| |
| ▲ | eadmund 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The Constitution doesn’t mention slavery once. That’s intentional. | |
| ▲ | xvector 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's time to get off your high horse. If you eat meat, future humans will regard you the same way as we regard the slave owners of yesteryear. Perhaps even worse. Judge people by the ways in which they push their society's morals forward, not retroactively after hundreds of years of morals evolving. | | |
| ▲ | komali2 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | No. Slavery is a unique evil and people knew it was a unique evil since the time of the ancient Greeks. I refuse to accept "it was just the way things were at the time" when there were people opposed to slavery thousands of years ago. Aristotle wrote about them: > others however maintain that for one man to be another man’s master is contrary to nature, because it is only convention that makes the one a slave and the other a freeman and there is no difference between them by nature, and that therefore it is unjust, for it is based on force. There were abolitionists in the first days of the United States through to the civil war. People knew it was wrong or had ample opportunity to hear it argued that it was wrong, and furthermore, the inherent wrongness of it should be obvious to anyone that encounters it, and I don't give a moral pass to anyone that brushes it off because it was common any more than I do for American politicians that brush off school shootings because it's common. | | |
| ▲ | xvector 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Incorrect. There were some people that understood slavery to be a unique evil. The vast majority of humanity understood it to be "just how things were." Really, not much different from how we view factory farming today. | | |
| ▲ | komali2 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Slavery is evil though. It's pretty straightforward. People that participated in it were wrong to do so, and that should be self evident to all participants. I don't accept any excuse for participating in the slave trade. I'm not special or unique to point this out, it's obvious no matter the century. Would you like to argue that it isn't? The floor is yours. Otherwise your point about consensus is moot. Evil then, evil now, evil forever. | | |
| ▲ | xvector 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Slavery was obviously wrong but you cannot judge those that didn't understand this. Consensus matters. The morals of the time matter. It was a societal failing over a personal one. If you think you can judge someone by the morals of today, you must then accept you are evil as well, since societal morals will continue to evolve. You never answered the question: are you vegan, or do you contribute to the immense suffering and death of ~70b sentient beings a year? The suffering hours inflicted every few days exceed that of any atrocity in human history. It is the industrialized torture of billions of innocent beings for your pleasure. If veganism becomes the norm, is it fair for future humans to judge your whole life by your consumption of meat, leather, or other animal products when there are so many people today that recognize it as a "unique and horrifying evil?" It is a strange form of exceptionalism for you to judge those in the past but not yourself, because the delta will be similar over long enough timeframes, and if you do partake in any of these things you won't be seen as much different. | | |
| ▲ | acdha 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > If you think you can judge someone by the morals of today, you must then accept you are evil as well, since societal morals will continue to evolve. We can judge them by their peers at the time. The U.S. founding fathers didn’t unanimously support slavery, many of them opposed it but were committed to the idea of unity against England. Part of why we can be comfortable judging the slave owners is because their position was primarily based on greed - if we suddenly discovered that cows were sentient, a ton of people would stop eating beef but there was no doubt or ambiguity about black people in that regard, only ruthless awareness of how rich you could get without paying your workers. | | |
| ▲ | aziaziazi 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > if we suddenly discovered that cows were sentient People eat beef mostly because they’re used to it and they think it’s good for them. Everybody knows cow are sentient, there’s a strong intuition (why wouldn’t they like other animals ?) but also tons of literature. There’s not much doubt about it neither. I agree with the slave owners, however the spectrum of acceptance is large where it’s part of the society. What about someone that make profit by doing business with the slave owner? Someone that buy products coming ~probably~ from that work? Or someone assisting an "indigene showcase" because they know nothing about this humanoid that look, speak and act differently than the people they used to known (that are from 100km away max). Not different than a zoo, and both are tremendously cruel. | |
| ▲ | xvector 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Everyone knows cows are sentient (not sapient) in a way not dissimilar to a pet, everyone knows factory farming causes immense cruelty and suffering to them, our peers call this out and the text+video evidence is well documented and freely available, 20% of humans abstain, but most people eat it to satisfy their taste buds. So the cases are not dissimilar at all because your contemporaries do call this out. If causing such immense death and suffering for pleasure in the face of easily available alternatives is not greed, what is? You are only highlighting my point how you are seeing something as acceptable that will probably be viewed as an unspeakable cruelty in the future, and yet you feel comfortable judging past humans by an increased standard whereas you clearly are not comfortable applying an increased standard to yourself. You are a product of your society as much as the slave owners of the past were of theirs. This is why it is senseless and hypocritical to paint past peoples acting within the accepted mores of their society as evil - as if we are any better, relatively speaking! It makes sense to celebrate those that push things forward, as opposed to condemning those that are simply doing what they know to be normal. | | |
| ▲ | acdha 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Sorry, yes, I did mean to write sapient. I'm not sure that's a conflict, however, as much as further along a spectrum. Whether or not eating cows is ethical is possible to debate because there is valid question about how much of a mind they have but that was never honestly in question for humans. The people who kept slaves had to invent things like the “mark of Cain” theology _because_ they knew their victims were intelligent, feeling creatures like themselves and had to justify treating them in a very profitable way. All of those elaborate “the gods want this” constructions exist to get people to override their natural instinct to recognize someone as a person. | |
| ▲ | komali2 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | This point is moot because chattel slavery of humans is worse by a large degree than eating animals. We don't need to debate whether eating animals is bad, that's a distraction. We can judge past slaveholders. The shared humanity of another human is self evident the instant you behold a slave, whether 300 years ago or 3000. Everyone that participated was wrong to do so. | | |
| ▲ | xvector 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I think you're just deliberately being obstructionist and entirely avoiding the point I'm trying to make. Calling the core point of the argument a "distraction" is very convenient for you. Torture is bad no matter how you cut it, and it's especially bad if you torture a sentient being for your own pleasure. Can we agree on that? Saying whether it's better or worse than slavery is like playing the oppression Olympics, they are both atrocities and demonstrably evil actions. When you kill an animal, you can see it struggle, cry, suffer, die. You can hold and see its pain in your hands. To do so for your taste buds is another level of evil. To make it live an entire life of suffering? That's really not much different in terms of badness. The fact that you can't acknowledge this highlights the double standard you apply to people that came before you but not yourself. Everyone is wrong to participate in the systematic torture and murder of 70,000,000,000 sentient beings a year. Does that make all the participants evil? | | |
| ▲ | komali2 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > Saying whether it's better or worse than slavery is like playing the oppression Olympics, they are both atrocities and demonstrably evil actions. I'm not trying to engage in oppression Olympics, I'm just saying, slavery is basically the worst things people can do, so far beyond the morality of whether or not it's ok to kill animals, or even torture them, that I'm just confused why it's brought up as if it's relevant. I don't think killing animals is a great thing to do, and factory farms are awful. But humans are humans, and constantly just hitting this "what about animals" things is bizarre to me. I'm not trying to be rude, I just simply don't see the relevance. Slavery being just about the worse thing humans can do means that all the other bad things pale in comparison. I'm not saying it's always valid to apply modern ethics to people from various time periods - it's bad, but understandable, that people used to beat their kids, or waste food by sacrificing animals and leaving them out to rot "for the gods." My point is that slavery simply is a massive exception, it's second-to-second murder, taking a human and trying to make them not-human. So that's why anything you could throw at me that we do today that people in the future might say is wrong - jailing people, not housing the homeless, killing animals for sport, engaging in capitalism, you name it, none of them come close to slavery in terms of sheer evil. And my point is that this isn't modern ethics, this is as self-evident a moral fact as is possible for morality. Many things in morality are grey, debatable. Not slavery. It's the One of Two things that are bad in every century, alongside rape. The wrongness of slavery, and rape, are immediately evident no matter what culture or era you come from. And the reason people do this is usually to justify slavery. "Well they didn't know any better, so they had slaves." Justifying slavery with ANY reason is also bad. So I refuse to accept any attempt to do so, including comparisons to other things that happen to be bad, or possibly considered bad in the future. | | |
| ▲ | xvector 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I guess our difference is that I don't view the suffering of humans as any more exceptional than the suffering of other sentient beings. | | |
| ▲ | komali2 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, that is then the difference. The humanity of a human is self evident to any other human instantly. The humanity of an animal is debatable to this day. That's why slavery is inexcusably bad - the badness of it is also immediately self evident upon encountering it. | | |
| ▲ | xvector 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't think "the humanity of something" is a factor that plays any role in whether something is morally okay or not. Suffering is the factor that matters. | | |
| ▲ | komali2 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The reason slavery is bad isn't because of suffering, depending on how you define suffering. There were "house slaves" that had relatively comfortable lives. Slavery is bad among other reasons because it strips away someone's humanity and completely takes away their liberty, subjecting their life to the will of someone else. It's a constant ongoing theft of a human life, a reduction of a human life to property. I'm glad you brought up suffering, I'm realizing better now why so frequently I hear these two ideas brought together by people inadvertently finding themselves on the same side as folks minimizing slavery in attempts to argue against harming animals (by engaging in debate about moral relativism). Purely from a suffering standpoint slavery doesn't necessarily have to be "that bad." Drawing comparisons between it and arguments against harming animals are nonsensical because we're not talking about suffering, we're talking about other things that can only possibly involve humans. Thank you for sticking around and exploring your viewpoint with me so I could understand that better. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dlock17 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you think Charlie Kirk was pushing society's morals forward? I don't think dismissing chattel slavery or it's ramifications on the modern day will improve the morals of society either. | | |
| ▲ | xvector 5 days ago | parent [-] | | If you think I'm dismissing chattel slavery, you're misinterpreting my argument. |
|
|
|
