(June 24, 2015 at 12:18 pm)Won2blv Wrote: I don't believe that anyone can really make a strong case as to why slavery in on its own is evil. 

(June 24, 2015 at 12:16 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:this is obviously slavery based on race.

A meaningless term when this crap was concocted.  This was tribal thinking.  Archaeology has shown that there was precious little difference between the Canaanites and the so-called "Jews."  Until the Persian era they were virtually indistinguishable.

(June 24, 2015 at 1:17 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: The greatest good for the most people results when people are given the maximum freedom consistent with an ordered society.  Slavery denies this freedom to a significant proportion of the populace and thus results in less than the greatest good for the most number of people.  Is this an argument that appeals to emotion?  Certainly.  Is it an illicit or fallacious appeal to emotion?  No.

(June 24, 2015 at 1:12 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 12:18 pm)Won2blv Wrote: I don't believe that anyone can really make a strong case as to why slavery in on its own is evil. 

That an argument begins with a subjective value judgement such as "do you want to be a slave" doesn't actually -mean- that the argument is an appeal to emotion, or even fallacious.  -All- value judgments begin this way, and -all- arguments pursuant to those value judgments originate from this point.  

The key is this, as it is in -any- argument, after having agreed that you do not wish to be a slave...what can be reasonably and logically inferred from that starting point, can you make a slave of another?

(June 24, 2015 at 1:38 pm)Won2blv Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 1:17 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: The greatest good for the most people results when people are given the maximum freedom consistent with an ordered society.  Slavery denies this freedom to a significant proportion of the populace and thus results in less than the greatest good for the most number of people.  Is this an argument that appeals to emotion?  Certainly.  Is it an illicit or fallacious appeal to emotion?  No.

Then I would believe that a maximum amount of freedom would be a very hard bar to set. Its possible to be a slave and also have a measure of freedom. Again, I think back on the biblical accounts of slavery. For one, with Hebrews did voluntarily enter into this agreement. So they didn't feel like it was a morally improper thing in of its own to have or be a slave. And two, I don't think that they were checking out flights on Kayak.com hoping to get away to Boca for the weekend. Slaves or not, they didn't have much free time to roam about. So what freedoms were they denied?

Quote:...[A]bolitionists attacked the economic benefits of slavery. They reasoned that the slave’s only incentive to work was out of fear for his master. Stowe illustrated this in the plantation of Simon Legree – a plantation ruled solely by fear. Slaves could not skimp on the cotton they placed in their baskets or they would face a fierce flogging. She contrasted this with St. Clare’s household where the slaves were generally left alone. St. Clare admitted that his slaves were like spoiled children, but commented that “whipping and abuse are like laudanum; you have to double the dose as the sensibilities decline” which ultimately led to a dehumanizing of slave and master. Indeed, George was one of the only slaves who did not work out of fear when he labored in a factory. But this was mainly because he was one of the most educated and desired to work to gain his freedom. Thus, Stowe contended that the African will only be the most industrious if he is educated, but such education will ultimately lead to the African seeking his freedom. Consequently, the slaveholder must keep the African debased and in fear in order to continue to enslave him.

Five Arguments Against Slavery

(June 24, 2015 at 12:34 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 12:18 pm)Won2blv Wrote: I know that this will get quickly shot down because of reasons like the fact that Kobe Bryant can walk away from basketball at any moment and he is free to roam about as he wants.

It's not just that Bryant (or any athlete) has the freedom to walk away.  It's that he entered into his NBA contract voluntarily.  Bryant wanted to be a professional basketball player, and followed that desire through to its end.  Pursuing a career and entering into contracts voluntarily isn't slavery.

I think the case against slavery would be one of the harm it does to people, in that they are being either imprisoned or forced to work against their will.  Some will extend this to situations such as factory work in the USA before the advent of unions, where workers sought out jobs that required long hours and poor conditions for poor pay and even changing conditions (ie, they might wind up being asked to do work they did not sign up for, on threat of loss of pay or loss of the job).  A case can be made that even that latter situation, which isn't slavery in the technical sense, is nonetheless harmful to people.  Is it evil, or wicked, or immoral?  I suppose most people would consider it to be.