Slavery - is it really wrong?

[nmap]

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. 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.

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

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

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

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.