What is Slavery as a Positive Good?

Answer 1

Slavery as a Positive Good is an article written by John C Calhoun, seventh Vice President of the United States, in 1837 - he was, needless to say, an apologist for slavery.

No, Slavery has to be seen as the denial of freedom to the slave. It cannot have morality to treat another human in such a way. Although the Slave owner may benefit from this process the abject denial of the right of freedom to another is beyond acceptability to all except the most determined bigot. You'll probably have guessed by now I don't own any slaves ! The idea of positivity or goodness in the role of Slavery is not within my compass.

Answer 2

It depends who you ask. This society of ours is bent on the notion of moral relativism. We have a very "do as you will" and "to each their own" attitude. "Turn the other cheak." We pride ourselves on our blind tolerance to immorality in our society, under the pretense of it being a virtue of non-judgmentalism and moral-relativism.

We forcefully assert that morality is not an absolute, though we never prove it, all because we wish to rationalize what we will when we will for self-serving reasons, without having to feel obligation to change or feeling guilty or shameful for our choice actions.

Simply put, we don't believe in judging others. Not because we don't disagree, but for another reason entirely. For if we do, we are to be judged ourselves. And that is personally offensive and threatening to us all.

Likely, we all believe our own notion of morality is correct, and would like to preach it to others. But we know that if we judge others, we will be seen as intolerant and bigoted, and will consequently have our own moralities judged as well. We assert non-judgmentalism and tolerance for reasons of social self-preservation. And because on some level we know that we cannot defend our own notion of morality, for it could very well be wrong.

A great many of us would prefer not to have our beleifs and moralities and ideologies challenged - we would rather ramain confident, deluded, and sure of ourselves and our choices - and essentially morally stagnant. We would like to retain the belief that we have valid justification to continue about our lifestyles as we always have.

Is slavery wrong? If it truly were wrong, objectively speaking, then we would have a humanitarian and human-right's issue... in which case... why don't we march our armies on Africa and put a final end to the heinous moral crimes that go on there? Child labor in the East Indies? Womanizing in the Middle East? We got involved in Europe during WWII, after all. So, why don't we march our armies throughout the world and fix societies and peoples moral values?

We don't... why? Because we are tolerant? Are we truly tolerant of these mentalities throughout the world? Or could slavery, womanizing, and child-labor be a bit more morally fuzzy than we would like to believe?

If we truly were tolerance and accepting... then why don't we permit immigrants into our countries to retain their social and religious ideologies? Why do we force them to abandon their womanizing, their animal sacrifice, their slave-ownership, etc? We force our ideologies and moral values onto people who immigrate through law enforcement.

And yet we turn a blind eye to the rest of the world.

We tolerate values of other nations, even if we disagree, just so long as said practices stay there. But we don't tolerate those same unorthodox values within our own nation, on our soils. Yet we pride ourselves on being a tolerant, accepting, and diverse society all the while; as a nation of immigrants ourselves and a melting pot of cultural and religious values.

We are hypocrites. All laws and moral codes we pass and enforce, we do so strictly for self-serving reasons. What we deem moral is what the majority agree to. What we deem immoral is what the majority have an issue with. And for no other reason is our code of morality what it is.

For a long time, slavery was acceptable in our nation. It was seen as right. And it was right, right up until it wasn't any more. Did the morality change? Was slavery ever wrong? Or did we realize slavery was wrong? A moral relativist, as many in society are, would be forced to argue that slavery was right all along, until society changed its mind. A moral absolutist, such as myself, would argue that it was wrong all along but that it took a while to realize it.

Our society is amoral at best. Moral relativism (and by extension Atheism) is by definition amoral (or immoral), for anything and everything can be rationalized under that mentality. Without an objective morality (or a standard-setter), there can be no true morality, as all codes of moral conduct are arbitrarily chosen and arbitrarily changed by the liberal society in question.

Morality is an abstract concept. Without objective morality, there is no morality whatsoever. No abstraction can exist relatively. All abstractions I know, such as numbers, are absolute in meaning. Anything else that is potentially relative is a tangible object - which by its nature is also not relative.

Morality on a whim is not morality. The very word itself, "morality", carries no meaning and no weight and enforces no bearing on our society, if we each interpret it to be something different. At the point of relative standard, the word "morality" is merely an auditory noise some of us like to utter.

Have you ever met a moral relativist who admitted to being immoral? It doesn't happen. Because under that mentality, nothing is immoral. All choices are rationalized. There is an exception to every rule, a caveat which is only noted after the fact, etc, etc. You've heard the "circumstances dictate" argument, I'm sure. Every moral relativist claims to be moral - but what is morality to them besides anything they deem in any situation they see fit? Morality is an absurd and meaningless notion at that point.

If morality is relative, then how can evil exist? And if evil doesn't exist, how can morality exist to offset it? Good and evil are a dichotomy. My conclusion is simply that morality either is absolute, or that it doesn't exist whatsoever.

Is slavery wrong? No. Historically speaking, slavery has brought a great many African and European peoples out of their tribal or nomadic existence and delivered to them education and civilization. Think Rome. Think, where would the black Americans of our society be today if not for Western Civilization? They would be dying of disease and cougar attacks, still trying to start fire with rocks.

Within the community of philosophers and rhetoricians, it is rarely acceptable to trust the opinions and views of people with vested interests. Biased agendas make for poor sources. Can you trust the view of any slave-holder who says slavery is right? No, you certainly cannot. But likewise, can you trust the view of any slave who says its wrong? No, for the same reasons.

I believe that morality - true morality - is without hypocrisy. Without exception or caveat or double-standard. That it is universally applicable in all situations irregardless of circumstances. Only then can we assert that something is or is not moral. Slavery is not intrinsically wrong in and of itself; rather, it becomes wrong when the slave-holder refuses to become a slave himself and demonstrates a blatant and arbitrary double-standard in the acts' implementation - then it carries serious moral implication.

Does the fact that everyone holds a different morality prove that morality is subjective? Or does it prove that evil exists?

Most of us are biased. We look for reasons to justify our beliefs and our values. Few of us are unbiased enough to argue in favor of the opposing argument - just to see what will happen - and do force themselves into realizations about themselves and their ideologies. Only then can you overcome biases and find what is morally true.

As I stated earlier, "If morality is relative, then how can evil exist? And if evil doesn't exist, how can morality to offset it? Good and evil are a dichotomy. My conclusion is simply that morality either is absolute, or that it doesn't exist whatsoever." I do not know with any certainty that morality exists absolutely. But neither do I know that it exists at all. I am, however, certain that it does not exist relatively.

I cannot in good conscience live a life of arbitrarily decided moral relativism, nor amorality, without risking the very real possibility of breaking moral absolutist standards. That being the case, I am ethically bound to take on a morally absolute perspective and live a reserved lifestyle - at least until relativism or amorality can be proved.

Yes, I have to default to "slavery is wrong". But it is only a default position. Moral uncertainty doesnt grant permissions without prejudice. Any issue that is morally uncertain does have a single default morally absolutist, morally reserved answer.

Given any moral uncertainty, the most reserved answer is the only valid one. This is because it is the least damaging, if damaging at all, and therefore is the only ethical answer - irregardless of anyones personal distaste for it. I would argue that even decisions devoid of immoral implication in themselves, that are made under obvious moral uncertainty, are themselves immoral for that their implications were uncertain.

I do judge others. I am judgmental. I consider it a virtue. Yes, many people feel threatened and criticize, and would prefer to insult or stay away from me. But plenty of other people consider me a moral compass to them, a very positive moral influence in their life. For all things considered, judging others is the only real "flaw" anyone could mark me for. In all other things, few people ever find any legitimate things to say against me. Likewise, I hold those I call friends to higher standards and as a consequence many people feel privileged to be among those I call a friend.

Turning a blind eye to societies code of moral conduct does nothing beneficial for us. Moral relativism and blind tolerance to moral philosophies causes a continued trend of moral deprecation and loss of standard, from one generation to the next without bound.

As sad as it is, holding people to a standard and judging society is the only force, aside from religious implications, that keeps anyone in moral check. Even a rapist or a murderer thinks they do right by themselves. There is no other moral driving force besides judgmentalism and religions. Even law changes with the times to suit the society.

People are reluctant to accept the possibility of moral absolutism because they are afraid of the implications it will have on their lifestyles - and they dont care about a greater morality at all. In fact, they wish not to pursue truth because it risks the same outcome - they would rather remain ignorant of their own immoralities.

I would argue that the individuals choice to ignore moral pursuits makes the individual immoral on yet another count. Because we are all aware of the moral controversies - none of us are ignorant of the fact that they exist, none of us are ignorant of the opposing viewpoints. One cannot deliberately ignore the possibility of being immoral and still be moral for it. They push blindly for our own because it serves a personal agenda, with no regard for truth or morality.

Without risking turning my readers off at this juncture, allow me to cite abortion as an example here. In the case of abortion, I do not deny that forcing a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy is wrong. But I am forced to default to the greater moral, because neither do I know that aborting a fetus is morally right. Therefore I conclude that saving lives are the greater morality and a womans convenience is secondary. I would much rather be guilty for forcing women to endure pregnancy though it is right to abort, and find out I was wrong all along, then be guilty of turning a blind eye to fetalcide when it happens to be wrong.

Irregardless of what the truth is, I do not know with any certainty and I am fully aware of the dilemma. It stands to reason then that any perspective that is more liberal is a self-serving one, potentially corrupted and deliberately oblivious of greater moral issues.

Notice that my introductory sentence in the paragraph before last began "Without risking turning my readers off..." It's ironic, but by bringing up a specific controversial issue and giving my own viewpoint, I risked turning my readers off or offending them into disagreeing with me. Its sad, but an otherwise rational argument, one that my reader has thus far found agreeable, will become distasteful simply because of my argument's implications on a particular issue. Such a phenomenon proves only that the readers vested interests would bias them against a true and valid argument which they had no problem with until it contradicted their own ideologies.

People worry that moral absolutism would make us all dry and boring. My first criticism to that is, well, does it really matter? Morality is morality. Does fun really make the difference between whether or not you wish to be moral or not? Does risk of damnation or incarceration make a difference? What about the risk of being socially astricized? If so then I would posit that you are not moral to begin with, but merely afraid of consequence (yet another selfishly immoral agenda).

Life is full of pleasures, fun, uniqueness, and individualism without resorting to anything immoral. Likely, a great many things that some assume are considered immoral by the orthodox either are mistakenly believed to be considered immoral by the orthodox; or are considered immoral by the orthodox but both are wrong for it, as a closer analysis may reveal no moral implication whatsoever.