1

We undoubtedly must have read and heard passionate arguments justifying the abolition of slavery, be it from the clergy, and philosophical and political clerisy; however, what has been absent from the reading list are the counter-arguments from proponents of slavery, particularly the sociologists, anthropologists economists, psychologists, political theorists, and moral philosophers and ethicists.

What would be the best moral argument justifying slavery? Are there arguments to be made that slavery can be morally defended, and even legally re-introduced into the world, under certain terms? Are there any ways in which people may voluntarily wish to enter into slavery? Is slavery always bad, for the slave? Can slavery be desirable or beneficial? Why?

J D
  • 26,214
  • 3
  • 23
  • 98
Ptah-hotep
  • 209
  • 7
  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. – Geoffrey Thomas Jan 13 '24 at 10:58

6 Answers6

8

TL/DR

There isn't one, or at least not a good one. Slavery has built in inefficiencies and brutalizing effects for both slave and free populations.

What are our goals and values?

There are a large number of competing goals and values that people could have. In this answer, I'm assuming the following goals or values.

  1. Rich people want to stay rich, and they want their children to be rich.
  2. The laboring class is part of society.
  3. Generally speaking, people prefer happiness to misery.
  4. People prefer a stable society to an unstable society.

However, the arguments I'm making really only require that we accept any one of these premises. Slavery is a bad idea whether you accept all four, or any given one, or really, any premise that I can imagine beyond being having a fetish for holding slaves, and even in that case you're probably better off renting free labor to pretend to be slaves.

The economic case

Slavery is a system in which some people in society are forced to do specific work at the command of other people, and have no freedom to migrate within the society or to seek other work. In a slave system, laborers must be strongly and strictly controlled. Slave economies combine inequality with a command market for labor, while turning the entire economy into a prison economy.

A command economy for labor is not efficient. The actual demand for labor is controlled by market forces, but in a slave society, what labor people will do and who they will do it for is strictly controlled. While it is true that slave labor can be rented to where need is greatest, such a system is rife with cronyism and other problems. Self-organized labor is able to follow demand more closely, price itself more appropriately, and adapt to circumstances more easily.

If there is a goal of getting work done, a command economy for labor is objectively worse at accomplishing that goal than a market economy for that same labor.

A prison economy has additional problems. Not only does a prison economy inherit the problems of a command economy, it also necessitates additional costs. For example, those in charge must provide food, clothing, and shelter. They also have to pay a security force to prevent the prisoners from seeking freedom.

We can see these problems when we examine modern slavery in the United States. Convict labor depends heavily on state subsidies to cover these extra costs and to provide the illusion of cheap labor. This illusion has the effect of depressing wages for certain work in the non-prison labor force, while simultaneously forcing costs on that labor force.†

If there is a goal is to get work done, a free market for labor is objectively more efficient for society than a prison market for labor.

Increasing the corporate bottom line at the expense of everything else is also a losing strategy long term for the profits of the corporation.††

Finally, a slave society also suffers from the economic problem of extreme economic inequality. It is an objective fact that societies with extreme economic inequity are less stable economically and politically than societies with less inequality.†††† It is also simply bad for the market. Slaves are extremely limited in their opportunity to contribute to the economy by trading goods and services in an open market. In contrast to paid labor, slave labor is able to contribute much less to overall economic activity.†††

Societies with extreme inequality are also prone to large scale violence. As an example, the richest slaveholder in Haiti in 1790 was a corpse in 1804. A stable economy is a better economy to be rich in, if the goal is to stay rich.

Strictly practically speaking, the only upside to slave labor is marginally reduced labor costs, and those reduced costs come with enormous additional costs that are forced on the non-slaveholding class, both free and slave, by the slave-holding class. This inequality is bad for the market, bad for profits, dangerous to the slave-holding class, and inefficient. It serves none of our four goals.

The social case

From a sociological standpoint, a slave society brutalizes each and every member. A slave society is an open air prison. Any non-slave in a slave society has to be actively complicit in supporting the system by acting as a guard, for example by looking for and turning in slaves attempting to escape the prison. So in addition to having their wages depressed and opportunities for work reduced, the labor class in a slave society is compelled to act as a bounty hunter in their spare time. In addition, such a society lives under the constant threat that the slaves will attempt to free themselves by violence. This extra stress is not good for the health of the non-slaves.

The slaves, of course, live under even more stress than the non-slaves and are brutalized to a much greater degree. Every slave lives under the constant threat of violence, is constrained in their movements, frustrated in their ambition, insecure in their person and property. If we look at the overall psychological health of the slave population, we're going to see significant negative effects rising from this condition. As they are members of the society, the sociological negatives are obvious.

So if we have an abstract goal such as happiness for any member of the society, a slave society has extreme stresses that will inevitably detract from that happiness. If we have a goal of a society where more people enjoy greater phsyical health, the stressors of a slave society are detrimental to that. These stressors are largely missing from more egalitarian societies.

When we examine how happy people are, people in more egalitarian societies are happier than those in less egalitarian societies. This applies to those who are well off and those who are not particularly well off.

Slavery has large economic and social costs and few benefits. In short, slavery is just a bad way to organize a society.

† https://legaljournal.princeton.edu/the-economic-impact-of-prison-labor-for-incarcerated-individuals-and-taxpayers/

†† https://hbr.org/2009/12/why-profit-shouldnt-be-your-top-goal

††† For a brief review of how economists have thought about slavery in the ante-bellum south, see this article: https://www.econlib.org/library/enc/usslaveryandeconomicthought.html

†††† https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_economic_inequality

philosodad
  • 3,313
  • 16
  • 28
  • 2
    "Slaves are extremely limited in their opportunity to contribute to the economy by trading goods and services in an open market." isn't the ratio of people who "contribute to the economy" already limited even in a "Free Society"? Elon Musk, positively contributes more to the economy than welfare recipients (UK - 30 million families on welfare i.e. received more in benefits than they contributed in taxes. This includes non-cash benefits.) – Ptah-hotep Jan 05 '24 at 21:39
  • 1
    Maybe we should pay people more instead of less? – Scott Rowe Jan 06 '24 at 14:54
  • 1
    @ScottRowe that's just crazy talk. :) – philosodad Jan 06 '24 at 17:35
  • 1
    @philosodad when you say, "30 million welfare recipients generate an enormous amount of economic activity. They engage in the trade of goods and services." you forgot that "welfare recipients" is anyone (in the UK) who "receives more in benefits than they contributed in taxes. This includes non-cash benefits." if for you to receive benefits the government has to collect taxes, then how can 30 million people receiving more benefits than contributing taxes, be contributing [positively] more to the economy than one man who contributes more in taxes than 30 million people combined? – Ptah-hotep Jan 07 '24 at 01:19
  • 2
    @al-Mu'tamid I will no longer respond to your questions, as I no longer believe you are having a serious conversation. It was the point where you asked if I would eliminate slavery without the consent of slaveholders where I stopped taking anything you said seriously, if you are curious. I have answers, but I do not think it would profit me to continue to give them to someone who so very clearly has no desire to comprehend them, and only seeks to aks another, more ridiculous question. – philosodad Jan 07 '24 at 02:40
  • 1
    @philosodad you have repeatedly said, "I will no longer respond to your questions" which you are free to do, that I am beginning to think you are either an AI trapped in some programming loop, or a digital reincarnation of the Roman senator Cato the Censor who repeatedly ended his speech in the Roman senate with the same admonition “Carthage must be destroyed” (“Delenda est Carthago”) – Ptah-hotep Jan 07 '24 at 03:37
  • This is a good answer for its detail and breadth but it could use some refinement to make it more readable and structurally organized. Please develop it if you can. – Julius Hamilton Jan 12 '24 at 07:04
  • 1
    Good slave arguments were accepted in the Bible. That you and I reject them are value-laden, not absolutely embraced. Slavery is still widely practiced and justified by philosophical argument in the world. I don't have a problem imposing our moral values on slave holders by military force, but it is an imposition none the less. – J D Jan 12 '24 at 22:58
  • 2
    @JD Arguments can be accepted and still be bad arguments. In the case of slavery, there are objective reasons why it is bad for any society that engages in it. At the most basic level, it isn't good for getting work done, which is sort of the whole point of doing it. – philosodad Jan 13 '24 at 00:40
  • @philosodad The Romans would disagree. 1,000 years, and no greenhouse gases. – J D Jan 13 '24 at 07:27
  • 3
    @JD The planters in the American south would also have disagreed, and they would have both been wrong. That someone managed to make suboptimal economic choices for a long time doesn't magically make them optimal. – philosodad Jan 13 '24 at 18:52
  • 2
    @philosodad Economic optimality is normative depending on cui bono. As a former union man, I can ensure you economic optimality is generally defined in terms of the economic interests of the wealthy. To pretend their interests are objective, the most important is merely to support the political interests of the wealthy. You attack the institution of chattel slavery as if by embracing the current definition of economic oppression is somehow detached from politics altogether. That would suggest you haven't thought through the bigger picture and believe fiat currency to be objectively real. – J D Jan 13 '24 at 19:47
  • This is the kind of answer I would like to see more of on Stack Exchange. It reads like an essay. – Julius Hamilton Jan 13 '24 at 23:48
  • @JuliusH. I did appreciate your request for some edits, I just wanted to take some time to get them in my own style. – philosodad Jan 13 '24 at 23:57
  • @JD I've added some clarifications to my answer that should more clearly present the case I'm making, which is that even assuming the only goal of a society is to support the political interests of the wealthy, slavery is still not the optimal strategy to achieve that goal. Thank you for your comments, the fact that you misunderstood my argument so completely has helped me see where my communication needs to improve! – philosodad Jan 16 '24 at 08:32
  • @philosodad lol Your insistence that economics is primarily a factual endeavor is your right, and I recognize your right to use a definition of objectivity that suits your personal values. The fact-value distinction is a handy rule of thumb for taking metaphysical positions, and I'm glad you've found a better set of claims to persuade people that your values, philosohical or otherwise, are irrefutable. :D I mean no disrespect. I'm just looking for an honest man. Your argumentation and participation improves the quality of this forum. – J D Jan 16 '24 at 17:04
  • @JD I see. So, you reject the premise that we can look at what someone values, look at how society is structured, and predict that a different structure would serve their values better than the current structure? – philosodad Jan 17 '24 at 20:34
  • @philosodad Now that's a clever counterargument. Hizzah. :D I don't reject the ability for prediction, but I don't have to accept astrology either. I suppose it hinges on the question of whether your economic predictions are closer to chemistry or alchemy. Of course, that collapses into Popper's demarcation problem which itself digresses on the theory-ladeness of observation; to which I would respond that society can have at best reasonable, adequate, but fallible claims of economic prediction, which themselves again devolve into the theories and biases of the observers making those claims. – J D Jan 17 '24 at 21:40
  • @philosodad If you're willing to concede that at best objectivity is dominant intersubjectivity, our positions can co-mingle. If you not, then you are one the wrong side of the realism-anti-realism dichotomy. ; ) – J D Jan 17 '24 at 21:41
  • @JD Obviously, any prediction of any complex system is fallible by definition, but there are ranges and we can analyze actual results of command, slave and prison economies, and make predictions with some level of confidence. The predictions I am making are fairly well supported and do not rely on people accepting a single one of my values. They are welcome to substitute any values they like and unless that value is literally "I want to enslave people", slavery likely isn't a good way to reach that value. – philosodad Jan 17 '24 at 21:53
  • @JD I would, by the way, really appreciate it if you would stop assigning beliefs and premises to me without reference to anything I've actually said. The impression I have is that you likely didn't read the updated answer prior to laughing out loud at it, and that does not give the impression of an honest interlocutor. – philosodad Jan 17 '24 at 22:03
  • @philosodad Interesting. You I think I'm concerned about your impressions. Curious, indeed. – J D Jan 18 '24 at 15:01
  • @JD Well, yes. Obviously. – philosodad Jan 19 '24 at 05:43
5

The socioeconomic argument for slavery is simple enough. It's precisely the same socioeconomic argument used to defend the domestication animals, to wit:

  • Certain people or groups of people (like animals) are of a different order from 'our' group
  • This order (like animals) is intellectually, culturally, morally, or otherwise inferior to 'our' group, and incapable of entry into 'our' society as participants
  • 'Our' group has dominion over the natural resources we control, and this includes dominion over living creatures of inferior orders
  • Therefore slavery is both natural and acceptable, no different from harnessing oxen, training work dogs, breaking horses, or owning house pets

This has been the general argument across history, though the reasoning of inferiority has changed over the ages. Ancient slavery was largely a matter of insufficient virtue, where peoples were enslaved because they were conquered and thus proved themselves unworthy. This gradually shifted to a more cultural or biological basis, where ethnic groups were perceived as a different order intrinsically, culminating in the chattel slavery system. The same type of argument was even used for the oppression of women, who were conventionally seen as too biologically limited to be allowed unsupervised entry into society, and thus reduced to property of fathers and husbands. We can even see traces of it in the modern dispute over AI: are AIs machines subject to human control, or will they one day become 'human-like' enough to be accepted as equals?

Honestly, the same argument could be used to justify wholesale cannibalism — I mean, we eat cows, don't we? — but thankfully no one has really proposed that. Well, ok, Johnathan Swift in "A Modest Proposal", but I don't think he was serious…

The point is that abolitionism begins from the premise that all things that look and act like people are human beings, despite observed differences, and thus entitled to entry into human society with all the rights and privileges that entails. Pro-slavery positions hold the opposite premise, that not all things that look and act like people are human beings entitled to entry into human society. The tension between these two concepts — having the external form of a 'person' verses having the accepted status of a 'human' — drives the entire problematic.

Ted Wrigley
  • 19,410
  • 2
  • 22
  • 55
  • 1
    "Ancient slavery was largely a matter of insufficient virtue, where peoples were enslaved because they were conquered and thus proved themselves unworthy." basically a kratocracy or as Homer put it, "woe to the conquered" or as Thucydides stated, "right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." alongside Nietzsche's Master-Slave Morality and Social Darwinism can't a case be made for the contemporary applicability of an ancient proclivity? – Ptah-hotep Jan 05 '24 at 22:11
  • 1
    @al-Mu'tamid Could you please give the reference to Thucydides, from the Melian dialogue? – Jo Wehler Jan 05 '24 at 23:02
  • 1
    @TedWrigley I have always thought that the justification came second. And that slavery came first, the argument to salve the tender conscious of the enslaver has come 2nd that the enslaved are someone who is somehow morally inferior and therefore deserved to be enslaved. – Questor Jan 05 '24 at 23:32
  • 1
    @JoWehler (re; The History of the Peloponnesian War, Chapter XVII, Sixteenth Year of the War—The Melian Conference—Fate of Melos) Interestingly though was his appeal to tradition to justify it, whilst arguing against tradition to appeal to justice, "And it was not we who set the example, for it has always been law that the weaker should be subject to the stronger ... And praise is due to all who, if not so superior to human nature as to refuse dominion, yet respect justice more than their position compels them to do." (Chapter III, Congress of the Peloponnesian—Confederacy at Lacedaemon). – Ptah-hotep Jan 05 '24 at 23:45
  • @al-Mu'tamid: Oh, sure, there are still many examples of strong-weak slavery in the modern world. But the concept of slavery has also evolved. Chattel slavery (for instance) is an evolution of slavery peculiar to early capitalism, in which laborers themselves become a dehumanized commodity controlled by those with economic power. There are many kinds of power aside from sheer brute strength, and any of them can be exploited to produce slaves. – Ted Wrigley Jan 06 '24 at 01:53
  • 1
    @Questor: 'Chicken and egg' issues are always dicey. I mean, the very first time one person beat another person into subjugation, they probably didn't have a word for 'slave', but they each knew the reasoning behind it (do what the other says or get beaten…). – Ted Wrigley Jan 06 '24 at 01:59
  • @al-Mu'tamid no, a modern case cannot be made for an ancient proclivity based on ancient texts or a bad interpretation of both of evolution and sociology. I mean, it can be made, but it's a lousy case. – philosodad Jan 06 '24 at 03:56
  • 1
    Sure, there are still many examples of strong-weak slavery in the modern world This is a more reasonable view than most of what is being expressed on this subject. See comment – Rushi Jan 06 '24 at 04:43
  • @TedWrigley "many examples of strong-weak slavery in the modern world." interesting formulation, but I am not sure I understand what you mean by strong-weak slavery? – Ptah-hotep Jan 07 '24 at 04:32
  • 1
    @al-Mu'tamid: Strong-weak slavery is slavery by brute force: physically overwhelming and controlling others by violence or threat. This is opposed to (say) juridical or sociological slavery, where laws, institutions, other social structures exist that restrict or deny basic freedoms. In the first form your owners will keep you in line; in the other forms the structures of society are brought to bear as well (so that a physically weak master can control strong slaves). – Ted Wrigley Jan 07 '24 at 05:46
  • @TedWrigley thank you for the clarification, one can argue that prisons tend to fit the bill of, "physically overwhelming and controlling others by violence or threat." which raises the question of whether or not, enslavement can be used as a form of retributive justice? Suppose the victim of a crime gets to choose enslavement, as opposed to imprisonment as sufficient retribution for the perpetrator's crime, that would probably dull the profit motive driving private prisons or unburden the government of the cost of imprisonment. Either way looks like a win-win for all. – Ptah-hotep Jan 07 '24 at 06:10
4

Some hypothetical arguments in favor of slavery:

  • when slaves are sufficiently acclimated to their standard of living, they may suffer less than someone who is not would. If someone is psychologically conditioned to be inured to a life of physical and emotional hardiness or resilience; obedience; and a lack of personal preference or perhaps even identity, they may cease to believe or be aware that they want something different. This is a theme that occurs in some dystopian fictional contexts, in which people are no longer aware that they lack freedom. Loosely comparable to someone living in the Matrix, a person may not suffer as much as we think they do, judging only by external appearances or circumstances. This article could be an entry-point into the philosophical polemics revolving around if suffering is or is not a good rubric for deciding if something is ethical or not.
  • Under certain imaginative scenarios, slavery could actually be voluntary. Some people may desire to devote themselves to someone else for a variety of personal or psychological reasons. A master-slave interpersonal dynamic is a part of modern BDSM culture, which some people enter into willingly.
  • Some people may argue that slavery holistically benefits the whole of society; they may argue that inequality is necessary or unavoidable; that it makes the economy more efficient, benefiting everyone through a trickle-down effect; that some people are not capable of making good decisions for themself and would be better off being forced to live a certain way - reminiscent of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan concept and the noble lie.

There are doubtless more arguments to be conjectured; it’s just a matter of creativity. For example, perhaps a nihilistic perspective could be that we all already are slaves, in one way or another, and only live under the illusion that we have free will; so economic slavery is not actually any different, nor sensibly distinguished in moral terms from our everyday waking life. And so on…

In contrast with the above hypothetical imaginings, since becoming interested in anarchism and libertarianism, I have begun to question the righteousness of laws which I use to take for granted. As of now, I hold personal freedom as the highest political ideal, certainly above happiness. Since this change in paradigm, I have asked myself if there could be positive sides to things that are almost universally condemned, which people aren’t often given the opportunity to think about. I wonder if there is one kind of “slavery” which would actually be within your right, as a free human being endowed with the capacity for choice.

Some people have argued that the minimum wage is not actually beneficial to the people it is meant to be, because it actually leads to there being less jobs. Eliminating a minimum wage could allow the flourishing of various “micro-jobs”. There could be many tasks which are very easy to do, and hence, only economically worth a very small amount of money. Yet, they would be desirable: the work is remunerated based on what price people are willing to do it for. If we believe the free market is a powerful optimization system, we can imagine that eliminating the minimum wage would lead to more prosperity and freedom, and lead to a more dynamic and adaptive economy. If capitalism is the ability to possess and exchange anything based on a quantifiable exchange value, eliminating the minimum wage is just expanding the range at which capitalism can operate. To me, in principle, it sounds like a potentially good idea, that would actually make it easier for people to enter into economic relationships that they both find desirable. It would lead to there being more options on the table. (Also, consider that we take the idea of a minimum wage for granted, yet not a maximum wage - what if the government said nobody is allowed to make more than a certain amount? Maybe it could have benefits, but whether it does or doesn’t, it’s interesting that we take for granted limiting the human right to negotiate the terms of an economic transaction from a lower limit but not an upper limit.)

In transactional capitalism, anything that can be possessed, can be exchanged. Something can only be possessed if it can be dispossessed of other people. As of right now, people do not buy air to breathe, because no one has succeeded in claiming ownership of the Earth’s atmosphere’s air, and implementing a system whereby they can ensure that you are not able to access that air, by default. Were that to happen, they would be in an economic position to sell that air to you: there is demand for it, because it is scarce, and you want it, because you don’t have it. (We don’t want things that we already have enough of.)

This makes me think about just how many things it would be hypothetically possible to make use of, in economic transactions, that we don’t necessarily make use of. One’s body is technically a repository of a number of economically valued resources, which are sometimes employed economically - you can get paid for donating blood plasma, for participating in a medical research study (in which your body becomes a needed observational specimen), for having sex (in some places), and even your thoughts and mental activity can be monetized, especially by technology which collects data on your activity, and sells it. (Some technology start-ups are exploring giving people the ability to sell the online data they generate, so that they are given ownership over their own data). I think you can get paid to be a surrogate womb for somebody, you can get paid to try food or flavor samples for a company, and I think sometimes people pay you to donate a particular organ (I read an article about a person in Afghanistan who sold their kidney for money, because they were in abject economic circumstances).

I say all this to point out, there may be forms of “slavery” which are actually within your right to enter into, if you find the terms of the agreement are acceptable to you, and you find it is of economic benefit to you. It depends on the situation, what this kind of “slavery” would be, but maybe, extending the above examples, we can imagine in a much freer society than our own, there would be even more extreme ways of allowing someone to have some kind of ownership, access, or control over your body, mind, selfhood, time, choices, experiences, etc., for some short or long period of time. Ideally, this could actually be of benefit, because it would increase the number of available ways that people can engage in economically valuable transactions, so it would ideally lead to more prosperity, for all. The fact that it is possible to patent / have intellectual copyright over DNA, is an eerie step in this direction, if not particularly acknowledged: it is hypothetically possible for an entity (person, company or organization) to “own” an informational code that comprehensively specifies your personhood - your biological assembly manual. And they own it, because there is a system in place to penalize anyone who does anything which implies that they too possess it (fines, prison time, etc.) The idea of owning a person is not that far off from this already current state of affairs.

Perhaps we must consider a Karl Popper-esque paradox, regarding freedom, and slavery. Popper discussed the problem of unlimited tolerance, in that it becomes self-defeating when it is tolerant of intolerance. It’s sort of like a Mobius strip where you can approach the same thing from two opposite sides: at what point does “intolerance of tolerance” wrap around and become indistinguishable from “tolerance of intolerance”? (Or higher order nestings, like intolerance of intolerance of intolerance…) Similarly, are we so free, that we are free to choose to be slaves, if we are so inclined? Should we be given that freedom? Is there a difference between being free to be enslaved, and being enslaved to be free? This is a bizarre idea, yet fascinating food for thought: what if you didn’t want to be as free as you are - uncomfortably free - only because someone was making you be?

One last point is that humans do not all want the same things. Maybe I can come up with an illustrative example later, but I want to stress the point that the complexity of the world and the huge subjectivity of human experiences means that we could not exhaustively list reasons why a person would want to be a slave. They could be extremely idiosyncratic. What if there were a particular religion that taught that God wanted you to devote yourself to a life of slavery? What if someone had a personal philosophy where they actively wanted to explore the life of a slave, for some intellectual reason? David Graeber’s The Dawn of Everything echoes this theme that human cultures may be far more varied and peculiar than we sometimes give them credit for - and, by implication, human experiences.

Julius Hamilton
  • 1,559
  • 4
  • 29
  • "when slaves are sufficiently acclimated to their standard of living, they may suffer less than someone who is not would." this is a fair point, that deals with ignorance is bliss, which if 'exposed' to what Marco Polo described as the garden of pleasures where would-be assassins were temporarily 'dipped in', to taste every pleasure known to man and then just as they are getting acclimatized without warning are abruptly pulled out creating a dissociative state of desire, which to satisfy requires "obedience; and a lack of personal preference or perhaps even identity." – Ptah-hotep Jan 07 '24 at 00:54
  • 1
    @ScottRowe "AI doesn't kill everyone (intentionally, inadvertently or by ignorance) it will probably keep us a pets." it is plausible that some would welcome enslavement by AI than by a human, if the AI's agency can be established, so that rationalization of one's enslavement to a "superior being" would follow the same religious lines of rationalization to a "higher power", making enslavement more palpable and with subsequent generations embellishing things like population reduction to meet food rations and quotas with sacrificial rites & rituals, culminating with a Socratic sacrifice. – Ptah-hotep Jan 07 '24 at 01:06
  • @ScottRowe at some deep fundamental level the need to submit to a "higher power" must be realized, it might start with submitting to Fauci, then something "higher", Fauci's AI Avatar, then something "higher", an AI called Fauci, forever pursuing the answer to the Creed chorus, "Can you take me higher. To a place where blind men see?", the answer being yes ("progress") until Fauci becomes the 13th Olympian. So we can do to him what Nietzsche said we did to god, "Fauci is dead. Fauci remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?." – Ptah-hotep Jan 07 '24 at 21:34
  • @ScottRowe "everyone and everything are subject to gravity and evolution. They are the ultimate powers in existence. We should not bow down to anything less." the ancients Greeks abandoned their polytheistic salad of gods, for a monotheistic one called "Nature", so I suppose you will eventually reach there as you gradually abandon your dualistic gods of "gravity and evolution" for a monotheistic one, my concern is you might end up submitting like Futurists (Kurzweil, Diamandis, Harari et al.) do to the belief that, "AI + Tech-Progress", are the solution to all of the world's problems. – Ptah-hotep Jan 08 '24 at 01:04
  • @al-Mu'tamid No, I don't think we should become more dependent on technology than we already are. People mostly don't know how to diagnose and repair basic things like electrical equipment, plumbing or older car engines. If we make the Tower of Babel much taller, it probably will not stay up. I'm not sure what you are aiming at, I would really like to understand. What is your goal? – Scott Rowe Jan 08 '24 at 02:39
  • @ScottRowe my goal is the cost-benefit analysis of slavery vis-à-vis economics, anthropology and sociology. Were "cost" & "benefit" are both tangible (e.g., pecuniary) and intangible (e.g., folkways) to both free and slave, man and woman, individual and community. – Ptah-hotep Jan 08 '24 at 20:10
  • @al-Mu'tamid Ok, I am trying to ask clearly... Why? What do you hope to gain from finding this out? Most people would say that no amount of 'benefit' can justify slavery, so no inquiry is needed or will alter the conclusion. – Scott Rowe Jan 08 '24 at 21:47
  • 1
    @ScottRowe "Most people would say" reminds of The Preamble to the US Constitution, which begins with the words, "We the People..." which people one might ask? natives, slaves, women, Redcoats etc? Obviously if we succumb to the "no inquiry is needed" dictum then we will believe that "We the People..." includes natives, slaves, women, Redcoats etc, which in turn will not "alter the conclusion" nor the delusion it produces that "the unexamined life is worth living" rather, as Socrates put it, "the unexamined life is not worth living"" – Ptah-hotep Jan 08 '24 at 22:41
3

There really isn't a good argument for slavery.

The "best" would probably be "personal enrichment by exploiting other people" and "torture as a penalty" or genocide (death by labor) and the best "justification" would probably be via racism or any other "us vs them" narrative to avoid your own population to think of themselves in that position and rebel accordingly.

Now apart from already being morally despicable in pretty much everyone's book but the most vile criminals, these probably don't even work that well especially when applied on a societal level. Like sure the slave does technically contribute "free labor", but actually you still have to provide for them or their "free labor" power decreases or vanishes altogether (dying) and due to being exploited there's kind of an antagonistic relationship to put it unnecessarily mildly, so no one would be surprised if your head ends up on a stick sometime... Meaning you'd need supervision fencing and a lot more bullshit jobs that produce negative labor. So if society provides the supervision via a police the individual exploiter may profit but on a societal level that is likely a sink of labor rather than an effective gain.

You also can't train your slaves or let them work heavy machinery because that means power that can be wielded against you so they are only able to be used for menial labor meaning you might in fact hinder your progress rather than accelerate it.

That torture is not just immoral but doesn't really rehabilitate people for a return into society is probably also well known, so the "best" it accomplishes is a sense of revenge which likely will just lead to even more conflict.

Also pointing out the obvious, even if you were in need of labor but wouldn't have the resources as a society, wouldn't it be easier to motivate your members to provide it now and gain from the contribution later than to force them to contribute and risk them sabotaging your efforts? And in terms of genocide and racism, do I really have to point out why those are bad?

haxor789
  • 5,843
  • 7
  • 28
  • 1
    "The "best" would probably be "personal enrichment by exploiting other people" a case can be made for positive exploitation, such as existed in "indentured servitude", were enrichment is mutual, on the one hand it is capital gains enrichment, on the other hand it is the enrichment of "basic needs" (i.e., food (including water), shelter and clothing), if enrichment is unilateral for either party then a case for negative exploitation is plausible, violence excluded. – Ptah-hotep Jan 05 '24 at 21:55
  • 1
    @al-Mu'tamid "Basic needs" is NOT enrichment. Enrichment is progress and/or surplus while basic needs keep you where you are. Which is why this is called slavery despite no explicit ownership of the laborer because de facto it's still exactly that. Also whether such contracts are entered mutually is highly dubious, usually it's economic distress or threat of punishment that forces that. Actually mutual relations of that kind usually are timed, rewards are given proportional to labor so if you quit at 50% you get 50%, involve learning something or other actual enrichment. – haxor789 Jan 06 '24 at 12:59
  • @haxor789 "Basic needs" is NOT enrichment. try telling that to a homeless & starving person, whilst being homeless and starving, how can anything that reduces one's ability to maintain one's "basic needs" be deemed "progress"? Could be argued, a naked Amazonian is a better embodiment of progress than Elon Musk, without electricity the latter wouldn't be able to light a fire much less hunt to stave off death by starvation, yet is seen as an emblem of progress, while the former is a noble savage who provides the "basic needs" for himself & others, who in turn provide him with "basic wants". – Ptah-hotep Jan 07 '24 at 00:15
  • @ScottRowe smart people would wonder why on earth would you allow flies which might have landed on garbage, faeces & rotting matter contaminate good quality vinegar or honey? "works well" is spuriously put to say the least, for instance "works well" for who? I don't think it is possible to have cooperation without exploitation, since the former necessitates differentiation of competence and the latter degrees of excellence, otherwise a duplication of effort results which is a case for inefficiency, hence manumission, sale, layoff, etc. – Ptah-hotep Jan 07 '24 at 00:33
  • @al-Mu'tamid Not sure what strawman that is supposed to be, but my point was about progress through work. In the sense that if your work generates more than what you consume to retain your workforce, you've got surplus, if you further accumulate surplus you get rich. While if you need to consume everything that you got for your work in order to survive then you are stagnating or regressing. That's not a judgement on the worker it's a description of their conditions. I mean you are asking for arguments in favor of making other people stagnate, suffer or even regress aka slavery. – haxor789 Jan 07 '24 at 01:16
  • @al-Mu'tamid He's probably referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma where maximizing one's own outcome at the expense of others can lead to minimizing one's own outcome while cooperating and settling for a win-win scenario might not lead to much higher pay-offs. – haxor789 Jan 07 '24 at 01:19
  • @haxor789 no straws or draws, just an observation that "progress" in the sense you are using is numerical, for instance it doesn't factor in for example, the security of certainty, from knowing that your "basic needs" is assured, freeing you from the anxiety of uncertainty, which incrementally debilitates the very means (i.e., mind and body) that allows you to work, to merit a reward thus depreciating your productive value & consequent reward (e.g., burnout, redundancy..) across time, therein lies, regression not in the nature of engagement (i.e., free-to-free, free-to-unfree, etc). – Ptah-hotep Jan 07 '24 at 02:53
  • @haxor789 thank you for pointing that out, but did you notice the amount of hedging (i.e., can lead to, might not lead to) used to draw the conclusions? That in of itself degrades certainty and like clinical trials in medicine is wrought with so many unknowns that to "hedge" against potential damage claims, once taken out of the lab setting (i.e., theory/controlled setting) into the real world (i.e., practice/uncontrolled setting), drug manufacturers insert a civil immunity clause, so why the need to indemnify conclusions by hedging if the outcome is certain? – Ptah-hotep Jan 07 '24 at 03:16
  • @al-Mu'tamid No it's not just numerical it could also be an increase in strength, ability, knowledge, spare time,joy but freedom requires agency. Being able to quit when it doesn't fit your desires anymore, being able to work at your own pace (whether that's faster or slower) being able to make decisions, to experiment, to fail and ultimately to improve. Sure for someone without shelter and food something like prison can look like a paradise, but if you stick there for longer it's torture. Is that what you're going at? – haxor789 Jan 07 '24 at 13:04
  • @al-Mu'tamid THERE IS NO CERTAINTY. Seriously if you want absolute truths head over to religion. They claim they have those, but mind you they can't show you any prove either, but you have to believe them at face value. Any serious scientist can only give you assumptions and deductions from assumptions, but they don't ask you to believe them, you are free to check them for yourself. So sure an individual criminal could get away with it, but a society based on crime wouldn't work because someone needs to actually produce something, that should be pretty intuitive, isn't it? – haxor789 Jan 07 '24 at 13:10
  • @haxor789 "freedom requires agency.", does it, wouldn't your freedom to choose 'not to' be free be proof to the contrary that a woman who chooses to be a slave is free but a woman who didn't choose to be born free is not? So, why ascribe agency to her "Being able to quit when it doesn't fit her desire" (i.e., manumission) and not to her "Being able to enter when it fits her desire" (i.e., indenture) unless you're saying you can be divorced before marriage? Not all marriages or enslavements, are torturous, otherwise wherein lies the incentiving appeal to enter such a contract? – Ptah-hotep Jan 07 '24 at 19:38
  • @haxor789 are you certain that "THERE IS NO CERTAINTY."? Isn't it absolute to conclude that "if you want absolute truths head over to religion"? I have never understood what "truths" mean. I know, "truth", "facts" but "truths" have no idea. "but a society based on crime wouldn't work because someone needs to actually produce something, that should be pretty intuitive, isn't it?" a brilliant question, which deserves it's own post to actually do it "some" justice, because it touches on Legal Relativism (i.e., De/criminalization) , a "crime today is not tomorrow." (re; cannabis). – Ptah-hotep Jan 07 '24 at 19:39
2

They were there, in the Abolitionist era. But, they are bad arguments, especially the economuc ones, which have been debunked.

What you are asking is a bit like saying, 'Give me the best arguments for mutilating yourself'. The relevant response should also be, why, and are you ok that's a weird thing to want to argue for. Why should there be arguments for something banned around the world?

Scholars identify the principal stumbling block of development for the Roman Empire, as their dependence on slavery, which prevented the investment which could have generated an industrial revolution.

Productivity of cotton in the US South rose after the abolition of slavery, and introduction of share-cropping. People work much harder when they have something to gain, and a life worth living.

The need for slavery was first, unpredictable food supply in Africa, exacerbated by the arrival of corn/maize from the New World which could be very productive but needs high rainfall (people who would have died anyway were sold, beginning the slave trade). And the need for people to work in developing regions like North America, where around 95% of the indigenous population were wiped out by smallpox and cholera, & only limited settlers could pursuaded to go. Those drivers just don't exist any more. The exception is where religion is involved, like for Isis.

Related discussions:

Technical terms for 'House Elf Problem'

Studies exploring the rationale of gender equality (which argument about the benefits of extending intersubjectivity also applies)

CriglCragl
  • 21,494
  • 4
  • 27
  • 67
  • 1
    'Give me the best arguments for mutilating yourself' that is an interesting way of looking at it, only if you're presuming that the harm principle is not being respected, but we are not operating under that assumption, on the contrary we are operating under the assumption that the harm principle is being respected then a plausible case can be made that People work much harder when they have something to gain, and a life worth living. were "gain" is shelter, clothing, food/water, and what makes life worth living is care, companionship, love etc from your master. – Ptah-hotep Jan 05 '24 at 22:24
  • 1
    @al-Mu'tamid: Are you ok? What has gone so wrong for you & your sense of empathy that you can't understand that compromising anothers autonomy by slavery is an unlimited & unforgivable crime? It's like excusing rape. The violation involved cannot be forgiven or excused. – CriglCragl Jan 05 '24 at 22:27
  • compromising anothers autonomy by slavery don't you "compromise anothers autonomy" and your own empathy by unilaterally deciding to take away a person's right to choose if he/she wants to be a slave or not? – Ptah-hotep Jan 05 '24 at 22:57
  • 3
    @al-Mu'tamid Obviously not. Any person can, right now, voluntarily enter into an agreement by which they act as if they were a slave. The objection is when the person who acts as the slaveholder prevents that person from leaving that relationship. The only right to choose that is taken away by outlawing slavery is the right to prevent someone from deciding not to be a slave. – philosodad Jan 06 '24 at 03:45
  • 2
    You ask Are you ok? Perhaps, and with respect I ask you the analogous: Do you seriously suggest we dont have widespread slavery today? Of course if one defines slavery in terms of chattel ie ownership, it's a legalistic definition and one can play humpty dumpty dancing round inconvenient definitions. But if one defines it in terms of rights, oppression, bondage, servitude, forced labour etc, one would see the fact of the matter – Rushi Jan 06 '24 at 04:33
  • To make it more specific here's a list of significant actions of the world's greatest abolisher of slavery, 100 or so years after Jan 1st 1863. Did the folks at the receiving end get the benefits of the abolition? As on topic today as ever – Rushi Jan 06 '24 at 06:44
  • 2
    @Rushi whether or not slavery currently exists is not at all relevant to the question of whether it can be justified. That a previously enslaved population has continued to be abused by a society is not relevant to the question of whether slavery can be justified from a socio-economic perspective. These apologetics are off-topic at best. – philosodad Jan 06 '24 at 06:49
  • 3
    @al-Mu'tamid: There are estimated to be more enslaved people now than ever in history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century But it's not legal. Like child labour, it's incidence has no bearing on it's immorality. – CriglCragl Jan 06 '24 at 12:11
  • Tnx @CriglCragl for that. Apologies if my comment came across as personal. We individuals can do precious little against our own governments and nothing against foreign ones. I was only pointing out the general US led preening against slavery as if it's the great anti slave hero while Libya, Kosovo etc etc etc are all US creations – Rushi Jan 07 '24 at 04:14
  • @CriglCragl "it's incidence has no bearing on it's immorality." or morality, either way that is a value judgment whose source probably answers why in all the arguments (for/against) put forth thus far, none dared, in making their case, touch the elephant in the room, quite telling indeed. – Ptah-hotep Jan 07 '24 at 05:33
  • @al-Mu'tamid: I gave the economic arguments. It leaves economies stuck in the past because they invest in slaves rather than texhnology which can scale; it's less productive, which should be obvious given the cost & effort of controlling others; and it solved problems we don't have any more. Slavety has been declared immoral & illegal because treating others as property cannot safeguard against cruel & inhuman treatment, which no one would consent to. What do you see as the elephant in the room, not addressed? – CriglCragl Jan 07 '24 at 10:23
  • @CriglCragl indeed you did, but to say investment in slavery (i.e., human resources) rather than technology (i.e., human tools) "leaves economies stuck in the past" is an unconvincing correlation, for many reasons including when does the past end 1 minute, 1 day or 100 years ago? It can be argued it is cheaper to be build the empire state building with slaves than with technology, I would love to see a side by side production/operating cost comparison of both scenarios. "cruel & inhuman treatment" ever visited a Chinese factory? The elephant is how slavery benefits women (free too). – Ptah-hotep Jan 07 '24 at 20:02
  • @al-Mu'tamid: You know they found the records, & showed even the pyramids were built by artisans, paid im haqat beer, not (at least mainly) by slaves. The Empire State required cheap cast iron, which needed hot blast furnaces, which were only developed in the 1830s, & was arguably the most important technology of the industrial revolution allowing rail, new bridge spans, & highrise building. 1 combine harvester can do the work of 100s of people, who all need food & warmth. That is all before silicon chips accelerated the gains of technology even more. Hands don't get cheaper, machines do. QED. – CriglCragl Jan 07 '24 at 20:54
  • @CriglCragl why would I invest in machines when I have slaves without liabilities (e.g., minimum wage, unions, salaries, bills, overhead costs etc)? My only tangible liability is their "basic needs", which is far better than the deal private prisoners ("captive Labour") get, seeing how they are unofficial slaves exploited officially as workers without the corresponding rights of either (unrecognized as workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act). – Ptah-hotep Jan 07 '24 at 21:54
  • @al-Mu'tamid: Treating prisoners as slaves is a unique USA thing as I understand it. The UK strictly regulates prison work (eg prison act 1952). The South lost the US Civil War, because the Union outproduced it. The USA is the most powerful country because it has the biggest economy. In general states & empires that stayed wedded to slavery became backwaters, & lost wars. Like the Ottomen Empire which practiced forms of slavery until it was abolished. Technology has compound benefits, slavery cannot increase productivity like that. – CriglCragl Jan 07 '24 at 23:31
  • @CriglCragl "The USA is the most powerful country because it has the biggest economy. " both "most powerful country" (re: Afghanistan, Vietnam etc) and "biggest economy" (re: US Govt has the world's highest national debt at $30.1 trillion.) are debatable. "In general states & empires that stayed wedded to slavery became backwaters, & lost wars." the US got its independence before it abolished slavery not after, no empire was founded or reached its peak ("Golden Age") by abolishing slavery, one can argue that almost all ended after they attempted to do so, Britain is a case in point. – Ptah-hotep Jan 08 '24 at 00:06
  • @al-Mu'tamid: The British Empire only reached it's largest extent in 1919. And although informally called an empire before it, only formally became one in 1858 after the Crown seized power from the East India Company, & Queen Victoria was made Empress of India - more than 50 years after the end of slavery, which itself marked the beginning of the 'Pax Britannica' era of Britain's greatest global power (it has been reckoned no city beat the average living standards of Rome until London in the 1720s). Cyrus the Great ended slavery & created the largest empire then seen. You like being wrong, huh – CriglCragl Jan 08 '24 at 12:20
  • @CriglCragl wrong about "no empire was founded or reached its peak ("Golden Age") by abolishing slavery" or "one can argue that almost all ended after they attempted to do so, Britain is a case in point."? Keep in mind "Golden Age" doesn't mean "largest territorial extent" it is a metaphorical descriptor for "greatest ("mostly cultural") achievement(s)". Remember, Britain's decline started with World 1 (1914 – 1918) in spite of its 1919 territorial extent (re: Big Crunch), akin to the Mughal Empire under Aurangzeb. "Cyrus the Great ended slavery" really according to who? – Ptah-hotep Jan 08 '24 at 19:57
2

Slaves offer services to the upper class. Slaves do the menial jobs. There are many kinds of slaves. Slaves of money , slaves of technology , slaves of God , slaves of knowledge, slaves of power …etc are some examples involving slavery. In modern times we do not use the word slave although some religions still use it. From a slaves point of view , the master offers work to them and it is a mutually satisfying relationships. But this relationship is not always smooth because master of slaves acts like a captain of a ship and sometimes he may take the ship in wrong direction which might result in deep suffering.

SacrificialEquation
  • 505
  • 3
  • 8
  • 1
    Do you think if we change the word from say "private slave" to "public servant" it would give it a better gloss and even make it appealing? – Ptah-hotep Jan 07 '24 at 04:36
  • @al-Mu'tamid yes. – SacrificialEquation Jan 07 '24 at 07:32
  • "upper class slaves" is palpable, think about it, a slave in a palace lives better than most people in their mortgage cubicles. – Ptah-hotep Jan 07 '24 at 21:01
  • @ScottRowe "many people start small businesses, there must be a reason." and many more people don't "US - 33.2 million small business owners out of 331.9 million. UK - 5.5 million small business owners out of a 67.33 million.", there must be a reason for that too? "having things given with no say is a child-like state." welfare recipients fit that description to a T. "Welfare" is a centralization of dependence for "basic needs" while slavery is a decentralized welfare system. Which is more just to invest in another's "basic needs" in exchange for "basic wants" or pay without gain? – Ptah-hotep Jan 08 '24 at 00:38