Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

EasyBOven t1_jefo7bp wrote

Reply to comment by drintelligent in Stories with humanized animals are cute. Stories with animalized humans are terrifying. by NoNo_Cilantro

Ok, but what I'm essentially asking is

If you lived in a time when slavery was broadly considered ok, would you advocate that it stop or that it continue?

2

drintelligent t1_jefp7qb wrote

Forgive me for asking but when did you ask that?

That depends on the society I grew up in at the end of the day. If I grew up in Europe in the 1740s then yes slavery would be morally wrong, if I grew up a white family in the Caribbean in the 1810s then yes. If I grew up in the Northern USA in the 1830s then yes, I'd I were born in the South sometime after the civil war then probably. But if I was born before then then I probably would say no slavery is right.

1

EasyBOven t1_jefpouv wrote

I recognize that I'm phrasing the question differently in order to try to get to a relevant answer. I understand that these questions can be interpreted in different ways and recognize that you're trying to answer the exact question I'm asking. I appreciate the honesty.

I'm confused by this answer though. Do you, as the person you are today, think it's a good thing that slavery has been officially and largely abolished?

2

drintelligent t1_jefq2pw wrote

Uhm, yes I was born In Europe after 1740 I believe slavery is undeniably morally wrong

1

EasyBOven t1_jefq7ur wrote

Cool. Do you think that change represents moral progress?

1

drintelligent t1_jefqgb3 wrote

Not always, privatisation is objectively progress in the wrong direction I would say as an example

1

EasyBOven t1_jefqr3o wrote

I'm talking about the specific change where we now recognize that humans shouldn't be property. Even if there are other issues around that change that might have been bad, do you agree that this specific change is progress?

1

drintelligent t1_jefqyw1 wrote

Progress in the morally right way, yes, cause owning a life is incorrect

1

EasyBOven t1_jefrcnz wrote

Cool. I'm glad we agree. So why wouldn't that concept apply consistently to all beings with a subjective experience?

2

drintelligent t1_jefss05 wrote

Animals are not equal to humans. They can't provide a justice system or a welfare system on any level. They don't take care of there sick or injured, they can't cure themselves, can't heal wounds. If we didn't have them in captivity nothing would change compare that to human enslavement or the Holocaust.

1

EasyBOven t1_jeft3xj wrote

Ok, so an individual's ability changes the value in not having them be property, and if the value in them not being property is low enough for the rest of society, then it's ok for them to be property?

1

drintelligent t1_jeftwfz wrote

That's not what I'm saying, if a human can or can't doesn't determine there right to be free, it's a matter of species not individual

1

EasyBOven t1_jefu0in wrote

Why would species be morally-relevant?

1

drintelligent t1_jefwx80 wrote

Even the slightest chance of the person enslaved having the ability to cure or discover should make the whole idea of human enslavement morally wrong. But the idea a far. animal can compare in the same way seems fairly ridiculous if you ask me

1

EasyBOven t1_jefxgwj wrote

Then it does seem to be an assessment of someone's ability. There are mentally disabled humans with similar levels of intelligence to the animals we exploit for food. They would therefore have a similar chance to cure or discover something. Why shouldn't they also be treated as property?

1