Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Archive of Fugitive Slave Ads Sheds New Light on Lost Histories

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–59 of 59 posts

Re: An Archive of Fugitive Slave Ads Sheds New Light on Lost Histories

#51

Post by [deleted] »

Trundle wrote: post #40
hamana wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"How edgy to you have to be to try and argue about the morality behind slavery." How brainwashed do you have to be to mimic the beliefs of people around you? "When you prove that animals are self aware and conscious to the level of humans you can start to try and make half of this point" What do vague labels like 'conscious' and 'self-aware' have to do with slavery? "...but you're taking it way too far with this whol…

It's either disingenuous or just plain ignorant to set the bar at objectively wrong, or to imply that everyone thinks it's fine to have pets/eat animals, or that aliens would follow our ethical guidelines. Neither moral universalism nor realism have a dominance in the philosophy of ethics, and even then I highly doubt that those that do actually support those positions do so because of any argument involving being a…

[deleted]

Re: An Archive of Fugitive Slave Ads Sheds New Light on Lost Histories

#52

Post by hamena »

Trundle wrote: post #40
hamana wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"How edgy to you have to be to try and argue about the morality behind slavery." How brainwashed do you have to be to mimic the beliefs of people around you? "When you prove that animals are self aware and conscious to the level of humans you can start to try and make half of this point" What do vague labels like 'conscious' and 'self-aware' have to do with slavery? "...but you're taking it way too far with this whol…

It's either disingenuous or just plain ignorant to set the bar at objectively wrong, or to imply that everyone thinks it's fine to have pets/eat animals, or that aliens would follow our ethical guidelines. Neither moral universalism nor realism have a dominance in the philosophy of ethics, and even then I highly doubt that those that do actually support those positions do so because of any argument involving being a…

  It's either disingenuous or just plain ignorant to set the bar at objectively wrong
'...set the bar' for what?

--------------------------

The rest of your comment is filled with insults, empty psychoanalysis, guesses and other attacks, so I'm not going to reply to that.

Re: An Archive of Fugitive Slave Ads Sheds New Light on Lost Histories

#53

Post by afarrell »

monort wrote: post #36
afarrell wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) The IRS does not literally rape people as happened under American chattel slavery 2) Your analogy also has the problem that without taxes, it would not be possible to fund an organization that prevents other organizations from coming in and taxing you (aka "protection money"). Can point to a society of more than 500,000 members that has existed without taxes? I can point to several pre-1865 societies without slave…

I agree that arguments against slavery were stronger in 1865, than against taxes, but absence of something is a bad predictor about possibility. You couldn't point to a liberal democracy before 18th century too.

On its own, absence is a bad argument. But combined with presenting a problem (that people will spontaneously form a government and collect taxes under threat of kneecapping) it is a stronger argument.

Re: An Archive of Fugitive Slave Ads Sheds New Light on Lost Histories

#54

Post by aninhumer »

monort wrote: post #27
beachy wrote: post #2

I find these pretty disturbing. I like to think I'd never have stood by while someone enslaved someone else. But the banality of these ads makes it all seem quite commonplace and acceptable. Wicked times.

Taxes are involuntary and people are locked in prison for not paying them, that is resembling a slavery. Some rationalization for slavery was similar too, e.g. people thought that it's not possible to have prosperity without enslavement. Probably in the future present times will be seen as wicked too.

Property enforcement is just as involuntary as taxation.

Restriction of freedom is an inevitable consequence of scarcity. People cannot have everything they want, so you have to have some system which decides who gets what, and punishes people who try to step outside it.

Whether you're locking someone up for theft or tax evasion, it's equally coercive.

Re: An Archive of Fugitive Slave Ads Sheds New Light on Lost Histories

#55

Post by pitay »

Hondor wrote: post #43
pitay wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing to note, the same types of people who were slave drivers are still here. They have as little respect for another humans life as they always have, judging other peoples well being as worth nothing. You can see it when they make statements similar to 'I earned what I have so I deserve it, poor people deserve nothing, especially not from my pocket.' They are willing to let people die, although they may try to…

Nearly all professionals in the west are in that position. They could give away most of their income to save desperately poor people, but they feel that they deserve it for themselves. It's a very broad blurry line between evil and respectable. Mostly dependent on whatever popular culture tells us it should be.

Yes, good point. I think the best way to go around it is supporting systems that prevent people having unnecessary horrible positions in life, starting at country or even state wide, and hopefully worldwide systems in the future. Also to help this, getting people to identify what sort of arguments value another persons life as nothing, is a great way of diffusing harmful ideas. It is that obvious that it has been mentioned in ancient times, such as the biblical "You will be judged as you have judged others". Putting an emphasis on the value of a persons life other than what can be taken from them, should support these better systems.

Back to what you have put forward, yes, it is very easy to forget the people who you just don't see.

Re: An Archive of Fugitive Slave Ads Sheds New Light on Lost Histories

#56

Post by monort »

aninhumer wrote: post #54
monort wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxes are involuntary and people are locked in prison for not paying them, that is resembling a slavery. Some rationalization for slavery was similar too, e.g. people thought that it's not possible to have prosperity without enslavement. Probably in the future present times will be seen as wicked too.

Property enforcement is just as involuntary as taxation. Restriction of freedom is an inevitable consequence of scarcity. People cannot have everything they want, so you have to have some system which decides who gets what, and punishes people who try to step outside it. Whether you're locking someone up for theft or tax evasion, it's equally coercive.

Yes, the property enforcement is involuntary, but in the absence of property slavery is not unethical. If there is no property, then why slaves have a better claim to their body and work, than someone else?

Either the idea of property is accepted implicitly, or it is ethical to enslave in some situations.

Re: An Archive of Fugitive Slave Ads Sheds New Light on Lost Histories

#57

Post by godembodied »

Trundle wrote: post #40
hamana wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"How edgy to you have to be to try and argue about the morality behind slavery." How brainwashed do you have to be to mimic the beliefs of people around you? "When you prove that animals are self aware and conscious to the level of humans you can start to try and make half of this point" What do vague labels like 'conscious' and 'self-aware' have to do with slavery? "...but you're taking it way too far with this whol…

It's either disingenuous or just plain ignorant to set the bar at objectively wrong, or to imply that everyone thinks it's fine to have pets/eat animals, or that aliens would follow our ethical guidelines. Neither moral universalism nor realism have a dominance in the philosophy of ethics, and even then I highly doubt that those that do actually support those positions do so because of any argument involving being a…

  It's like you worked out that the intuitive emotional response that most people use for their moral compass isn't exactly well thought out...
If I understood this correctly, you want me to take emotional outrage as seriously as well thought out propositions. Are you joking? Of course emotional outbursts aren't though out. Do you know what these emotional outrages presented as moral judgements (Emotivism) are similar to? Sneezing and farting. They have few things in common with them:

1. It's meaningless noise (kinda like sneezing as a reaction to allergy) 2. You can't argue with it (can you argue with farts?) 3. You can't criticize it 4. You can't take it seriously and analyze it, since it meaningless rambling 5. No progress can be made

  It's either disingenuous or just plain ignorant to set the bar at objectively wrong
I assume by 'setting the bar' you mean bar for taking something seriously. Correct? You are criticizing me for asking from people well though out (which can be subjective) or objective facts about the world. Why don't you then criticize construction workers and architects for having well thought out plans, based on objective laws of physics, when building a house. Tell them to just go by the flow and let their emotions decide.

If you want me to take something seriously, then it's gotta be more than an empty, personal emotional outburst (chemical process resulting in meaningless sounds, similar to coughing, sneezing, moaning, farting etc.).

   Neither moral universalism nor realism have a dominance in the philosophy of ethics
Wrong [1]. Majority of philosophers are moral realists.

  ...googled some phrase sceptical of ethics as a whole, found nihilism, potentially with a detour through scientism, and then burrowed down that rabbit hole without considering any other established school of thought.
Emotivism is not an established school of thought. It's largely abandoned by most philosophers. There are many criticisms of it without good counter-arguments. How does guessing what I did make my arguments or questions any less valid? You'd have to give some arguments in favor of Emotivism and aginst nihilism, realism etc. Not just write insults here and label my statements and questions as 'silly' or 'stupid'.

[1] http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP - page 15, question 14.

Re: An Archive of Fugitive Slave Ads Sheds New Light on Lost Histories

#58

Post by monort »

pvg wrote: post #37
monort wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's more similar to a forced labor slavery, than chattel slavery. The forced labor convention (which for some reason wasn't ratified by US) specifically makes exception for civic obligations and compulsory military service because they are fitting the definition. Children in this analogy forced to go to prison too, when they reach 18 years and refuse their taxes.

It's still not much of an analogy unless you believe that, say, driving on the wrong side of the road, uninsured and without a license is somehow comparable to any form of slavery.

Am I correct that you invoke a social contract as a justification for involuntary actions?

1) You are forced into this contract without your consent.

2) You can't quit this contract with your property intact.

This conditions wouldn't be enforceable if they were between ordinary parties, especially when there is inequality of bargaining power, why do they hold between a state and a person?

Re: An Archive of Fugitive Slave Ads Sheds New Light on Lost Histories

#59

Post by aninhumer »

monort wrote: post #56
aninhumer wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property enforcement is just as involuntary as taxation. Restriction of freedom is an inevitable consequence of scarcity. People cannot have everything they want, so you have to have some system which decides who gets what, and punishes people who try to step outside it. Whether you're locking someone up for theft or tax evasion, it's equally coercive.

Yes, the property enforcement is involuntary, but in the absence of property slavery is not unethical. If there is no property, then why slaves have a better claim to their body and work, than someone else? Either the idea of property is accepted implicitly, or it is ethical to enslave in some situations.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning? Are you suggesting that control of ones labour is inextricably linked to property rights?

Being able to decide how to spend your time, and having exclusive access to particular resources are completely separate things.

Post reply on HN