most vigorously. I assure you that my past will probably mean I will never get any glories or honors for what I do. And that suits me fine. What I do is for the victims, period. When you are getting raped up to 20 times a day, I doubt they are going to care if my armor is nice and shiny or tarnished, as long as I get them to safety, unharmed by myself or my team.
Man, and right after I said I would probably post less.
OK, probably once more if anyone makes a thread about how weak China is, according to one of their Generals.
Stylo,
Would you mind referencing some of the statistics you have posted? Thanks.
- Dan P
That was a most interesting post. Thank you.
This is the stuff whispered by law enforcement professionals during these courses and it kind of amazes me that we are responding so slowly.
And that issue is where things get fascinating. We can suppose that self-interest modifies the setting of individual moral compasses, but here we have a hint that the society itself doesn't care to do much about the situation. My understanding is that the society referred to is our own, the U.S.A. So, one might ask the rhetorical question of what gain society derives that makes it accept such things. Maybe the society sacrifices some victims so as to maintain calm. Or perhaps the criminal elements are remarkably influential. The "why" would explain much, I think.
Those who make use of the slaves in any way are saying clearly, by their actions, that slavery and the abuse of slaves is perfectly acceptable. Good people deplore it, of course. But does the society? Perhaps not. And if that's true, I cannot help but wonder where things might go if we transition from abundance to scarcity.
Worth some serious reflection, IMO.
Stylo,
Would you mind referencing some of the statistics you have posted? Thanks.
- Dan P
Sure,
I knew I should have cited some sources but I already filled up quite a page. I have just been to so many seminars and law enforcement training classes, I can spout off so much.
This link will give some older stats but very relevant. This is compiled by The Polaris Network. They are a Non Governmental Organization that is funded in large part by the U.S. Government. The stats they have compiled here are from U.S. Government and U.N. Agencies. I like Polaris as they back up everything they quote. They also have a 24 hour help line in a gazillion different languages.
The current stats are actually much worse. I use older stats because they become just numbers after a while (refer to Stalin) and people just cannot grasp the big picture and what is going on here.
Polaris Statistics (http://www.dreamcenter.org/new/images/outreach/RescueProject/stats.pdf)
When we have a case, we turn it over to the relevant law enforcement agency, but we also send it to Polaris as they have a watchdog capacity and can cause the Agency to followup on progress. They assign us a case number and it is easier for us to record our cases as well for audit reasons.
As far as I know, we are the only Charity that has trained teams to retrieve the victims and actively does surveillance and investigations. We also work in a small capacity with ICE/DHS and are seeking to expand that relationship.
As far as anything backing up that a good part of our foster care kids (runaways) are being sold through Mexico City, I have nothing on paper to back that up but that is what was told to me during a seminar hosted by Special Agent (retired) Floy Turner, FDLE.
I know through a friend of mine, Steve Cass, that there are two huge clearing houses for trafficking victims in Mexico and one of them is in Mexico City and a lot of Caucasians are apparently sold through there. Steve does what we do, but in Mexico. The girls are harvested from down south and central America and sold for around $700.00. They finally get to the border and are sold for around 1-$3,000.00. Then Mexican Americans will come over the border and transport them over the border using very real birth certificates from their own children. They are sold here for around $7,000.00. He and his team try to rescue them before they cross the border. They are going full cowboy though, bangs and explosions, etc. Our teams have been invited to play with his guys but I am wanting enough funds on hand to bail/bribe my guys out of a Mexican jail first. the target age for these girls is around 12.
I don't have any references to this, just first hand knowledge from Steve. He and his guys have already had a couple hits put on them but God loves them.
He personally thinks we are crazy for taking on the Russian mafia here in Florida. I am just hoping that God loves me as well. Of course I have other contingencies for that type of contact as well.
I only started recruiting for the Shield Teams last October with the first training session in mid November. We go into half operations mode in June and full operations in July. Even so, tips and request come in. We have a total of 7 cases we have turned over to law enforcement, one of which was a rescue we were personally part of and another of which she was already rescued, but law enforcement had no knowledge of and we bought the two together.
I have no reference to the info I have on the girls coming in to the port of Miami, just first hand knowledge from a confirmed former trafficker. About all I'm going to say on that for his or her protection. I myself have first hand knowledge of girls coming in from Russia on a false summer program for college. This case is ongoing, I will only mention that part as that is about as much as law enforcement has mentioned at seminars. I would love to share more, when the case goes public.
The case of the girl snatched out of Escambia High school was included in course materials given to our Chair when she went to a course sponsored by the St Johns Sheriff's Office.
Now, to respond to nmap;
I believe a large part of the apathy here (In the U.S.) is that people may have seen a movie or have some vague sense from a television special that this is a Turkey thing or a Cambodia thing, but have no idea that this is a here thing. I mean how did something that is the second largest criminal enterprise on the planet happen... with barely anyone knowing about it?
I also think that people are secure in their environments they create or the world creates around them,the last one if they are less of an impact on their environment.
Usually I get,... I didn't know it was this bad. And then they are kind of overwhelmed and don't really know what to do, other than thinking someone wants them to throw money at it. I formed The Defender Foundation for Doers. I want their participation over their money. All I have to do is keep my teams actively engaged, and I will eventually get funds from deeper pockets.
I think part of the apathy is that people need to be informed and then they need to be told to take action. It is like after I talk to someone, then I lay the question down that has gotten many a person into trouble.
"What are you going to do about it?"
And they are like.....I should do something about it?, inside their head. I can almost see their thoughts and them going why. And I tell them. It is wrong. We cannot let children be captured and sold here and raped. This is something you can't sit and watch T.V. and let happen. And they wake up.
Of course I have people who are instantly enraged. But some people just have to be told. I had a guy try to take a bag of potato chips at a subways restaurant when we had a lunch meeting there. I said, are you going to pay for that, do you need me to cover you? He said something to the affect that subways had a lot of his money and they could spare him a free bag of chips. I know this is a small thing but life lessons are priceless. I said, do you know why stealing is wrong? And he said... uh. I said "simply because... It doesn't belong to you. It's not yours."
And the light went on.
I think people are basically good at heart, they just have to be kicked in the pants every now and then. Myself included.
NOW... I understand we would not have such a problem if there was not such a demand. Here we have a large undercover section of our society that wants to sleep with young children or at least not ask how old they are. How do I address that. Part of that is that I have to strip myself bare in front of them and tell them how bad I have screwed up in my life. And how the little internet porn addiction I had, was not so innocent, and how it broke down walls in me one at a time. Some of the girls I saw on there looked pretty young, and they seem to look younger all the time, and like a dog to its vomit, I kept coming back to lap up more. This resulted in me being really drunk and getting close to not turning down a 16 year old stepdaughter. You know what? That was my fault. She has nothing to do with my decisions, being drunk is never an excuse, I should have been the adult, period. Now, the voice in my head stopped anything before I got undressed and nothing was penetrated, etc. but I hope no one knows the crushing shame when I sobered up, that everything I ever thought I stood for, could be betrayed under the right conditions.
It was a turning point. I try to live each day, being the best man I can. I know a lot of the strip clubs here have strings of trafficking victims coming into them for one weekend at a time. A lot of the amateur porn is from trafficking victims now. The Russians pretty much own the south Florida sex industry. And as crazy as it sounds, I have to convince men... that sleeping with children, is just wrong. But sometimes, you just have to call them out. They always push that in the back of their heads or justify it through whatever,...but you have to draw everything into the light of day and say "Do you really believe that a 10 year old, is a willing participant, whatever she says, and just loves to have sex with strangers. Or is it more likely that she is doing what she has to to survive, is not free to leave and is living in a living hell, of which you are part of.
If we were captured, we have a duty to escape. We know the basic tenants of being a prisoner.
They have no one, unless someone stands up and volunteers to be boots on the ground. They are told they can always get a family member to replace them. many of them filled out fake employment applications. They have the names of their friends and relatives, addresses included. The Traffickers collect those cards the police leave with you when they say "Call, if you have any information." They flip these one by one in front of the girls, telling them about all of the police on their payroll, and if they run to them, they will come back in a body bag. The police in their country have a lot of corruption, why would they disbelieve this.
Now, we are not a garden club charity and we are kind of the redheaded stepchildren of the anti-trafficking industry. Mainly because we get our hands dirty, and my guys are armed when they roll. Everyone has concealed weapons permits and as we have teamed up with an executive protection security agency, most of my guys will be trained and certified as state level, G rated security officers, and this will cut down on liability, etc.
But back to your statement, I believe some people just have to be confronted with the true horror of the reality, and then have it put to them...
What are you going to do about it?
Some people just need to be woken up.