Instigator / Pro
0
1420
rating
396
debates
43.94%
won
Topic
#5757
Slavery is "morally" neutral.
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1577
rating
20
debates
72.5%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Are there any questions?
Send a message. Send a message.
Round 1
Thank you. Thank you readers.
Many believe that freedom in and of itself is inherently good. It is not. In astronomical cases , having no freedom for many people is good. Taking away freedom is good.
Just putting that out there . Triggering you many about the misnomer of freedom.
Slavery though which is obligation to something, to do with that something you can do no otherwise is neither good or bad .
As I've stated over and over in the debate topic "the 9-5 is modern day slavery", slavery in essence , in its basic form and nature is being obligated in which you are unable to do otherwise, outside of, apart from , away from .
Now that carries a host of activities in our daily lives, doesn't it?
That's right , so that puts more credence to the fact that context is crucial to declaring what is good and bad or right and wrong.
The context of slavery is nominally associated with the history of this world we're living in up to this point in the 21st century. It's regarded as negative and the antithetical nature to it directly is freedom.
Hence the nominal association to freedom is automatically received as always positive.
Slavery bad , freedom good . No , slavery is not bad, freedom is not good.
That is until we isolate details .
Enslaving or imprisoning mass murderers is not bad but good .
Giving freedom to mass murderers is not good but bad . Not withstanding those who have completed their sentence and have been rehabilitated.
If I enslave you as a slave, that on its face is not outright automatically incorrect. Until we have the terms and context involved, we have no basis for what makes it wrong .
I made a statement that may have ruffled some feathers in the topic forum.
The slavery of the past didn't need to end. Many will argue it didn't end but transitioned. The slaves in chains put on ships into the fields with whips could have used some adjusting.
Now for those lack of adjustments, enslavement can be made back today to enforce reparation policy to make good on the short of rightful compensation.
Some believe based on the biblical scripture this will happen in the after life. Those that made those to be enslaved and to serve will be serving God's chosen in the kingdom.
Speaking of biblical scriptures, many , particularly atheists have this gripe concerning biblical support of slavery.
I won't argue with that . There's the basis of slavery from old to the new testament.
We educate out of that book as well as many other books, teaching, going to schools, learning, training, working in labor and contribute to society under laws.
Last time I checked, laws are meant to control freedom. Being bonded to keep laws, be law abiding and instilling habits to the youth in order for them to adhere and bond to behaviors is one context of captivating the minds of many for the good .
I conclude that slavery is not bad,not good outside of said context.
First things first, this debate is going to be a little hard, because we haven't settled on a definition of either "slavery", or "moral". I will provide basic definitions here that I'm going to be working with, and if you want to change that, you can bring that up in your next argument. It is partly my fault, seeing as I accepted this debate before asking for definitions, but either way, here are some:
Slavery: The condition of not only being able to do what another specific person tells you to do, and having no freedom
Moral: Basic Utilitarian morality, and action is moral if it results in more joy than pain, and vice versa. Morally neutral would be an action that provides neither joy nor pain.
Arguments
Please note that these are written without me having read your opening statement.
Slavery generally gets bad connotations because throughout history, it has mostly been used in bad ways, which logically makes sense for the slaveholder. However, it's important to recognize that a slaveholder could technically order their slaves to do things which the slaves enjoy, even if that's not likely. However, my opponent takes this and makes a big leap to say that slavery must be morally neutral just because you could be ordered to do things which you like or dislike.
By Utilitarian standards, slavery is morally wrong because it deprives the slaves of their freedom, which humans enjoy having, thus bringing more pain into the world that joy. To put it into a basic syllogism:
Premise 1: Slavery strips people of their freedom
Premise 2: People enjoy having freedom
Conclusion: Because slaves lose something which makes them happy, slavery is morally wrong by Utilitarian standards
Rebuttals
Hence the nominal association to freedom is automatically received as always positive.Slavery bad , freedom good . No , slavery is not bad, freedom is not good.
I disagree. Freedom is a moral good because all humans desire it. Again, you haven't provided any kind of moral yardstick, but if something makes people happy, Utilitarianism says that it's a good thing. Freedom is desirable, and thus taking it away is morally incorrect.
If I enslave you as a slave, that on its face is not outright automatically incorrect. Until we have the terms and context involved, we have no basis for what makes it wrong .
By this logic you can justify literally anything. Getting rid of freedom is always a bad thing, because people desire the opposite. If you ad some weird stipulation, like "if you enslave this person, then 10 million kids get cured of cancer), that doesn't change that the slavery is still "bad". It would be morally good taken as a whole to enslave the person, but only because the Pros outweigh the Cons. Does that make sense? You are morally allowed to do something bad, because that bad thing enables more good to happen. The bad thing is still "bad", even though by doing it, you created a lot of good.
Enslaving or imprisoning mass murderers is not bad but good .Giving freedom to mass murderers is not good but bad .
Again, the specific action of slavery is still bad, but the action taken as a whole ends up being good. It's morally good to imprison serial killers so that they don't kill more people, yet to achieve this good, you must do the "bad" of taking away someone's freedom. Just because the action of slavery leads to "good" in some cases, that doesn't mean that slavery is "good", it just means the big picture action was "good", while some of that action was "bad",
Round 2
"First things first, this debate is going to be a little hard, because we haven't settled on a definition of either "slavery", or "moral". I will provide basic definitions here that I'm going to be working with, and if you want to change that, you can bring that up in your next argument. "
You have missed it. Gotta read very carefully.
From the first round :
"Slavery though which is obligation to something, to do with that something you can do no otherwise is neither good or bad ."
This was the seventh sentence going into the first round.
For "morality", we're talking about what is called good or bad.
"Slavery bad , freedom good . No , slavery is not bad, freedom is not good. "
"I disagree. Freedom is a moral good because all humans desire it. "
I have no evidence that ALL humans desire freedom. Let alone in the present day is it good that ALLL humans have freedom. Many of them have their freedom taken away or reduced for the good.
"Again, you haven't provided any kind of moral yardstick, but if something makes people happy, Utilitarianism says that it's a good thing. "
This is incredibly flawed, this thing about being happy. Also the yardstick is context. I over emphasized this in the last round. Context, context, context. I have a feeling I'm going to be saying it a dozen more times throughout this so just getting warmed up .
"Freedom is desirable, and thus taking it away is morally incorrect."
A lot of things are desirable. Doesn't logically follow that all is correct . Too broad of a stance you have. Just like saying freedom is just outright good trying to say all people. Too encompassing. Even society and the law has disproven this. You're still thinking from a nominal associative level.
"By this logic you can justify literally anything. "
First off, I didn't mention what is justified. I mentioned what is not automatically incorrect on its face. Furthermore, we're not talking about anything. We're talking about slavery. Your argument would work, but I never said anything. Gotta read carefully. This is going to be a running theme here .
"Getting rid of freedom is always a bad thing, because people desire the opposite."
Then give people their freedom back who are serving life prison terms because they surely desire it. Do you see where you're getting short sighted on this?
I got to say the "c" word. Context, context, context, context.
"If you ad some weird stipulation, like "if you enslave this person, then 10 million kids get cured of cancer), that doesn't change that the slavery is still "bad". It would be morally good taken as a whole to enslave the person, but only because the Pros outweigh the Cons."
There you go, there's a context. That's all I'm saying. I think I'm going to stick a pin in this point right here in support of my case, I appreciate that .
" Does that make sense? You are morally allowed to do something bad, because that bad thing enables more good to happen. The bad thing is still "bad", even though by doing it, you created a lot of good. "
No it doesn't make sense as long as you think of freedom having to be in this binary one or the other fashion. When you realize it is neither until applied to a certain scenario, it fits consistent.
"Again, the specific action of slavery is still bad, but the action taken as a whole ends up being good. It's morally good to imprison serial killers so that they don't kill more people, yet to achieve this good, you must do the "bad" of taking away someone's freedom. Just because the action of slavery leads to "good" in some cases, that doesn't mean that slavery is "good", it just means the big picture action was "good", while some of that action was "bad","
Here you're just rearranging the terms mixing it up. It's bad to do certain things so those that do them get imprisoned but that is bad to do that. If we're starting off from bad, we don't do more bad. Two bads or nominally speaking, two wrongs don't make a right.
Let's keep this straight and not confused. We grant freedoms for the good as well as remove them for the good .
You have missed it. Gotta read very carefully.From the first round :"Slavery though which is obligation to something, to do with that something you can do no otherwise is neither good or bad ."This was the seventh sentence going into the first round.For "morality", we're talking about what is called good or bad."Slavery bad , freedom good . No , slavery is not bad, freedom is not good. "
Okay, you still haven't provided a yardstick for good or bad, and you still haven't actually supported your point at all. Just because you say that slavery is bad or good doesn't make it so. You have to provide reasoning and evidence etc., but you've yet to do so. If "what is called good or bad" is the moral system we are measuring actions by, then I could just call slavery good or bad now, and then it would be as such. It makes no sense.
I have no evidence that ALL humans desire freedom. Let alone in the present day is it good that ALLL humans have freedom. Many of them have their freedom taken away or reduced for the good.
This is like I said before. You have to seperate the action of slavery from all other random specifications to judge slavery by. You can add any number of weird stipulations to the moral dilemma, and that might make is so by committing slavery in that instance ends up in a net good, but the action of slavery is still a "bad" action. You might end up creating more good than bad, but yous should only do that action because the Pros outweighs the Cons, the con being slavery.
As for the claim about not all humans disliking being enslaved, that is just an oxymoron. You still haven't provided a great definition, but it seems like common knowledge that slavery must be imposed, not gone into willingly, because the whole point of slavery is that you are unwilling to preform the actions you are being enslaved to do. Every human must dislike being in slavery, because if they do like it, it's not slavery because they are Willingly preforming the actions. Willing Slavery is just an oxymoron.
This is incredibly flawed, this thing about being happy. Also the yardstick is context. I over emphasized this in the last round. Context, context, context. I have a feeling I'm going to be saying it a dozen more times throughout this so just getting warmed up .
Well, your going to have to say it a dozen more times if you don't define "good" and "bad", or "slavery" for that matter. Again, it's my fault for accepting this before asking for definitions, but you are now refusing to work with me on finding some common ground for defining words, thus I think the blame falls a bit more on you for this one. Also, I tried to solve this problem before we started publishing argument by tagging you in a comment, but you never responded to that.
A lot of things are desirable. Doesn't logically follow that all is correct . Too broad of a stance you have. Just like saying freedom is just outright good trying to say all people. Too encompassing. Even society and the law has disproven this. You're still thinking from a nominal associative level.
Yet again, no moral yardstick, but by Utilitarianism, stripping someone of something they like (freedom) is inherently bad because it creates more pain than joy. You can add stipulations to that so the net action is good, but the specific act of removing joy will always be a negative, at least according to Utilitarianism.
Then give people their freedom back who are serving life prison terms because they surely desire it. Do you see where you're getting short sighted on this?I got to say the "c" word. Context, context, context, context.
Once again, the context can justify slavery sometimes, but it's only because there are other factors at play which bring more good into the world than slavery takes away from it.
The context only justifies the whole action, it doesn't change that the direct action of slavery caused "bad", even if the whole action was a net positive.
Round 3
"Okay, you still haven't provided a yardstick for good or bad, and you still haven't actually supported your point at all. "
At this point good and bad is not neutral. My position is that slavery is neutral. We do know what neutral is don't we?
So its's neither of the two. How much yardage you can get out of the two doesn't affect that's it's neither.
"Just because you say that slavery is bad or good doesn't make it so. You have to provide reasoning and evidence etc., but you've yet to do so. "
No , context makes it so. I've given examples and I have gotten not one rebuttal from you .
There is no rebuttal.
"If "what is called good or bad" is the moral system we are measuring actions by, then I could just call slavery good or bad now, and then it would be as such. It makes no sense."
Right so what you have to do is apply context like I said.
"This is like I said before. You have to seperate the action of slavery from all other random specifications to judge slavery by. You can add any number of weird stipulations to the moral dilemma, and that might make is so by committing slavery in that instance ends up in a net good, but the action of slavery is still a "bad" action. You might end up creating more good than bad, but yous should only do that action because the Pros outweighs the Cons, the con being slavery."
Let us ask you the question, you aspiring binary wishful freedom is always good individual you, are freedoms of people taken away for the good of those to still have their freedoms?
As for the claim about not all humans disliking being enslaved, that is just an oxymoron. You still haven't provided a great definition, but it seems like common knowledge that slavery must be imposed, not gone into willingly, because the whole point of slavery is that you are unwilling to preform the actions you are being enslaved to do. Every human must dislike being in slavery, because if they do like it, it's not slavery because they are Willingly preforming the actions. Willing Slavery is just an oxymoron."
Well prove that I dislike slavery or being enslaved.
There are many people not willing to go into imprisonment for what they done. Doesn't mean it's wrong. The rest of us law abiding folks and all can live in society more safely.
"Well, your going to have to say it a dozen more times if you don't define "good" and "bad", or "slavery" for that matter. Again, it's my fault for accepting this before asking for definitions, but you are now refusing to work with me on finding some common ground for defining words, thus I think the blame falls a bit more on you for this one. Also, I tried to solve this problem before we started publishing argument by tagging you in a comment, but you never responded to that."
Ain't no problem. You know what context is . You know what good and bad is. Whatever you can think of, slavery isn't that until you make it that. Get it. It's not that on its own. Freedom is not that on its own.
You say slavery is bad because you're thinking of the context of slavery we've learned about from the 20th century and the exact opposite of that context which is freedom of that.
However, I'm not talking about that history of slavery or anything specific in time. You're struggling to grappling at that as the term itself just socially triggers negativity. So to conceptualize it as a stand alone unattached neutral non discriminatory vehicle is probably a first if at all hardly visited as a concept.
"Yet again, no moral yardstick, but by Utilitarianism, stripping someone of something they like (freedom) is inherently bad because it creates more pain than joy."
Man this is a easy rebuttal. By this logic, it is inherently bad to convict criminals stripping freedom of them and in certain cases creating more pain during the execution process.
I've yet gotten a refutation from the opposing side on this point. Come on , let's deal with this all or nothing approach.
"You can add stipulations to that so the net action is good, but the specific act of removing joy will always be a negative, at least according to Utilitarianism."
Right , removing the joy of a helpless victim is negative so therefore the law removes the joy from an attacker by imprisoning the person. Is the opposing side going to say it's wrong or negative to remove the freedom of the attacker to attack?
But then the contradiction comes in when you allow the victim to lose freedom of life because you're arguing that this is wrong and negative so it should not be done to that victim.
The opposing side is reluctant to acquiesce to the fact that there's a yin and yang. A balance and moderating the citizens. Some citizens, freedom has to be removed as others granted. It's a balance. It's not all or nothing. If it was , nobody would have their freedom removed or all , which would in realistic terms creates an oxymoron. So this still requires a balance .
If freedom was always good, it would never be a case to strip it away. You argue to be against taking it away because it's inherently good. If that was true, it be absolute in every case. We know this .
"Once again, the context can justify slavery sometimes"
Wait a moment, hold it, what? What ? What?
You say what? The context can justify it sometimes.
There you go folks.
Say that again . Sometimes slavery is justified. How can something that is inherently unjustified be justified?
Inherently doesn't mean sometimes.
" but it's only because there are other factors at play which bring more good into the world than slavery takes away from it.
The context only justifies the whole action, it doesn't change that the direct action of slavery caused "bad", even if the whole action was a net positive."
Other factors from context that give the answer to your dilemma . Therefore we start with neutrality.
"Once again, the context can justify slavery sometimes"
That's my position. How can it be justified in some cases of times?
It's a neutral vehicle shifted into the factorial gear by the driver of context.
At this point good and bad is not neutral. My position is that slavery is neutral. We do know what neutral is don't we?So its's neither of the two. How much yardage you can get out of the two doesn't affect that's it's neither.
Well that's fine for you, but I have to argue the opposite, that it's either good or bad, and It's hard to do that without guidelines or definitions. Also, you still can't argue what something isn't if you don't know what you are comparing it to.
No , context makes it so. I've given examples and I have gotten not one rebuttal from you .There is no rebuttal.
Okay, well then I'll restate my rebuttal. When you commit the action of slavery, you are correct that it could result in a "good" outcome or a "bad" one, that is not set it stone. However the only reason you would ever get a good outcome from slavery is that there are other factors at play which weigh on the scale of morality and tip it towards righteousness. Slavery in itself though is always a negative on the Good/Bad equation, because it deprives a human of it's freedom, who by definition must be unwilling to give up their freedom. The total action taken as a whole may result in a good outcome, but the specific action of slavery always give some sort of bad outcomes, even it it is outweighed by other good things, such as a murderer being unable to murder again.
Let us ask you the question, you aspiring binary wishful freedom is always good individual you, are freedoms of people taken away for the good of those to still have their freedoms?
Well yes, but you have to remember that even though more good is done than bad, the bad still exists. In the example of the serial killer, arbitrarily I'll say that making it so he can't murder anyone again is 100 points good. However he feels pain and sorrow in being locked up, and that shouldn't be ignored whether or not he's a psychopath. let's say the pain felt by him is a - 30 points (didn't put much thought into the actual points, don't' read too much into it.) That evens out to a positive 70 if you do the action, so it's a good thing to do. However that doesn't change the fact that the actual slavery part of the equation was a -30, thus making slavery still "bad". You can keep adding whatever context you like to see if the equation changes, but no matter what, the deprival of individual freedom is a negative, thus slavery is always morally bad.
Well prove that I dislike slavery or being enslaved.
I thought that this was just accepted as part of the definition of slavery, but we can debate this too. Slavery has to be unwilling, right? If by your own will you turn yourself in to be a slave, and you do the work because you want to, then it's not slavery because then you are just doing it because you want to, not because you have to.
Ain't no problem. You know what context is . You know what good and bad is. Whatever you can think of, slavery isn't that until you make it that. Get it. It's not that on its own. Freedom is not that on its own.
I Disagree. The key difference is that lots of context can be applied to scenarios to make the outcome good and bad, but the one context that will always remain is the "bad"and unwilling removal of freedom.
Right , removing the joy of a helpless victim is negative so therefore the law removes the joy from an attacker by imprisoning the person. Is the opposing side going to say it's wrong or negative to remove the freedom of the attacker to attack?
Well sure it's negative to imprison someone, even if they've committed horrible crimes. I'm not saying it's not the right thing to do (in many cases it is), but you still have to account for the pain/joy of the convict in your Utilitarian calculations, and the pain caused by removal of freedom is the only context that will always be present in the action of slavery.
Wait a moment, hold it, what? What ? What?You say what? The context can justify it sometimes.There you go folks.Say that again . Sometimes slavery is justified. How can something that is inherently unjustified be justified?Inherently doesn't mean sometimes.
You took that line out of context. Like I keep saying, sometimes you get a "good" outcome by invoking slavery, but that doesn't mean that the action isn't inherently "bad", it is. The specific action of slavery is always a negative on the moral scale, even though other positive sometimes outweigh that negative, and "justify" the whole action taken together.
Round 4
"Well that's fine for you, but I have to argue the opposite, that it's either good or bad, and It's hard to do that without guidelines or definitions. Also, you still can't argue what something isn't if you don't know what you are comparing it to."
Like I said, what you say good and bad is, neutral isn't that. I think I said that.
"Okay, well then I'll restate my rebuttal. When you commit the action of slavery, you are correct that it could result in a "good" outcome or a "bad" one, that is not set it stone."
You're off track here. I've never argued about what could be. So the point about no guarantees or things set in stone is not a dilemma as I'm not arguing that. I've argued that slavery and freedom is not good or bad until you have a context.
" However the only reason you would ever get a good outcome from slavery is that there are other factors at play which weigh on the scale of morality and tip it towards righteousness."
I think you're slowly rethinking this and coming around. You still are about the binary equations so it's not an idea to instantly adopt. You prefer the binary options either good or bad.
"Slavery in itself though is always a negative on the Good/Bad equation, because it deprives a human of it's freedom, who by definition must be unwilling to give up their freedom. The total action taken as a whole may result in a good outcome, but the specific action of slavery always give some sort of bad outcomes, even it it is outweighed by other good things, such as a murderer being unable to murder again."
It deprives a human. Hold it. Which human?
It depends on the person. Simply so that you would not say this about an unrelenting serial killer. I don't think you would. This is why I harp on context. Which human(s), what condition of slavery/imprisonment?
I believe it's habit that you continue to look at things in a broad encompassing sense. In other words, don't have a bias that when you say human, you assume the human is already humane, law abiding or the human desires freedom.
Saying everybody wants freedom is fallacious. You have individuals that don't know what freedom is. You have some that want it removed.
We have to be more judicial than this and drop the cliches.
"Well yes, but you have to remember that even though more good is done than bad, the bad still exists."
This contradicts your position. In order for this to be a yes, freedom can't be always good. If freedom is inherently good, it can't not never be good. Why? It's because the nature hasn't changed.
Given that a triangle by nature has triple angles, it's always three sided by nature. By default that's what it is.
Fire will always burn by default because of it's nature. Unless some context comes and says otherwise.
So again and I think we agree on this , you're looking at freedom as being defined in nature as the social perception it's been given. But in actual nature, it is neutral.
I don't disagree about the social association. But that and the actual nature are separate. I'm only arguing the nature, the nature.
Just like the topic of police brutality I participated in. The person I debated as well as the majority of readers confused nature with social definition. The two natures, one of brutality is oxymoronic to the nature of a policeman. So in ontological sense, they don't exist together.
So I can't say freedom is always good when the world locks up many people taking away their freedom for the good.
I think you get this straightforwardly but you are steadfast in pushing the status quo of freedom which is actually not up for contention.
"In the example of the serial killer, arbitrarily I'll say that making it so he can't murder anyone again is 100 points good. However he feels pain and sorrow in being locked up, and that shouldn't be ignored whether or not he's a psychopath. let's say the pain felt by him is a - 30 points (didn't put much thought into the actual points, don't' read too much into it.) That evens out to a positive 70 if you do the action, so it's a good thing to do. However that doesn't change the fact that the actual slavery part of the equation was a -30, thus making slavery still "bad". You can keep adding whatever context you like to see if the equation changes, but no matter what, the deprival of individual freedom is a negative, thus slavery is always morally bad."
Ok so bottomline , are you going to let the serial killer have her freedom to continue the crimes?
If you say no, good. Many justice systems in the world will agree with you. If you say yes, then why was the person locked up in the first place?
Don't ignore the pain and sorrow. By us not ignoring it, we can prove what punishment feels like and should be and project what it will be for people that need to have their freedom taken away for the good.
Not to mention those that want to be enslaved. I know of people that want to be enslaved and it's not in terms of man stealing. Yes the people that want not the freedom to do what they wish at all. As long as another has them subjugation , yes that's still slavery. Those people can take no liberty of themselves even though they desire it that way.
Slavery is not just about whether one is being willing or not but who or what controls you. Your ability is decided by another, not you. This is whether you desire it or not.
"I thought that this was just accepted as part of the definition of slavery, but we can debate this too. Slavery has to be unwilling, right?"
Wrong.
"If by your own will you turn yourself in to be a slave, and you do the work because you want to, then it's not slavery because then you are just doing it because you want to, not because you have to."
As long as I don't have control over my abilities, I'm not free. That is the nature of enslavement and imprisonment.
I trust you're familiar with dominatrix. Just relinquishing your rights to your volition of freedom you can say is selling yourself over. My point of you proving I dislike enslavement would give credence to your statement of everybody wanting freedom.
You can't even prove that's true for me , let alone everybody.
"I Disagree. The key difference is that lots of context can be applied to scenarios to make the outcome good and bad, but the one context that will always remain is the "bad"and unwilling removal of freedom. "
Then this would make prisons unjustified and bad.
"Well sure it's negative to imprison someone, even if they've committed horrible crimes. I'm not saying it's not the right thing to do (in many cases it is), but you still have to account for the pain/joy of the convict in your Utilitarian calculations, and the pain caused by removal of freedom is the only context that will always be present in the action of slavery."
All is accounted for. That's one reason we have "scared straight" programs. We're not here to fix the pain designed in punishment. The foreknowledge of the pain is there to deter . It's not the other way around to worry about the pain in punishment or imprisonment.
"You took that line out of context. "
Oh did I?
Let's go back to what you said .
"Once again, the context can justify slavery sometimes"
Here you've said " can justify slavery".
You are agreeing here that slavery can be justified. Slavery which is taking away freedom, the taking away of freedom can be justified.
You contradict yourself when you say slavery is always bad or inherently bad.
How can something that is bad ultimately be justified?
It would negate the justification.
I don't negate it nor contradict when I say it's neutral. It can go either path to justified or unjustified.
Very straightforward formula. I think the status quo tripped you up here.
"Like I keep saying, sometimes you get a "good" outcome by invoking slavery, but that doesn't mean that the action isn't inherently "bad", it is."
This is a contradiction. Something that is bad makes good. That's an oxymoron. You're really clinging to that status quo in conventional thinking. I understand. When you've never gone outside of the box such as to what this topic is challenging you to do, you can't calculate reality any other way at the present moment.
"The specific action of slavery is always a negative on the moral scale, even though other positive sometimes outweigh that negative, and "justify" the whole action taken together."
More contradiction. Slavery is always negative you say but then you say it can be justified. Unless justification ultimately is always negative, slavery can't always be negative. You got to have one with the other. You can't have one without the other.
It becomes inconsistent and invalid what you're talking about.
I say, let go of the societal perception and reception and go back to universal logic, universal nature.
The nature of freedom, the nature of slavery is not good or bad. A gun is not inherently automatically bad until the way it is used the way it is used in such a manner.
Being that I mentioned gun, it's the same with fire. Fire is not inherently automatically bad until of the same I said about the gun to make it so.
This is why you have people that are against guns completely as they're using or going by the same preconceived perception based on an experience, recent or world events and history of firearms.
You're looking at slavery in and of itself the same way. Then when I give you examples which you may call exceptions, you concede. You even convey slavery can be justified. So you've backpedaled quite a bit but at least you've acknowledged that much .
It deprives a human. Hold it. Which human?It depends on the person. Simply so that you would not say this about an unrelenting serial killer. I don't think you would. This is why I harp on context. Which human(s), what condition of slavery/imprisonment?
I would say that about a serial killer. It's important to remember that even though this is a horrible person, they still have the capacity to feel pain, and must be included in our moral calculations. Now, I would say that it's still morally right to commit slavery in this scenario, but only because punishment and the fact that you can't have a serial killer on the loose outweigh the pain caused by slavery. I'll say it again, Slavery is always bad, even if it sometimes leads to a good outcomes. Context can come and go, but the one attribute that will always apply to slavery is that it causes pain by unwillingly depriving someone of their freedom.
Saying everybody wants freedom is fallacious. You have individuals that don't know what freedom is. You have some that want it removed.
It's like I said before, if someone willingly goes into slavery, then it's just not slavery anymore. Slavery has to be unwilling, it's just part of the definition that we both used. Willing Slavery is just an oxymoron.
This contradicts your position. In order for this to be a yes, freedom can't be always good. If freedom is inherently good, it can't not never be good. Why? It's because the nature hasn't changed.
I don't think you're understanding my point. Freedom is always good, even if depriving someone of it can create more good than bad. Depriving someone of their freedom can lead to many different outcomes, but only one of those is permanent. You can add whatever stipulations you want to make the action a net good, but you will always be causing someone pain by removing their freedom. Since this is the only consequence that applies to every instance of slavery, we can see that slavery will always be a weight on the moral scale, even if other things outweigh it, and justify it.
So again and I think we agree on this , you're looking at freedom as being defined in nature as the social perception it's been given. But in actual nature, it is neutral.
Slavery would be a neutral if none of the possible consequences of it were permanent, but like I said before, pain at the removal of freedom is a constant when it comes to slavery, and is also bad. You make the logical leap that since something has good and bad outcomes, it must be neutral due to its lack of permanence, but there are certain aspects of slavery you can never get rid of. Outweigh them, sure, but they are still causing the scale to tip towards "bad".
Ok so bottomline , are you going to let the serial killer have her freedom to continue the crimes?If you say no, good. Many justice systems in the world will agree with you. If you say yes, then why was the person locked up in the first place?
No, obviously. Yet as I have explained before, that doesn't mean slavery is a neutral.
As long as I don't have control over my abilities, I'm not free. That is the nature of enslavement and imprisonment.I trust you're familiar with dominatrix. Just relinquishing your rights to your volition of freedom you can say is selling yourself over. My point of you proving I dislike enslavement would give credence to your statement of everybody wanting freedom.You can't even prove that's true for me , let alone everybody.
There's a problem with that. If you are relinquishing control of your actions on purpose, then you physically cannot be enslaved. Why? Because if you A) Like being a slave and performing those actions, then it's not slavery at all because you are acting because you like it, or if you B) Don't like performing those actions, then you would want to get out of slavery, and thus it's not willing anymore, regardless of what you chose before. By the definition of slavery, it must be unwilling, and thus every person must not like it.
Then this would make prisons unjustified and bad.
No, because other goods outweigh the bad. The difference is that the "bad" is constant to slavery, and the "good" is variable.
Conclusion
I don't have any final arguments to make for my conclusion, so I'll keep it pretty short. I'll just make a final plea to the voters.
I don't believe the sources, conduct, or legibility points should be awarded for this debate, they are all either inapplicable to this format, or are a tie.
That said, I believe I should be awarded the Arguments point. I think I have done a good job with my rebuttals, and my original argument. I have had to make the same point over and over again, and my opponent has just said the same thing. I don't think they have done well with their rebuttals, so Vote Con!
Thanks for giving me this opportunity Mall, I hope to see you again on this site.
This could be very interesting.
It is without a doubt an uphill battle, since slavery is horrible is firmly the status quo.
Still waiting on that definition. Again, it’s my bad for asking this after I’ve already accepted, but I would like one if at all possible.
Sorry, but can I get a definition for slavery? Probably should have asked this before I accepted, my bad.
Truism, since there is context where slavery is considered good and context where slavery is considered bad.