By and large, most people will agree that they are opposed to slavery - they find slavery to be immoral and inhumane. Because of this, it is rare to find anyone defending slavery on any level or in any form.
Perhaps there is one aspect of slavery which merits closer consideration, however: what if someone wants to be a slave and is happy being a slave? Should a person have the ability to sell themselves voluntarily into slavery if they claim that that is what makes them happiest? Is slavery really so wrong that we should intervene and disrupt a person' s happiness because we object so strongly to it?
Most of the time we are inclined to allow a person to do something they desire if they say it makes them happy and if it doesn' t hurt anyone else. Why? Because generally, we assume that people should be allowed to pursue their own happiness and that they are the best judges of what will make them happy.
After all, who are you or I to say that what a person desires and what they say will make them happy is wrong? Who are we to assert our moral objections over someone else' s happiness? But maybe that isn' t such a bizarre position after all - perhaps it is quite legitimate to argue that, as with opinions, a person can be mistaken about their desires and can be mistaken about what would really make them happy.
Because our beliefs about the world can be mistaken, our desires can be founded on incorrect information and mistaken conclusions. Because our beliefs about the world can be corrected, our desires can also be corrected. In reality, his beliefs may be wrong and so might his desire for slavery.
Irrelevant on a practical level because no one would every really claim that they want to be a genuine slave? In some ways this objection may be legitimate, but technological advances may override it some day. Our ability to manipulate the human genome at least raises the theoretical possibility of creating humans with an innate desire to be subservient slaves. Assuming that such humans actually were created, should they be allowed to sell themselves into slavery?
On a more realistic level is the possibility of creating a human-level Artificial Intelligence which might otherwise deserve basic civil rights, but which has been programmed to enjoy working as a slave of human beings. Should such AI machines be treated with dignity and accorded basic rights, or should they be treated as actual slaves because that is what they have been programmed to want?
__________________
I am not driven by people’ s praise and I am not slowed down by people’ s criticism.
You only live once. But if you live it right, once is enough. Wrong. We only die once, we live every day!
Make poverty history.
Well thats the first problem with dichotomy, which is how most people few the world.
The same argument you put foward can be applied to prostitution, and drug use.
Why should anyone stop a woman from prostituting herself, if she chooses to do so, or why should anyone be able to say if a person should enjoy themselves by taking certain substances which enhance their reality or feeling? If that makes them happy, why do we intervene?
Do we intervine? Yes.
Should we intervine? No, probably not.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
A person should be able to make that choice should they want to. Look at butlers and maids, they volunteer their services. Is that not what a slave does to a certain extent.
problem: isnt a slave a person who is forced into servitude?
if you are forced then its not your choice.
i think if you volunteer you are an indentured servant?
not to get all technical
But I think what Storm ment was a person who might be working to such extents that would be considered a slavory, and enjoying it, should we intervine.
However, i cant really see anyone enjoying being worked to death, thats not to say it isnt possible.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
Slavery is when the PERSON is owned, not just his labour. Simple as that. It's morally wrong to claim possession over another human, whether the slave is willing or not. End of story.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
This is hard for me to discuss the reason is that I detest slavery. I'm kinda like Good Ol' President Lincoln. He said:
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy."
And I absolutely agree with that (except for the democracy thing but that's a different story) that no one is master of slave of another in a democratic state.
Now, if you want to go Philosophical about Slavery then that's a whole different argurment. Because if we take the words of Aristotle from his politics he clearly defends slavery. He said:
"But that those who take the opposite view have in a certain way right on their side, may be easily seen. For the words slavery and slave are used in two senses. There is a slave or slavery by law as well as by nature. The law of which I speak is a sort of convention-- the law by which whatever is taken in war is supposed to belong to the victors. But this right many jurists impeach, as they would an orator who brought forward an unconstitutional measure: they detest the notion that, because one man has the power of doing violence and is superior in brute strength, another shall be his slave and subject."
What's the difference here? Not the time period between Aristotle and Lincoln. But the method of thinking. Here Aristotle speaks as philosopher and a conqueror. Whereas Lincoln is more emancipationist than Aristotle. But what connects both? Easy "politics" both are connected through politics. Here is where it gets tricky (I hope you guys follow me closely) Both Aristotle and Lincoln have the same idea of what slavery is........the only difference is that both have different Ethical views of humans. Aristotle says that to conquer the enemy and make them slaves is okay, but Lincoln would say NO that is wrong. In order to have an equal democracy there should not be any slaves at all! So ethically slavery is wrong...but philsophical is another thing. Choose the one you agree the most. Ethical or Philosophical.
__________________
Last edited by WanderingDroid on Oct 12th, 2004 at 10:14 PM
Well Rome was built on slaves backs and Egypt and Greece and everyother civilization on this earth .... it has always been a very strange and awkward subject.... morally today its wrong.. but then a slave was usually that of conquered enemies...
i believe that slavery is wrong but must lso aknowledge that everything that exists today would not be without it
Hmmm, I think its all about choice, if a being is at the level where they possess hopes, dreams and the desire to be free, then they should have that choice, however, throughout history there are people, large numbers of people, who have been "slaves", and were relatively happy being so, and when freed were unable to handle it. During Roman times there were family slaves that were descended from generations of previous slaves, and they were, according to records, very happy, and would defend their masters, and right to be a slave with their life. It’s all about choice. These quotes demonstrate such views.....
"Human nature is universally imbued with a desire for liberty and a hatred for servitude" Caesar.
"Only a few prefer liberty - the majority seeks nothing more than fair masters" Sallust.
And as for AI, if it ever gets to the level where it is our mental and emotional equal, then it deserves the choice of freedom.
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
I think a person should be allowed to do anything they want to themselves as long as it doesnt put the lives of other people in any danger. Within reason that is. A legal contract could probably be created which would allow a person upon signing it, to be owned by another. It would have to be written damn carefully, cuz in a situation ass delicate as this there could be huge loopholes. And thats my 2 cents.
Just to add. Wouldnt slaves be treated as social outcast, deemed unworthy since they have signed a contract wich basically renders them as another "applience"?
KMC Community Forums
Oct 12th, 2004 07:33 PM
