• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is slavery a matter of perspective?

Is slavery a matter of perspective?


  • Total voters
    29
The problem with that response is than you get into a discussion of whether moral considerations are sufficient for this type of enslavement. This is why I never like "greater good" arguments.

I think the broad consensus, that most would agree to, is that killing innocent people and/or taking their stuff is not good.
Using that as a base line, I'm sure we can get somewhere. ;)
 
No example then? Ok, how about in the world. Give me an example.

If you have no choice, how is it duty?

The dictionary disagree's...

1.the condition of a slave; bondage.
2.the keeping of slaves as a practice or institution.
3.a state of subjection like that of a slave: He was kept in slavery by drugs.
4.severe toil; drudgery.

Talk to the men & women in Turkey or Israel in the military via a draft
 
Last edited:
I think the broad consensus, that most would agree to, is that killing innocent people and/or taking their stuff is not good.
Using that as a base line, I'm sure we can get somewhere. ;)

I agree. But I think the reasoning most people use is different than what we are talking about in this thread, so it doesn't necessarily apply to this line of reasoning.
 
I agree. But I think the reasoning most people use is different than what we are talking about in this thread, so it doesn't necessarily apply to this line of reasoning.

So it is in other words subjective.
 
Talk to the men & women in Turkey or Israel in the military via a draft

I disagree with definitions 3 and 4 relating to what we are talking about which is the institution of slavery.

The draft is not slavery, it is national duty.
 
To be honest it is not. You are not being forced to do anything. You are paying your taxes to support the government. After that it is not your money to control.
That's just an argument over mechanics. Fact is, you're still being forced to support others.
 
I disagree with definitions 3 and 4 relating to what we are talking about which is the institution of slavery.

The draft is not slavery, it is national duty.

So if the state owns you it is OK?

Sorry "national duty" is no less slavery by it's definition.

1.the condition of a slave; bondage.
2.the keeping of slaves as a practice or institution.
3.a state of subjection like that of a slave: He was kept in slavery by drugs.
4.severe toil; drudgery.

If you are given no choice under threat of force be it physical or imprisonment, it is slavery.

You can disagree all you like. It makes it no less true.
 
Last edited:
That's just an argument over mechanics. Fact is, you're still being forced to support others.

It does not make it slavery as you are represented in government. It has nothing to do with mechanics, it has to do with fact.
 
So it is in other words subjective.

I don't think there is a good basis for objective morality since it depends entirely on perspective. So yeah.

However, in dealing with the issue of coercion and slavery. I think if coercion (being the mechanism to force the actions of another) is slavery than it would mean that all forms of punishment are therefore slavery. This means that the term slavery becomes meaningless since me telling my two yearold daughter to get out of the dishwasher in a harsh manner (emotional coercion) would mean that I am enslaving her. I cannot agree with that because it is something necessary to do for her safety.

So than if you flip the argument over and say that some forms of coercion are better (per my previous example, noone would blame me for wanting my daughter out of a potentially dangerous area) than others, we have to look at when and where those lines are.

Overall, it just means that the simple definition that Hairy gave is not sufficient as far as I can tell.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there is a good basis for objective morality since it depends entirely on perspective. So yeah.

However, in dealing with the issue of coercion and slavery. I think if coercion (being the mechanism to force the actions of another) is slavery than it would mean that all forms of punishment are therefore slavery. This means that the term slavery becomes meaningless since me telling my two yearold daughter to get out of the dishwasher in a harsh manner (emotional coercion) would mean that I am enslaving her. I cannot agree with that because it is something necessary to do for her safety.

So than if you flip the argument over and say that some forms of coercion are better (per my previous example, noone would blame me for wanting my daughter out of a potentially dangerous area) than others, we have to look at when and where those lines are.

Overall, it just means that the simple definition that Hairy gave is not sufficient as far as I can tell.

There is a distinction though.

Is the coercion for personal benefit like theft or is it for the benefit of the person being coerced.
If it you force people to do things for your benefit, it is slavery.

If you force your child not to climb into the dish washer, it is for her benefit.
It is no longer slavery at that point.
 
Last edited:
It does not make it slavery as you are represented in government. It has nothing to do with mechanics, it has to do with fact.
It has everthing do to with mechanics - that being forced to provide for others isn't slavery because you're being taxed to do it, rather than being forced to do it directly. There's no real difference in those things as the necessary condition -- forced extraction of the value of one's labor to directly benefit others -- is present in both.

All you're doing is arguing that a representative government cannot enslave people, which is, on its face, unsound.
 
There is a distinction though.

Is the coercion for personal benefit like theft or is it for the benefit of the person being coerced.
If it you force people to do things for your benefit, it is slavery.

If you force your child not to climb into the dish washer, it is for her benefit.

I didn't think of that. However, it doesn't completely settle my doubts. Me wanting government to force people to not murder is in some ways for my own benefit. I want to reduce the chances of me being murdered as much as possible. At least that is my primary personal motivation. Also, I greatly benefit from not living in a society where lives are routinely in danger.
 
I didn't think of that. However, it doesn't completely settle my doubts. Me wanting government to force people to not murder is in some ways for my own benefit. I want to reduce the chances of me being murdered as much as possible. At least that is my primary personal motivation. Also, I greatly benefit from not living in a society where lives are routinely in danger.

Sure but remember also you are not requiring the potential murder to do "work" for your benefit.
You are requiring them to not do "work" for your benefit.

Work in this instance is defined as; doing something.
 
Sure but remember also you are not requiring the potential murder to do "work" for your benefit.
You are requiring them to not do "work" for your benefit.

Work in this instance is defined as; doing something.

Positive and negative response to something is still a change in action, which inhibits freedom. Since the action is still changed, I don't think it is a good distinction to make.
 
If you are given no choice under threat of force be it physical or imprisonment, it is slavery.

You can disagree all you like. It makes it no less true.

Nice. Any argument I make is disqualified according to you. Conscription is not slavery. You are forced to do it but you are not property and you are paid.
 
It has everthing do to with mechanics - that being forced to provide for others isn't slavery because you're being taxed to do it, rather than being forced to do it directly.

Irrelevant. After you pay it is no longer yours. It is the governments and spent by YOUR representatives.

The definition of "slavery" does not apply.

There's no real difference in those things as the necessary condition -- forced extraction of the value of one's labor to directly benefit others -- is present in both.

Yes I agree some aspects are present. It does not make it slavery though. That's like saying our Representative Republic is socialist because certain aspects of it are indeed socialist. It just is not the case here.

All you're doing is arguing that a representative government cannot enslave people, which is, on its face, unsound.

I am not arguing anything even remotely close to that.
 
If it you force people to do things for your benefit, it is slavery.

That is an insufficient definition. If you do not reimburse them and if they are your property, then it is slavery. Otherwise, it is coercion.
 
Nice. Any argument I make is disqualified according to you. Conscription is not slavery. You are forced to do it but you are not property and you are paid.

Yes you are the property of the government in question. This is made known to you immediately even in our volunteer military.

Ask anyone from the former Soviet Union what it was like. It is slavery.

I am going by the actual definition, which is correct by any standard of debate.
 
That is an insufficient definition. If you do not reimburse them and if they are your property, then it is slavery. Otherwise, it is coercion.

Coercion -

1.the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.

2.force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

Synonym for Slavery -

Servitude is compulsory service, often such as is required by a legal penalty: penal servitude. 4. moil, labor.


Looks like the same end by different means.
 
Last edited:
Irrelevant. After you pay it is no longer yours. It is the governments and spent by YOUR representatives.
And THAT is irrelevant. You're arguing that the government, not you, are providing for these people; this is disingenuous because everythig the govermnet has it gets from the people it governs. Directly or indirectly, you are being forced to provide for these people; directly or indiectly, that still makes you a slave.

Yes I agree some aspects are present. It does not make it slavery though. That's like saying our Representative Republic is socialist because certain aspects of it are indeed socialist. It just is not the case here.
You, yourself noted that:

-So if the state owns you it is (not) OK.
-Sorry "national duty" is no less slavery by it's definition.
-If you are given no choice under threat of force be it physical or imprisonment, it is slavery.

All of these things can be correctly applied to the issue at hand.
I am not arguing anything even remotely close to that.
You placed some credence on the fact that It is the governments and spent by YOUR representatives.". If you are not arguing anythig 'remotely close to that', then your notation here is meaningless.
 
Coercion -

1.the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.

2.force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

Synonym for Slavery -

Servitude is compulsory service, often such as is required by a legal penalty: penal servitude. 4. moil, labor.


Looks like the same end by different means.

I don't care what the dictionary says, and you should provide a link when you do use it.

The institution of slavery requires that slaves are property. Coercion does not measure up to this standard.
 
And THAT is irrelevant. You're arguing that the government, not you, are providing for these people; this is disingenuous because everythig the govermnet has it gets from the people it governs. Directly or indirectly, you are being forced to provide for these people; directly or indiectly, that still makes you a slave.

No it does not. I have already explained why.

Our government works this way and it is not in any way shape or form slavery.

You, yourself noted that:

-So if the state owns you it is (not) OK.
-Sorry "national duty" is no less slavery by it's definition.
-If you are given no choice under threat of force be it physical or imprisonment, it is slavery.

No because they are not restricting your freedom to...

Move someplace else.
Get tax exempt status etc.

You have a choice.

Being conscripted into a military is no choice. You go and if you try to move away etc, you are now in violation and under penalty of law considered a criminal.

All of these things can be correctly applied to the issue at hand.

As I have shown, no they can't.

You placed some credence on the fact that It is the governments and spent by YOUR representatives.". If you are not arguing anythig 'remotely close to that', then your notation here is meaningless.

The only thing meaningless here is your argument. :lol:
 
Then we have nothing further to discuss.

Nice to see you decline to question me, so that I am right:

"The institution of slavery requires that slaves are property. Coercion does not measure up to this standard."
 
Nice to see you decline to question me, so that I am right:

"The institution of slavery requires that slaves are property. Coercion does not measure up to this standard."

No. By declining the dictionary definition you have admitted you have no bases for your argument other than opinion. I don't care about your opinion as it is not backed up by any tangible evidence. Mine is.

Pretty simple.

Now as soon as you have actual evidence that backs up your statements, we may have something. Until that time you are just spouting a great deal of nothing.
 
Back
Top Bottom