The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2026 9:08 am In Postmodernity, Western Civilization doesn't want private Citizens owning slaves, although it was commonplace for centuries and millenniums, because that over-empowers private citizenry to compete directly against the State or Church.

You'd think they would have undermined a lot of financial instruments and the ability to incorporate then also, since a large number of private citizens who came from nobody families managed to end of with powerful companies (some with their own security forces) and incredible wealth which is also, well, power.

This was the basis of the Civil War in the United States, to deprive private citizenry of such social, cultural, and economic power. As Western Civilization continues to decline and decay, Slavery may once again rear itself, especially as Neo-Liberalism and the "World Liberal Order" loses cultural power.

Well, it it's good you see slavery as part of a trend of decay.

I think it's far more dangerous for a society to pretend that "freed slaves" are free, when they're not, and never intended to be.

In the United States, former slaves have been taken and became slaves of the State (ie. Leftism). People throughout the US don't even know what the word "Citizen" means.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2026 9:31 am I think it's far more dangerous for a society to pretend that "freed slaves" are free, when they're not, and never intended to be.

We don't have to assume that it's a binary slave vs. free person situation. We can acknowledge some serious significance to a person no longer being able to own me and whip me on a whim, chain me up, keep me from leaving his land and so on WHILE at the same time realizing that if I work at amazon in a warehouse, I am in many ways a slave.

In the United States, former slaves have been taken and became slaves of the State (ie. Leftism).

Or the slaves of corporations (Rightism)

But this doesn't contradict what I said. If ending slavery was all about reducing private citizen power, there are others ways of getting power that are still available that can lead to much, much more real power. So, I am skeptical about that theory.

There was sectionalism and state's rights and I am sure a strong motivation was to maintain a large powerful country rather than ending up with two countries with different main industries - and relations to trade and tariffs for example - and federal power over state power. Centralization. Rich and powerful people continued to make themselves these things or more so once slavery was gone.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2026 10:13 amWe can acknowledge some serious significance to a person no longer being able to own me and whip me on a whim, chain me up, keep me from leaving his land

This is the crux of the matter though. "Slavery" isn't really bad until strawmen are used on its worst, most immoral examples. People don't complain when a 'Good' Master takes good care of his slaves, empowers them, rises them up in class, in ways that Neo-Liberalism cannot. People ignore the 'good' examples and focus only on the bad.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2026 10:44 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2026 10:13 amWe can acknowledge some serious significance to a person no longer being able to own me and whip me on a whim, chain me up, keep me from leaving his land

This is the crux of the matter though. "Slavery" isn't really bad until strawmen are used on its worst, most immoral examples. People don't complain when a 'Good' Master takes good care of his slaves, empowers them, rises them up in class, in ways that Neo-Liberalism cannot. People ignore the 'good' examples and focus only on the bad.

I might in some contexts. Is there someone here who knows their family owned slaves but their family treated them better than other slaveowners and they want to talk about that? If there is, they can start that discussion. I'm aware of that issue. And you are wrong that this is never brought up. Hell it's even a part of Uncle Tom's Cabin, and that's going way back. 12 years a slave has the Benedict Cumberbach character.

But seriously, I really don't feel any obligation in this discussion to comfort certain people about the behavior of their ancestors. And if they actually own people now as property, I'm glad they are humane but forgive me I will probably focus on the problem there.

I'm sure Amazon does some nice things for some of its employees, but, well, I am likely to focus on their inhumanity, if that's any consolation to people who formally own other people or think they do. It's not just slaveowners I tend to focus on the negative facets of the lifestyle with. I am sure some of the religious leaders of Iran did some nice things, perhaps with their families, but I will likely focus on the negative things they do to Iranians, even if I don't support the war.

Consider this next then... how does a society move from Slavery to Freedom? Does the freed Slave, after being freed, suddenly live in an environment where people are accepting of free-slaves? Or is it already a system of class and caste value? USA developed Neo-Liberalism as a coping mechanism for freed slaves. It wasn't until Civil Rights that freed slaves were forced into the umbrella of 'Equality'. So there is underlying class disparity, which the underclass was never supposed to achieve.

That's my point. The 'Good' Masters were already providing more than what Neo-Liberalism ever could or did thereafter.

"Corporations" merely re-integrated freed slaves back into their former systems.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2026 11:13 am Consider this next then... how does a society move from Slavery to Freedom? Does the freed Slave, after being freed, suddenly live in an environment where people are accepting of free-slaves? Or is it already a system of class and caste value? USA developed Neo-Liberalism as a coping mechanism for freed slaves. It wasn't until Civil Rights that freed slaves were forced into the umbrella of 'Equality'. So there is underlying class disparity, which the underclass was never supposed to achieve.

That's my point. The 'Good' Masters were already providing more than what Neo-Liberalism ever could or did thereafter.

"Corporations" merely re-integrated freed slaves back into their former systems.

An overall reaction. I think there was a general trend of giving people more freedom as we move through late 19th and the 20th centuries. We could do more stuff. We were freer in relation to authority. (for ex slaves it got much better early then it got worse for a while again as the South found new ways to shit on them). But this trend stopped and now has been moving backwards for quite a while three or four decades. More concentration of wealth. One must work harder than earlier generations to have the same buying power. More police powers. Concentrated media (with a countertrend on the internet). Power is concentrating in an elite and they are more and more openly just doing what they like. The recent radical increase in the price of food is just one of many aspects of this trend. So, the kinds of modern non-chattel slavery are seeping in again.

Comparing a kind slave owner with what was offered to blacks after the civil war is an apples bicycle type of thing. How do we weigh the being owned part. How much would you fight being owned? How much of a pay cut would you take? Would you even choose to be homeless? I think you very well might. And those nice slaveowners would still do a whole host of things that most of us would not accept and would take a sketchier life as a non-slave to avoid. Not just the weight of dignity, I mean. And really, I see no reason to worry about nice slave owners somehow being slighted. Just point out the problems with society.

Here's another angle.

A parent owns their child. Yet, the child grows to an adult, and at one point must "own him or herself". And there are degrees to which parents go to either retain 'ownership' of the child to prevent independence, and vice-versa, there is a regression that adults choose to renounce their self-ownership. But people generally don't refer to parent and child as master and slave... why not? Because Master and Slave implies a non-genetic connection and legal ownership. It is similar to the parent-child relationship, but not through genetics. So, by analogy, the master-slave dichotomy is more similar to step-parent-step-child.

The main difference, then, are the legal, moral, and cultural expectations that general society has for and against a step-parent and step-child. There are legal limits, similar but not the same as the master and slave. The degree of abuse is arguable. Society 'tolerates' degrees of abuse between step-parent and step-child, before the state intervenes.

So how does that analogy then compare to the recent history of master-slave dynamic?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2026 1:32 pm Here's another angle.

A parent owns their child. Yet, the child grows to an adult, and at one point must "own him or herself". And there are degrees to which parents go to either retain 'ownership' of the child to prevent independence, and vice-versa, there is a regression that adults choose to renounce their self-ownership. But people generally don't refer to parent and child as master and slave... why not? Because Master and Slave implies a non-genetic connection and legal ownership. It is similar to the parent-child relationship, but not through genetics. So, by analogy, the master-slave dichotomy is more similar to step-parent-step-child.

me I don't think I own my children, so I find the message off from the start. I am responsible, but unlike property and the things I own, I cannot for example destroy them, sell them, put them permanently in the attic.

The main difference, then, are the legal, moral, and cultural expectations that general society has for and against a step-parent and step-child. There are legal limits, similar but not the same as the master and slave. The degree of abuse is arguable. Society 'tolerates' degrees of abuse between step-parent and step-child, before the state intervenes.

So how does that analogy then compare to the recent history of master-slave dynamic?

I don't know. It seems like part of your case. Amazon is not my stepparent. If they got the rights that a step parent has, often, over a child, then we'd have a problem. If Bezos (? I mixed up the billionaire assholes) let me live in his house and I had to for some reason, well, sure he'd get some control over my behavior: no heavy metal music after 10pm, etc.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2026 2:02 am

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2026 12:38 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2026 10:53 pm But I was only pointing out one minor case, just to show that it's not easy sailing to prove it is wrong, from a secular perspective.

Really? How about asking a person to decide if slavery is right or wrong under the assumption that they do not know if they will be in the role of master or slave/

The problem with that is that they do. We always know what role we're aiming at...and if we don't get it, we're surprised.

As for that strategy, the "veil of ignorance," it's not as if Rawl's heuristic will work in real life. It requires us to believe a whole bunch of things Rawls gives us no reason to believe.

You are ducking the answer. NOT relevant what role the person is "aiming at"

Do you REALLY need it spelled out concretely. The person is asked to make the choice in the situation that after they have chosen, a token will be randomly drawn from a hat to assign their role. Let's say 10% of the tokens marked "master" and 90% marked "slave" Dom you believe any of many people believe their wishes about the token drawn will affect the token that is drawn for therm. Sociologists can conduct experiments to determine if/how those percentage amounts matter in how people decide.

Remember, you asked for something suited to the rational secularist. Not some irrational religious believer who thinks that appeals to God, the right sacrifices burned on the alter, will affect the token drawn.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2026 4:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2026 2:02 am

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2026 12:38 am

Really? How about asking a person to decide if slavery is right or wrong under the assumption that they do not know if they will be in the role of master or slave/

The problem with that is that they do. We always know what role we're aiming at...and if we don't get it, we're surprised.

As for that strategy, the "veil of ignorance," it's not as if Rawl's heuristic will work in real life. It requires us to believe a whole bunch of things Rawls gives us no reason to believe.

You are ducking the answer.

How? I criticized Rawls, and pointed you to all the additional critiques. What's the "duck"?

The person is asked to make the choice in the situation that after they have chosen, a token will be randomly drawn from a hat to assign their role. Let's say 10% of the tokens marked "master" and 90% marked "slave" Dom you believe any of many people believe their wishes about the token drawn will affect the token that is drawn for therm. Sociologists can conduct experiments to determine if/how those percentage amounts matter in how people decide.

You're not saying anything I don't know...or anything important, either. This procedure is used almost nowhere, and nobody is secularly obligated to use it, even as a mere heuristic. It's useless for most real-world scenarios, and not requisite for anybody.

Remember, you asked for something suited to the rational secularist.

Precisely! And the secularist has no duty whatsoever to follow Rawls, or to prefer his procedure to anything.

But if you think I'm wrong, you can prove it easily: show that the secularist has a duty to follow Rawls's procedure, or to believe that "equality" or Rawlsian "fairness" is a value that is obligatory to all secularists.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2026 7:30 pm
But if you think I'm wrong, you can prove it easily: show that the secularist has a duty to follow Rawls's procedure, or to believe that "equality" or Rawlsian "fairness" is a value that is obligatory to all secularists.

Cut the BS IC. There is NO REASON to suppose the secularist is obligated to follow ANY PARTICULAR secular basis for justice/,morality. You are just as far out of line with that as I would be were In to say, oh, you are basing on god, then explain why any person who claims to believe in deity believes in Lord Vishnu (or Ahura Mazda, or Odin, or.....)

That's it --- I am no longer going to privilege your use of GOD. I will treat that as potentially meaning ANY deity. See if that will get you to stop your nonsense.

AND stop acting like I'm an atheist and expected to explain the atheist position to you. However I do have more sympathy/understanding of the secular atheist than I do of YOUR brand of religion. WHY do you think your narrow limited view of "god" is the right one? Why do you think this deity gives a damn about your peccadillos? Why can;t you stand on tour own two feet and resolve to change your ways toi do better instead of begging fo forgiveness.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2026 12:26 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2026 7:30 pm
But if you think I'm wrong, you can prove it easily: show that the secularist has a duty to follow Rawls's procedure, or to believe that "equality" or Rawlsian "fairness" is a value that is obligatory to all secularists.

There is NO REASON to suppose the secularist is obligated to follow ANY PARTICULAR secular basis for justice/,morality.

Well, that's the whole problem. Secularism has no morality. It doesn't matter whether we tag it with the name Rawls, or Kant, or Mill, or Aristotle; the problem is that, either way, nobody has an obligation to accept any of it, because secularism holds that morality is "subjective," which means, essentially, "fictional." Nothing in reality requires any of it.

So again: under secularism, how do you show that slavery is wrong?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2026 3:52 pmI am responsible, but unlike property and the things I own, I cannot for example destroy them, sell them, put them permanently in the attic.

You CAN, you simply choose not to.

To say or imply that you CANNOT, means that a higher force or power (State or Church) resides over you, and your children. They CAN do those things. The State, for example, CAN lock you up or kill you. Therefore, you are its property. You are its slave. Same with God.

To be truly Free, means you are above or outside the periphery of the State, or even of God. It would mean you are Slave to NONE.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2026 10:26 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2026 3:52 pmI am responsible, but unlike property and the things I own, I cannot for example destroy them, sell them, put them permanently in the attic.

You CAN, you simply choose not to.

Oh, then I own my neighbor. She's weak, elderly. I could easily do those things, but I choose not to. In fact with just a little determination, I could kill any person on this block, sneak up with a cudgel (always want to use that word). I have so many slaves or children!!! I can't remember which relation this proves.