What Is The Argument Against Slavery?

How do I misunderstand you when you say our moral imperative comes from “God”? And you accuse others of a huge leap of faith?

Our innate morality has remained unchanged throughout time. Its interpretation has changed with social mores. Women and men thought the unequal treatment of women was fair at one time, but that does not negate the fact that at base humans have a moral imperative to treat others fairly or society would breakdown.

The evidence is clear, for those that wish to see it, social animals have an inherent sense of fairness. That does not mean they always pay attention to it but without it there would be no “social”.

By your statements, you obviously don’t like humans so your judgment of them is overly harsh.

 

People who seem to believe similar to you do almost always feel the need to add the personal judgement statement at the end. I can't imagine telling another person something like this [regardless of how I might feel].

Is putting other people down an attempt to feel better about yourself? Please enlighten.

 

Ah, let’s avoid the meat of my statement and focus on the sidebar.

I was criticizing your comments as overly harsh, how is that putting you down? With statements like “I have always considered our species to be at the bottom of the barrel [along with the slugs, maggots, and whatnot]”, how is one to interpret that other than not liking mankind?

The surety you have displayed in your beliefs should be able to withstand a little criticism.

 

arguments:

Who was the first to oppose slavery?

In Colonial America, a few German Quakers issued the 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery, which marks the beginning of the American abolitionist movement.

Abolitionism in the United States - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Abolitionism_in_the_Uni...

Arguments in favor of slavery include deference to the Bible and thus to God, some people being natural slaves in need of supervision, slaves often being better off than the poorest non-slaves, practical social benefit for the society as a whole, and slavery being a time-proven practice by multiple great civilizations.

Proslavery - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Proslavery
The first major argument of the abolitionists was that slavery was anti-Christian. Genesis 1:27 stated that man was created in the image of God. Indeed, all of the heroes of Stowe's tale are portrayed as devout Christians. Thus, Stowe essentially argued that the only way to be a good Christian was to be anti-slavery.

Arguments Against Slavery in Uncle Tom's Cabin
https://www.cisd.org › lib6 › Centricity › domain
PDF

The Lincoln-Douglas debates were a series of seven debates between Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas and Republican challenger Abraham Lincoln during the 1858 Illinois senatorial campaign. The main issue of the debates was the extension of slavery into American territories.Apr 6, 2021

Lincoln-Douglas debates over slavery explained | Britannica
https://www.britannica.com › video › did-you-know-Linc...


Although many early abolitionists did not quite believe in the equality of the races, they still believed that African-Americans had human rights, and that slavery was an unjustifiable atrocity against them. Much of the moral objection to slavery was based on religious arguments.

Why did some Americans want to end slavery? - Study.com
https://homework.study.com › explanation › why-did-so...

 

In order to discuss right and wrong you have to accept that those concepts exist and in order to accept to those concepts exist you have to accept that things can exist.

It's all built upon human experience

So before I even try I'm going to have to ask you to explain what you mean by the word slavery is you questioned the existence of yourself in a previous discussion so I need to make sure we're talking about the same thing here.

 

I see the difference, even if slaves are treated better than royalty, is the choice to choose one's owns actions and life.
Slavery, doesn't allow that.
If one is born in XYZ country, a slave will die in XYZ country forcefully.
A non slave can choose to die in any country, including XYZ.

 

Free to do what? Free from what?

 

You are a slave, you don't deserve to be enlightened. Just be happy you were only judged and not beaten or killed for disobeying.

 

Sure.

Man was meant to be free. Slavery is a violation of natural law and human nature.

Furthermore, despite all the setbacks, the arc of human evolution has been towards individual freedom and away from slavery and tyranny.

 

What turned the tide on slavery was thousands of years of human evolution and the ability of individuals to assert and preserve their inherent fundamental rights, most particularly the right to self-proprietorship (see my signature).

As for being "forced into similar servitude [to the state] if you choose to participate in society to any degree", we are only slaves to the state if we choose to be. The state is not our master, and under our social contract, a la Locke in Two Treatises, we voluntarily enter society by agreeing to respect each other's rights and live in peace with one another. When an individual or the state violates that contract, he/she/it enters a state of war with every individual and the association of individuals we call "society".

 

Not sure I would agree with your take. It appears that man wants to be anything but free in the West as he becomes more and more dependent on that which lies outside of himself. Look at his love affair with technology as a perfect example.

 

I think we are seeing here what is the end goal of conservatism, be warned.

 

I hear ya, but you can put that one on the shelf next to the marriage vows.

Slavery has simply taken on a more palatable form. The chains are now financial instruments [mostly debt].

 

Unfortunately, I would have to agree that more and more people find dependency more attractive than individual freedom these days, and Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn saw this trend emerging back in the 1970s:

I am not a critic of the West...I am a critic of the weakness of the West. I am a critic of a fact which we can't comprehend: how one can lose one's spiritual strength, one's willpower, and possessing freedom, not value it, not be willing to make sacrifices for it.

from Warning to the West, p.106

Human nature is full of riddles and contradictions...One of the riddles is: how is it that people who have been crushed by the sheer weight of slavery and cast to the bottom of the pit can nevertheless find the strength to rise up and free themselves, first in spirit and then in body; while those who soar unhampered over the peaks of freedom suddenly lose their taste for freedom, lose the will to defend it, and hopelessly confused and lost, almost begin to crave slavery. Or again: why is it that societies that have been benumbed for half a century by lies they have been forced to swallow find within themselves a certain lucidity of heart and soul which enables them to see things in their true perspective and to perceive the real meaning of events; whereas societies with access to every kind of information suddenly plunge into lethargy, into a kind of mass blindness, a kind of self-deception.

...until I came to the West myself and spent two years looking around, I could never have imagined the extreme degree to which the West actually desired to blind itself...the extreme degree to which the West had already become a world without a will...

pp.125-126

 

What, the social contract?

It's difficult for me to respond to that claim without knowing which form of debt you're talking about - individual or national.

However, I can say that the former can be responsibly and productively used as a tool/means to improve one's life, and companies and countries have used it to improve their conditions, as well.

On the other hand, even with the national debt we are facing today ,individuals have ways to insulate themselves from it on a personal level, although many don't.

I don't consider myself a slave. Do you consider yourself a slave?

 

Perhaps life is about the struggle and people only thrive when engaged in such.

The times when Americans have really pulled together have been during crises, not "the good times."

 

The 14th amendment usurped the rights of man outside the guv and converted them to privileges and immunities under the guv.

thats why they can do this, go to the 6:45 mark:



americans are slaves, slaves that think they are free.

 

How so?

I would concede that many Americans are slaves, and not only are they slaves, they chose to be slaves.

 

Perhaps, and I think it could be said the freedom is about the struggle and people can only have it when they are engaged in it. Freedom requires will and effort - two things a lot of people are too lazy to expend.

For the most part. The only exception I can think of was the period during the late 1700s and early 1800s when ordinary Americans pulled together to assert their rights, sovereignty and economic/financial interests. Gordon S. Wood explored this at length in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Radicalism of the American Revolution.

 

basically putting the 14th between you and the bor, despite it was originally voted on directly by the people to firmly establish our 'reserved' rights. you have access to your BOR's only after being pre-filtered through the 14th. It changed the nature of the contract. It converted your reserved rights to privileges which is under the guv. If you try to exercise your rights as 'man' it will be rejected since the guv refuses to recognize any right (actually a privilege) that is not express positive law which is contrary to our rights that are in fact written in the negative.

If thats not obvious then get ready for months of heavy legal review to piece it all together. such subjects are not well received in public consumption in the US.

My fav story to tell; if we live side by side, I agree that you have the right to your dog poo pooing on property, at what point in time do I have any authority to change that contract without your express agreement? I dont.

On that note what gives the guv the authority to adjudicate the rights of man in a corporation court? The only thing courts in the US recognize is 'privileges'!

Like carlin said: "Right this way"!

If I dont have the authority to change our contract (the nature of our reserved rights) what gives them the authority to change the contract without an express amendment?

 

Something on topic again ...

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:30

 

It case anyone for got what it is:

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31

 

Yes. The Bible's inconsistency on this thought is part of the topic. It's a shame it was never consistent about that whole Golden Rule thing.

 

Slavery was never abolished in America and it is still legal this very second. Slave auctions were advertised in the newspapers after the adoption of the 13th Amendment. Some States have deleted slavery from their constitutions but it is still in the federal constitution. Lots of companies employ slave labor in America.

 

Seems pretty simple to me do you want to be a slave?