Why is slavery wrong?

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA,

mine and Henry's views

while it's gratifyin' you're sympathetic to my position (cuz here, in-forum, so few are) you must remember: I'm a particular and peculiar kind of moral realist

my notions of ownness are founded in natural law-natural rights which, of course, is part & parcel with my own particular and peculiar deism

so: while I admire your attempts to ground the wrongness of slavery in man's genes or psychology, the deep, universal intuition of ownness I write about isn't grounded, cant't be grounded, it seems to me, in the material or configurations of material

as I reckon it: man is sumthin' more than matter, mind is sumthin' other than brain-action, and intuitions of ownness are recognitions of (moral) reality

Both of us believe that chattel slavery is moral wrong objectively.

Your views are intuitive which happen to agree with mine, but your intuitive conclusion is not supported by any sound reasonings & arguments at all. Note,

• Intuition: the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.

Your sense of 'natural laws and natural rights' are also intuitive.
Btw, I have also have intuitive views on objective moral principles, [note mirror neurons] but I want to ensure they are verifiable and justifiable with philosophical reasonings, i.e. I want to know the why? why? why? ...

My views must be grounded on empirical evidences and sound philosophical reasonings.
I also believe in natural laws and natural rights but they are all supported by empirical evidences and sound philosophical reasonings.
Note for example natural laws as in science are all verified and justified based on empirical evidences via the scientific FSK.

It is the same with natural rights and objective moral principles, they must be verified and justified based on empirical evidences and philosophical reasonings via the Moral FSK.

Note deism is believing in a reasoned-God, thus a deist will have a suit of arguments to support his deism which is more reasonable in contrast to the totally blind faith of the theism of theists.
But ultimately the deistic God is impossible to be real but merely to be thought only for some related purposes. It is like the usefulness of fantasizing a sexy girl in thought-only as a fantasy to facilitate one's sexual experience.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It doesn't take long. Just answer.
How do you know slavery is wrong?

Nope it is not a kindergarten type or ABC answer...

Yep, it's very easy.

If you haven't got a short answer, if you can't put it concisely, then you have no answer at all...just a lot of jargon to hide the lack of an answer.

As I had stated the answer is very complex and it need a whole suit of perspective to grasp the answer.

If you insist on a short answer,
here is one from RM Hare which is from the utilatarian perspective which I partly agree as part of my whole answer.
viewtopic.php?p=557440#p557440

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2264930

Here is his introduction, {mine}

What is Wrong with Slavery
RM Hare

Nearly everybody would agree that slavery is wrong; and I can say this perhaps with greater feeling than most, having in a manner of speaking been a slave {as a prisoner of war -Burma}.

However, there are dangers in just taking for granted that something is wrong; for we may then assume that it is obvious that it is wrong and indeed obvious why it is wrong; and this leads to a prevalence of very bad arguments with quite silly conclusions, all based on the so-called absolute value of human freedom.

If we could see more clearly what is valuable about freedom, and why it is valuable, then we might be protected against the rhetoric of those who, the moment anything happens that is disadvantageous or distasteful to them, start complaining loudly about some supposed infringement of their liberty, without telling us why it is wrong that they should be prevented from doing what they would like to do.
It may well be wrong in many such cases; but until we have some way of judging when it is and when it is not, we shall be at the mercy of every kind of demagogy.

Hare's basis is based on empirical facts;

Utilitarianism therefore, unlike some other theories, is exposed to the facts.
The utilitarian cannot reason a priori that whatever the facts about the world and human nature, slavery is wrong.
He has to show that it is wrong by showing, through a study of history and other factual observation, that slavery does have the effects (namely the production of misery) which make it wrong.
This, though it may at first sight appear a weakness in the doctrine, is in fact its strength.

Note the point in blue above, so to ensure a solid justification, Hare provided his argument 'Why Slavery is Wrong' in 19 pages.
It is very ignorant of you to expect the answer in a few statements, like 'God said so..' as you would likely be claiming as your answer.

[Immanuel Can]

If you insist on a short answer,
Nearly everybody would agree that slavery is wrong

There it is: take away all the jabbering, and this is all you've got.

You think:

A) if the majority thinks something is wrong, it's wrong, and

B) the majority thinks slavery is wrong.

But A) is manifestly not plausible. At one time, every single person on earth believed that the world was flat. It still wasn't. Sometimes the majority may be right; and sometimes it's been very clearly wrong. Something isn't made true or right by dint of the number of people who have been fooled by it.

So much for A).

But B) isn't true either. It looks true to you only because you think strictly of the educated, modern West. Worldwide and history-wide, slavery is one of the longest-standing and most widely approved of human practices, and today's world has more slaves in it than at any time in history, and in worse conditions, in many cases, too.

That's the end of B).

So your facts are wrong, but worse, the things you point to would be utterly irrelevant even if right.

That's pretty much what I thought you were saying. So you could have saved yourself a lot of talking, and gone to the point. But it just doesn't work, anyway.

Slavery is wrong, I agree: but your reasons, as you have given them, will not show it to be wrong. That's a very insufficient defense for your position.

[henry quirk]

VA,

Both of us believe that chattel slavery is moral wrong objectively.

yes...and, here, that's a minority view: that makes us, you and me, allies

Your views are intuitive which happen to agree with mine, but your intuitive conclusion is not supported by any sound reasonings & arguments at all.

oh, I don't know about that...as I say, my view on objective morality, natural rights and law, is part & parcel with my deism which connects to my notions on free will...I can lay out a rough, raw, chain of reasoning encompassing it all

the totally blind faith of the theism of theists.

that's not a fair assessment: the apologists offer their own chains of reason...it doesn't seem, to me, their faith is blind

ultimately the deistic God is impossible to be real

I disagree: as I say, I can lay out my reasoning for my beliefs, which includes the necessity of the Creator

[RCSaunders]

VA,

Both of us believe that chattel slavery is moral wrong objectively.

yes...and, here, that's a minority view: that makes us, you and me, allies

Your views are intuitive which happen to agree with mine, but your intuitive conclusion is not supported by any sound reasonings & arguments at all.

oh, I don't know about that...as I say, my view on objective morality, natural rights and law, is part & parcel with my deism which connects to my notions on free will...I can lay out a rough, raw, chain of reasoning encompassing it all

the totally blind faith of the theism of theists.

that's not a fair assessment: the apologists offer their own chains of reason...it doesn't seem, to me, their faith is blind

ultimately the deistic God is impossible to be real

I disagree: as I say, I can lay out my reasoning for my beliefs, which includes the necessity of the Creator

If everything that exists necessitates a creator, if the creator exists, what created the creator?

[henry quirk]

if the creator exists, what created the creator?

let me consult the Big Book of Absolutely Correct Answers to Any and All Questions about Deism

*leafs thru pages*

hmmm, the book is blank...mebbe the words are written in lemon juice

*applies heat to the pages, pages catch fire*

well hell, RC, I just burned up my copy of the Big Book of Absolutely Correct Answers to Any and All Questions about Deism

I guess I'll just have to say: if He had a creator, I got no clue who or what that might be

[Immanuel Can]

If everything that exists necessitates a creator, if the creator exists, what created the creator?

The fault is in the premise. We know that all things in the material world necessitate a Creator. What gives us grounds to think there aren't things that are perpetual?

And if we understand the mathematical impossibility of infinite causal regress, then we also understand there has to be one original thing that is an Uncaused Cause of the causal chain.

[Dubious]

A "cause" is something which exists external to a process as if some will were involved. Since the creation of the universe depends solely on physical processes and described only in terms of process, causes do not exist; they explain nothing in physics. We may speak in terms of cause because it's so ingrained and seems so logical especially in human affairs where people are definitely the cause of most events. But in physics there are no externals provided beyond the process itself which yields a cause. A process does not require a cause to begin.

[RCSaunders]

If everything that exists necessitates a creator, if the creator exists, what created the creator?

The fault is in the premise. We know that all things in the material world necessitate a Creator.

No! "We," don't. That's your false premise based on nothing but your own superstitious belief.

What gives us grounds to think there aren't things that are perpetual?

Beyond the second law of thermodynamics is also the logical absurdity of assigning an attribiute that requires definition (limits) as though it had no limits to anything. To be, "perpetual," means to be, "without any change whatsoever," which means it could never do anything, because to do any would require some change in some aspect of the thing that was one state before the action and a different state after the action, else, nothing is done.

To say anything is perpetual (or infinite, or eternal) is a logical absurdity. The concepts mean, "that which isn't," i.e. the limit of that measurement, "isn't." It's a concept for what can't be identified explicitly, sometimes treated abstractly, (as in math, like the Calculus), as though it could be. To dream that anything that actually exists has any perpetual or infinite attribute is reification or hypostatization. Both very common logical mistakes.

[Immanuel Can]

If everything that exists necessitates a creator, if the creator exists, what created the creator?

The fault is in the premise. We know that all things in the material world necessitate a Creator.

No! "We," don't. That's your false premise based on nothing but your own superstitious belief.

No, it's based on the impossbility of an infinitely regressing chain of causes -- a mathematical certainty that requires no reference to belief in anthing but maths.

What gives us grounds to think there aren't things that are perpetual?

Beyond the second law of thermodynamics...

The second law of thermodynamics is actually an additional reason for believing in a Uncauses Cause. For it shows that at one time, there had to be a singular, massive infusion of order into the universe, from which the universe is declining entropically. So citing that does your case no good at all.

To be, "perpetual," means to be, "without any change whatsoever," which means it could never do anything, because to do any would require some change in some aspect of the thing that was one state before the action and a different state after the action, else, nothing is done.

That doesn't follow at all.

The state of the universe cannot, in that sense, be "perpetual," simply because the universe is a contingent and entropic thing. But there's no reason the Creator of the universe cannot be perpetual, because nothing He chooses to do changes Him into anything He is not already. It only changes the state of the universe, which is not God...unless perhaps you're Spinoza or perhaps a Hindu. But then you concept of God is something quite different from the Western one.

[henry quirk]

now, fellers, I likes me a good God fight as much as anybody, but this thread ain't about that

this thread is about is slavery wrong?/why is slavery wrong?

if God is the Reason, that's well & fine: say so, then take the debate about His existence to any of the other extant threads where such things dominate

now, what I would like to see here, if you say God is the Reason, is some examination of His nature, His character

connect the dots between God and slavery as immoral (cuz I can envision a Creator who doesn't give a flip about free will, personhood, etc.)

but, the whole God exists! God doesn't exist! debate, please, take that elsewhere

[Immanuel Can]

now, fellers, I likes me a good God fight as much as anybody, but this thread ain't about that

this thread is about is slavery wrong?/why is slavery wrong?

Yep, you're right. The boy threw out a red herring, and I ate it. Shame on me.

My apologies. We're back on track now.

[promethean75]

"well hell, RC, I just burned up my copy of the Big Book of Absolutely Correct Answers to Any and All Questions about Deism" - Henry Quirk, A Correspondence With RCSaunders (2022)


"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." - David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748)

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you insist on a short answer,
Nearly everybody would agree that slavery is wrong

There it is: take away all the jabbering, and this is all you've got.

You think:

A) if the majority thinks something is wrong, it's wrong, and

B) the majority thinks slavery is wrong.

But A) is manifestly not plausible. At one time, every single person on earth believed that the world was flat. It still wasn't. Sometimes the majority may be right; and sometimes it's been very clearly wrong. Something isn't made true or right by dint of the number of people who have been fooled by it.

So much for A).

But B) isn't true either. It looks true to you only because you think strictly of the educated, modern West. Worldwide and history-wide, slavery is one of the longest-standing and most widely approved of human practices, and today's world has more slaves in it than at any time in history, and in worse conditions, in many cases, too.

That's the end of B).

So your facts are wrong, but worse, the things you point to would be utterly irrelevant even if right.

That's pretty much what I thought you were saying. So you could have saved yourself a lot of talking, and gone to the point. But it just doesn't work, anyway.

Slavery is wrong, I agree: but your reasons, as you have given them, will not show it to be wrong. That's a very insufficient defense for your position.

Strawman again as usual. Don't insult your intelligence by being lazy or if you are deliberately ignoring the critical points.

Did you read the rest of my post??

Note the point that followed those thereafter,

However, there are dangers in just taking for granted that something is wrong; for we may then assume that it is obvious that it is wrong and indeed obvious why it is wrong; and this leads to a prevalence of very bad arguments with quite silly conclusions, all based on the so-called absolute value of human freedom.

I provided an argument from RM Hare [which I agree mostly] where he relied upon utilitarianism and based on empirical facts.

In addition to RM Hare's argument which I agree which is a part of my whole argument [not going into that here].

You deliberately missed out all the relevant points.
Show me why RM Hare's argument does not work.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA,

Both of us believe that chattel slavery is moral wrong objectively.

yes...and, here, that's a minority view: that makes us, you and me, allies

Your views are intuitive which happen to agree with mine, but your intuitive conclusion is not supported by any sound reasonings & arguments at all.

oh, I don't know about that...as I say, my view on objective morality, natural rights and law, is part & parcel with my deism which connects to my notions on free will...I can lay out a rough, raw, chain of reasoning encompassing it all

the totally blind faith of the theism of theists.

that's not a fair assessment: the apologists offer their own chains of reason...it doesn't seem, to me, their faith is blind

ultimately the deistic God is impossible to be real

I disagree: as I say, I can lay out my reasoning for my beliefs, which includes the necessity of the Creator

Note the point from RM Hare, see above post,

Nearly everybody would agree that slavery is wrong

This is VERY intuitive because all humans are programmed with an inherent moral system [less active in the majority, active in a small percentile].
As you had stated 'even the enslaver [normal person] would not want to be enslave.

But Hare stated; {mine}

However, there are dangers in just taking for granted that something is wrong {on an intuitive basis}; for we may then assume that it is obvious that it is wrong and indeed obvious why it is wrong; and this leads to a prevalence of very bad arguments with quite silly conclusions, all based on the so-called absolute value of human freedom.

Hare presented his argument in 19 pages from the utilitarianism perspective.

The default at this present phase is the majority will believe in a God but the deistic God is more reasoned-out than the personal theistic God. So I have no serious qualms on anyone wanting to believe in a God out of critical necessity, except the evil God of Islam.

The majority of those who believe in a personal theistic God relied totally upon blind faith, it is only a minority [theologians and some] who try to use reason but their reasoning failed miserably.
You will note the higher the reasoning use to justify God, the more they will tend toward deism, note Spinoza, etc.