• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Morality of Slavery

Beady

Philosopher
Beady
Joined
Dec 14, 2003
Messages
6,886
Location
42d 45'23.3"N, 84d 35' 10.8'W, 840'>MSL
A few years ago I got into an online discussion with a blow-hard who insisted that slavery was wrong, simply and absolutely (that wasn't the reason he was a blow-hard -- among other things, he also claimed that freedom of speech was given by God because it said so in the Constitution). He claimed that every religious leader and philosopher in history had said so, and named as examples - I kid you not - Socrates, Jesus, Mohammed, Confucious, and a few others. Some I could refute directly and easily, others I asked him for citations; he replied by saying I was too smart for him and then, I guess, put me in his kill file.

Anyway, that set me to wondering. I know that slavery wasn't widely considered immoral until comparatively recently, but when/what was the earliest recorded condemnation? I mean slavery as an institution, not individual slaveholders or groups, or even nations. When was slavery first held to be universally and subjectively wrong?
 
Good question. I know that in ye olden dayes, if your city-state lost the war with a neighbor, they killed the men and enslaved the women and children.

At that point, you were just a slave. It was your new lot in life. There was no racism involved.

The racism didn't really start up until philosophy had pretty much declared slavery was wrong all by itself. At that point, slave owners needed a reason, and, hey, they're inferior mentally is a good enough reason. (Not that it actually would be, even if it were true. But it sufficed for the time. Some founding fathers believed in inferiority of certain races, even as they declared slavery was wrong.)

So it would depend on what you mean by a condemnation. An ancient philosopher declaring it wrong, or much more modern politics which are inextricably interlinked with politics of race?

And one wonders if there were any political movements to end slavery prior to the en-racism-ification of it. Like in ancient Greece somewhere.
 
Edit: Oops. I was completely wrong about Aristotle. Aritstotle seemed to support it as natural.
 
I am sure that people thought slavery was wrong as long as slavery existed. The question is when was the idea first recorded.
 
Probably long before recorded history, as soon as one man decided he could force the weaker to do his bidding.
 
My feeling is that the first slaves might have had some ideas about the ethics of slavery. But probably nobody was interested in hearing them.
 
Beady said:
Anyway, that set me to wondering. I know that slavery wasn't widely considered immoral until comparatively recently, but when/what was the earliest recorded condemnation? I mean slavery as an institution, not individual slaveholders or groups, or even nations. When was slavery first held to be universally and subjectively wrong?
Click to expand...

Part of the difficulty in this is that "slavery" is sometimes used to refer to some pretty widely varying social institutions, not all of which had a great deal in common with our default conception (usually, racial enslavement of the sort seen in the New World). There are some very old condemnations recorded, some more broadly directed than others, and I'll see if I can dig a few up from the file.
 
Here's text from a 1537 attack on slavery, Sublimus Dei:

The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction ... invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God's word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith.

...

Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare ... that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.
Click to expand...
 
I would guess that slavery was considered wrong the very first time a man forced someone else to be his slave. By the slave at least.
 
Godmode said:
I would guess that slavery was considered wrong the very first time a man forced someone else to be his slave. By the slave at least.
Click to expand...

There have been a few comments of this sort. But when did the institution of slavery become considered by the actual or potential slave-owners to be immoral?

Dogdoctor, I believe you are wrong; to cite Carl Sagan, in Cosmos, none of the ancient authors represented in the Great Library of Alexandria, not one, is known to have condemned slavery.

ceo_esq, good quote. However, notice two things: 1) It does not condemn slavery, only the brutalization of the New World natives. 2) 1537 is what I meant by "abolitionism" being a fairly new idea. After 10,000 years of "civilization," this was only in the last 500 years or so.

Near as I can tell, the idea of slavery's general immorality grew out of the European Enlightenment concept of the North American "Noble Savage." From there, it was extended to other peoples, the Blacks last of all.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Slavery isn't much different than paying minimum wage.
Click to expand...

It is. Or at least it may be, depending on the culture.

For example, among Ottomans a slave of the Sultan could hold more real power and live more luxuriously than a free-born ethnic Turk nobleman because the government was practically run by Sultan's personal slaves.
 
Surely someone must have questioned slavery as soon as it was invented. It may have been difficult and rare when slavery was already a part of the culture, but it seems reasonable to guess that someone not directly opressed by it questioned it at the point when someone was first enslaved.
 
Beady said:
ceo_esq, good quote. However, notice two things: 1) It does not condemn slavery, only the brutalization of the New World natives. 2) 1537 is what I meant by "abolitionism" being a fairly new idea. After 10,000 years of "civilization," this was only in the last 500 years or so.
Click to expand...

In fairness, it does say that "the said Indians and all other people" must not "be in any way enslaved"; I think it was provoked by the specific situation in the New World, but is reasoned and articulated in such a way as to have pretty general applicability, especially where racial slavery is concerned. It was promptly ignored by the European powers, of course.


Beady said:
Near as I can tell, the idea of slavery's general immorality grew out of the European Enlightenment concept of the North American "Noble Savage." From there, it was extended to other peoples, the Blacks last of all.
Click to expand...

You're talking about racial slavery specifically here, I take it.

You make an interesting point; I would also think, however, that other more general notions regarding human equality which (though obviously based on older sources) received much attention and development during the Enlightenment, had a big part to play as well.
 
Rufo said:
Surely someone must have questioned slavery as soon as it was invented. It may have been difficult and rare when slavery was already a part of the culture, but it seems reasonable to guess that someone not directly opressed by it questioned it at the point when someone was first enslaved.
Click to expand...

"Invented" presumes that the earliest humans didn't have something akin to slavery. Wolves, pan trogoldytes, and many other species have complex hierarchies where the dominant animal controls the eating, sleeping, and mating choices made by animals of lower status. The earliest societies with slavery treated their slaves about how a dominant social animal treats his or her social lessers. I doubt very much that the first homo sapien was born with egalitarian attitudes.
 
I think it's telling that there was little serious talk of banning slavery on a large scale until the first stirrings of the industrial revolution rendered the practice obsolescent. It was simply too important to the economy before that. The Romans, for example, used slavery much as we use electricity.

Practicing slavery is the natural state of our species. It ended only because we created "technological slaves" that turned out to be more efficient than the real thing. Note that the sex-slave trade refuses to be stamped out despite many efforts, because there is no artificial replacement.
 
toddjh said:
I think it's telling that there was little serious talk of banning slavery on a large scale until the first stirrings of the industrial revolution rendered the practice obsolescent. It was simply too important to the economy before that. The Romans, for example, used slavery much as we use electricity.

Practicing slavery is the natural state of our species. It ended only because we created "technological slaves" that turned out to be more efficient than the real thing. Note that the sex-slave trade refuses to be stamped out despite many efforts, because there is no artificial replacement.
Click to expand...
That's certainly an interesting idea. Maybe when there is true virtual reality, or realistic enough robots, then prostitution will end.
 
Godmode said:
That's certainly an interesting idea. Maybe when there is true virtual reality, or realistic enough robots, then prostitution will end.
Click to expand...

Meh. Depends on how much they cost.

And there will always be new-agey people who will pay extra for 'natural', 'organic' prostitutes.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Slavery isn't much different than paying minimum wage.
Click to expand...

I nominate you for hyperbole of the year. Go back a hundred and fifty years and make that suggestion to someone with thick scars on their back.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Probably long before recorded history, as soon as one man decided he could force the weaker to do his bidding.
Click to expand...

That's why freedom is wonderful. Nobody can force you (note, no quotes around the word "force") to do anything.

The only thing that forces you to do anything is reality, existence. You must do some things to get food into your gullet to survive. But that must rely on voluntary cooperation with others. The moment you pick up a club, or a gun, it's no longer voluntary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom