How is it possible that not a single greco roman philosopher came up with the thought that maybe owning people wasn't actually morally good?
How is it possible that not a single greco roman philosopher came up with the thought that maybe owning people wasn't actually morally good?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Because there were no compelling reasons to oppose it at the time. Slavery only became economically unsound with the advent of industry.
I'm not talking about "economic soundness" you dumb american bastard, I'm talking about morality.
>morality
No such thing. There is only law.
Ah, a retard.
John Brown and co didn't give a shit about profit.
>moralhomosexualry
>not retarded
cope
Morality is created by the upper classes and imposed on everyone else in order to ensure stability. Slavery was moral until it wasn't profitable anymore.
You're the retard that's trying to impose modern morals on people who lived ~2,000 years ago, you stupid fucking moron. Go kill yourself, you weak stupid piece of shit
>morality
No such thing. There is only law. Morality is created by the upper classes and imposed on everyone else in order to ensure stability. Slavery was moral until it wasn't profitable anymore.
You're the retard that's trying to impose modern morals on people who lived ~2,000 years ago, you stupid fucking moron. Go kill yourself, you weak stupid piece of shit
Pretty much this like miscegenation it’s all a sign of the times
Not so. Slavery became economically unsound pretty much everywhere as soon as a civilization's expansion stopped. There's a reason Caesar started to push for laws limiting the employment of slaves and the whole slave structure started to buckle in imperial times. Christians weren't even against it at the beginning, they only adapted their belief after society turned against it.
Slavery was functionally defunct in Western Europe by the 11th century
Uh, Diogenes ruled the place but didn’t own a thing
Because they didn't have noggers as slaves yet.
Non-whites were considered animals. Owning animals isn't immoral.
You do know that most slaves in Rome were Germanics and Celts right? That yellow hair was associated with prostitution due to how buck broken these slaves were right?
I'm Romanian and blondes are still considered to be bimbos/ whores/ sluts/ stupid in local folklore.
They needed Semites to teach them morality.
how come the new testament didn't?
now that's surprising with the whole treat your neighbor how you would want to be treated.
The New Testament humanizes slaves and orders rights to them that were completely unprecedented for the time.
only animals are owned you can only give animal rights to owned creatures.
What is your point? You are incoherent.
That you can't humanize slavery.
To be a slave is to be dehumanized and become as an animal.
If you can't humanize slavery then slaves shouldn't be given rights and should be treated like animals.
>If you can't humanize slavery then slaves shouldn't be given rights and should be treated like animals.
Makes no difference, a life as a slave is not a human life.
So slaves aren't human? So if someone is human trafficked and made into a slave I shouldn't concern myself with them as they no longer human?
>So slaves aren't human? So if someone is human trafficked and made into a slave I shouldn't concern myself with them as they no longer human?
If they were forced to live life as a slave then they would have no reason to live the life of an animal, what awaits them but death after torture?
whoever chooses to be a slave renounces his humanity
id rather die than perpetuate a system that will also be imposed on my children but you would never understand the feeling
That's how many Cuban Indians thought. They'd often chew off their own arm rather than live in slavery. It's curious what differentiates people who can be enslaved and people who cannot be enslaved.
Ephesians 6:5
And you can also cite all of the verses of what I described. This was coming into an environment where slaves were literally seen as unhuman, as being animate objects that exist for the utility/pleasure of their masters.
I meant most places were still practicing slavery until the 19th century. Of course religious texts made rules for slaves.
you have rules for animal too are those human rights?
Sorry, but animals rights are definitely not human rights. Hierarchies exist and the people at the top make rules for people at the bottom and enforce them with physical force. It's no different now than in ancient times.
To be a slave is to be animalized like a horse existing to serve your owner.
Yes. Those with more physical force command those with less. If the government drafted you tomorrow for a war with Russia you'd have to answer the call because of physical force. Not because of abstract things like rights.
Slavery existed globally until the advent of industry. When slavery was no longer economically viable it disappeared in the west and then slowly phased out in many parts of the globe, though many places still practice slavery and the west does have its share of questionable labor practices.
Why wouldn't slavery be moral, given the other things that are moral?
Even today, it's generally accepted that the state can compel a man to pay taxes, to serve in the army, to obey a specific code under penalty of death, etc. Why wouldn't the state be able to compel someone to work? If you don't think a person can be compelled to work, under what basis can they be compelled to do all these other things?
Yep, Michael Huemer (a philosopher) just says that all philosophers so far have been wrong - we are still at the stage of collecting evidence and analyzing individual cases and not formulating general theories.
Rothbard's "The Ethics of Liberty" satisfies my needs for a philosophical framework for now though; no such glaring gaps.
i think cicero thought of that
Stoics were against slavery.
There are more slaves today (Yes even in 1st world nations) then there were in any point in history. The only difference is that society just hides them from public. At least that's what I have been told.
Slaves are necessary and a natural part of the human hierarchy, they just unfortunately occupy the bottom rung.
The same people who didn't have a problem with slavery also expected themselves and their fellow citizens to commit suicide rather than allow themselves to be enslaved. To them, every slave was a coward, and cowards are repulsive to all
Seneca touches on it