Does the positive side of tribalism/racism outshine the negative side?

[The Grand Nudger]

Slaves weren't fed, they fed their masters and themselves.  That's not welfare...that's theft.

That was the master insuring that the hungry did not kill him for food or force him to pay for more body guards.

I think theft is better than starving.

Then again, I have a criminal mind and delinquent attitude.

Would you slave yourself, if destitute where there were no safety nets, or would you turn to crime?

Regards
DL

Why would they have to choose between slavery or starving?  They were the ones growing the food either way.  It was the slaver who had to choose between slaving and starving - opting for theft over death.

I happen to be a small producer myself. When I need money I turn to growing something. I suppose I could decide to turn to crime, and steal the things that other people make, or steal those people - but that's the slavers dilemma, again, not the slaves. Slavery was never welfare, or a social safety net - at least not for the slaves.

If the instrumental good that you'd like to weigh, here, was the instrumental good that slavers extracted from theft and acquiring human property, then it could only outweigh The Bad...for the slaver. I don't think the instrumental good to a tiny percentage of people, of stealing the shit you want, up to and including people, outweighs the bad of stealing what you want, up to and including people. Ultimately, it didn't do the slavers much good themselves. Thin on the ground nowadays, for a reason. Turns out that owning people is more dangerous than owning tigers.

I suppose, if you thought that you might turn to slaving, then that's that, maybe you would. You'd likely regret that decision when you ended up bleeding out in your fields, mobbed by slaves. You might regret the decision to endorse slavery when someone else's slaves lay you low, even. Or maybe, just maybe, you'd regret the decision the very moment you saw the misery of slavery - either in others, or in yourself. Maybe you'd regret that decision when you did, in fact, fail to find or replace slaves that you had lost...and learned that you could not even feed yourself on account of having leaned on them so long. The alleged instrumental good of slavery evaporates about as fast as some slaver argues for it.

Meanwhile, for as long as there's been money to buy slaves, there has been money to pay labor. Even slavers paid for some labor - they knew it was better to have a well motivated person doing important things. Not just morally, though we came to believe as much at some point...but as a matter of pure practicality, as an instrumental good.