Is slavery in and of itself so called morally neutral?
Is it inherently neither right or wrong?
Is slavery in and of itself so called morally neutral?
Posts
Total:
19
It is objectively wrong because it contradicts the principle of liberty which is the necessary basis of all possible uniform social moral theories.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Is freedom objectively or inherently good, good in nature?
-->
@Mall
It is objectively good for all minds with self-chosen values, which is likely by definition all minds with significant capacity for abstraction.
-->
@Mall
You've argued that jail is slavery, so let's say it is. Slavery is inherently wrong prima facie but can be justified by self-defense or defense of others. Once people commit violent crimes, most moral theories would agree that we are justified in locking them up to protect the general public.
Is killing in and of itself wrong? What about self-defense?
Is taking someone's money without their consent in and of itself wrong? What about suing someone for gross negligence?
This is where the concept of "prima facie" becomes useful.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Is it good that people be free to murder or steal?
-->
@Savant
Imprisoned folks are enslaved.
-->
@Mall
Yes, this is why I said: "You've argued that jail is slavery, so let's say it is."
And as I said after that: "Slavery is inherently wrong prima facie but can be justified by self-defense or defense of others."
-->
@Savant
"And as I said after that: "Slavery is inherently wrong prima facie but can be justified by self-defense or defense of others.""
This reads to me that slavery is bad but can be good some times.
Just a long way around of saying slavery can be good or bad depending on what you do with it .
But what is it until you do something with it?
It is neutral ground.
-->
@Mall
No.Is it good that people be free to murder or steal?
-->
@Mall
Just a long way around of saying slavery can be good or bad depending on what you do with it .
Yep. Prima facie just means that it is bad in most circumstances.
But what is it until you do something with it? It is neutral ground.
Since slavery is wrong in most circumstances, I would say it is wrong unless the person doing it can come up with some justification. This is why the presumption of innocence exists. Slavery/imprisonment is wrong until proven otherwise for some particular circumstance. So the default (prima facie) for slavery is "bad" and not "neutral."
-->
@Savant
What gave you this "most" circumstances impression and it's bad by default ideology?
Also something that is bad in nature, how can it produce any good?
Something bad in nature, there's nothing in it AT ALLL that can produce any good.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Thank you.
-->
@Mall
What gave you this "most" circumstances impression and it's bad by default ideology?
Most people haven't committed crimes.
Also something that is bad in nature, how can it produce any good?
Positive effects can outweigh negative effects.
-->
@Savant
"Positive effects can outweigh negative effects."
How can something incapable of producing good produce good?
"Most people haven't committed crimes."
I don't know about the quantity of people. Some people haven't gotten caught, some are doing wrong things that are not technically crimes .
Things you get an impression from also that should not be free to do such things so I'm not staking anything on quantity.
But your impression, your perception, your view of it. Just like people can be guilty even though not proven guilty. People can be guilty even looked at as innocent so quantities, moot.
I can see how that impression is misleading.
I think this went off the rails. I was asking about where did the impression come from that slavery is bad most of the time.
-->
@Mall
How can something incapable of producing good produce good?
It's not incapable of producing good.
People can be guilty even looked at as innocent so quantities, moot.
We have a good idea about crime rates even if not all perpetrators are found.
-->
@Mall
In an evolutionary sense where morals only persist if they survive the next generation of people, you could make the case under the "fit trait" paradigm that slavery is a "moral good" if it ensures the enslavers survive to the next generation, which will happen at some point to all life as resources dwindle and population grows.
-->
@Greyparrot
Slavery like unto a gun in itself is not morally good.
-->
@Savant
"It's not incapable of producing good."
Yes this doesn't answer the question. There's no way to answer that question without deviating.
"We have a good idea about crime rates even if not all perpetrators are found."
I appreciate the indirect agreement with my point.