I was asked
"Is slavery wrong if it is merely an extension of the evolutionary notion of survival of the fittest? What right does any species have to subjugate evolutionary logic, in sake of their own will? "
Personally slavery is just too de-humanising, but it did make me think. Opinions?
Smells like social darwinism.
It's a dumb question and I'd bet a religious person made that argument. The flaw in their reasoning is that Atheists or scientists do not derive their morality from "might makes right" and other theories. We derive morality from using our own minds and making moral judgments based on what we think is right or best.
Religious people seem to think atheists care what Origins of Species says anymore or just adheres to might makes right, but the options aren't "follow what some book a guy said god wrote says" or "moral anarchy might makes right!". And I think that misunderstanding comes about because religious people do get their morality from commands, so to them it only makes sense that others do too, but that simply is not the case.
>Is slavery wrong if it is merely an extension of the evolutionary notion of survival of the fittest?
But it's not.
You're argument is a naturalistic argument and fallacious.
There isn't a single argument against social Darwinism other than feelings.
The only argument against slavery is morality and even then it's a subjective thing.
but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,
Social darwinism is based on a naturalistic fallacy AND an incorrect understanding of evolution. The only arguments FOR it are feelings.
>"Is slavery wrong if it is merely an extension of the evolutionary notion of survival of the fittest? What right does any species have to subjugate evolutionary logic, in sake of their own will? "
Humanity isn't supposed to base its philosophy on how animals act.
It's not social Darwinism, it's not a philosophy, it's not anything, it's just natural selection.
And that wasn't the question. We're not supposed to let natural selection run its course.
For religious people the answer is God, God doesn't want us to behave like that.
>conflating atheists with scientist
>le scientists can't be religious meme
arrogant fuck
>Humanity isn't supposed to base its philosophy on how animals act
according to? Did someone hand you a copy of the big rule book of the universe? Want to share?
Most aren't religious. And those that are lean towards deism and tend to be far less radical. I know that. And I am religious. But I'm not retarded like you where I'll make up my own reality that fits my sensibilities. If you cared for the truth at all, you would do the same. Sadly, many religious people don't care for truth because it hurts their feelings.
...
>humans have to act like animals, they have no choice
Nature's God may refer to: God in Deism, that is used in the United States Declaration of Independence: "...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..." Nature god, or nature deity, a deity in charge of forces of nature.
You're the one making the positive claim.
>conflating atheists with scientist
>le scientists can't be religious meme
>arrogant fuck
He didn't say that. That is not what "or" means in English
Don't be such a little snowflake.
>most aren't religious
and that wasn't the point, that you conflate atheists with scientists is the wrong part
>But I'm not retarded like you where I'll make up my own reality that fits my sensibilities. If you cared for the truth at all, you would do the same.
What the fuck does this even mean? You're an arrogant idiot if you think that I make up my own reality.
and according to whom; why should humanity follow animals? I know that morality springs from God. I'm able to make that claim because I'm not a naturalistic idiot.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Morality completely aside, slavery is a great way to fuck over an economy and technological development in the long run. There's little or no pressure to invest in develop labor-saving devices and mechanize production. Why invest a lot of resources and time developing experimental techniques and machinery that might not even work when you can just buy more slaves?
There's also massive opportunity costs involved in keeping a huge portion of the populace subjugated and bound by force to a specific trade with no realistic chance of social mobility. Also, you'll fuck over your own non-enslaved lower classes by replacing all the jobs they'd do with slave labor and depressing wages for manual labor ... which again feeds into technological stagnation. Higher cost of labor translates into greater pressure to reduce the amount of workers you need to hire for a task, incentivizing research into machinary and the like.
Back once again for the renegade master
D4 damager, power to the people
back once again for the renegade master
D4 damager, with the ill behaviour
...
with the ill behaviour, with the ill behaviour, with the ill behaviour
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
'where the maggots never die and the fire never goes out.'
As a Christian, I belief that slavery isn't wrong because Christianity (as well as every other Abrahamic religion) supports slavery. But I don't have any secular arguments in favor of slavery.
So god who created all in his image is cool with you treating his image like crap?
>Christianity (as well as every other Abrahamic religion) supports slavery.
Source?
Redneck fuck off. Jesus said that you should treat your fellow human beings as you wanted to be treated.
>Also, you'll fuck over your own non-enslaved lower classes by replacing all the jobs they'd do with slave labor and depressing wages for manual labor
THIS
H
I
S
literally the ONLY reasong slavery is wrong
All of these arguments amount to little more than a covert and reactionary maneuver to defend white supremacy, or any other sort of supremacy being implied and that's why people shouldn't pay any attention to any of this shit
I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it.
It's survival of the fittest was a goal of every government then mentally disabled persons would not exist. Neither would 98% of Veeky Forums as they would have been exterminated by Chads long ago
When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America, you get a front row seat.
Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part to us, do they?
If we could just find out who's in charge, we could kill him.
$90, huh?
Maybe I won't have to die alone after all.
What gets me is "Survival of the fittest". Its the means by which we humans came about. Isn't there an inherent risk in ignoring billions of years of evolutionary logic. Even if slavery is wrong.
You know the good part about all those executions in Texas? Fewer Texans.
Whether you ignore it or not the rule still applies. It's just the situation in which it occurs that changes.
There is no set evolutionary course. If you live in an environment where the physical traits you have give you an advantage, then you've been "naturally selected" to thrive in that environment.
Likewise if being the strongest person in an environment gives you the edge, then you're on top in that SPECIFIC environment. However if you're in an environment where physical strength has no use and mental faculties give you the edge, and you're on top in that environment. s
"Survival of the fittest" has different meanings for different environments it's not a catch-all phrase.
If a man smiles all the time, he’s probably selling something that doesn’t work.
Not only do I not know what's going on, I wouldn't know what to do about it if I did.
Slaves are not necessarily treated like crap.
The Bible not only sets a number of rules for the conditions under which slaves were to be kept, but even says that slaves must obey their masters (Ephesians 6:5-8, Colossians 3:22-25, Timothy 6:1, Titus 2:9-10, Peter 2:18)
I do belief that slaves should be treated well, I'm also not necessarily opposed to getting enslaved myself on the condition that I would be treated well by my master. It was common for a person to voluntarily sell oneself into slavery for a fixed period of time either to pay off debts or to get food and shelter.
As you can see, slavery is a is firmly established aspect of Christianity that if one
were to deny or mock, he would be denying or mocking the verses of the Bible, and thereby apostatizing from Christianity. I hope that I don't have to remind you that according to the Bible, apostates should be stoned to death.
Never trust anyone that tells you to trust them, trust me on that.
>slaves must obey their masters
So your advice would have been to revolt and be executed?
?
He's taking for granted that slavery is "evolutionarily logical" without providing a shred of evidence to back that up, or even explaining what he means by "evolutionary logic" and "survival of the fittest" and how that relates to slavery.
Pure sophistry.
See above. What does slavery have to do with "evolutionary logic?"
Apparently you know more than the people who wrote that, so explain.
I agree in the case of a modern economy. But what of an infant one such as the early United States. Would such a global economic positon be enjoyed today if they had not had such a vast slave labor force early on.
Compare the regions like New England that banned slavery shortly after independence to those that kept it going and expanded their economic dependence on slavery. The former is having to heavily subsidize the latter. Also, don't forget the damages caused by the Civil War and botched Reconstruction, plus deliberately keeping millions of people uneducated and blocked from social mobility for most of US history.
In any case, the US was a regional, mid-low tier economic power before the World Wars devastated the competition and gave US manufacturing and commerce years of a monopoly while everybody else tried to rebuild and recover.
There's a theory that slavery pushed human sacrifice out by giving human beings market value
Take that a step further
Is the humanist idea that all individuals have innate value an outgrowth of the practice of placing a set market value on a human being?
What is it with edgelords and fundamental misunderstandings of natural selection? The guy you were talking to didn't actually make an argument.
Good thing feels > reals
shit where can I buy somebody for 90 bucks?
>Bible refers often to people as property
>Ten Commandments assume the audience owns people
morality has changed and improved since the Bible was written, who'd have thought?
>economic reason the ONLY reason slavery is wrong
i hate it when teens read Ayn Rand and get on the internet to shitpost.
Social Darwinism is a pernicious set of ideas used by those who are always on the lookout for a justification for being shitty to people. Be it the Bible, Science, Nationalism or some awful misunderstood humorist like Ragnar Redbeard.
Darwin's work mentions contingency, where events other than pure adaptive qualities determine the success of species.
Social Darwinists are nearly always unhappy simpletons in shitty service industry jobs
Mutualism works a hell of a lot better.
...
Feelings are natural, a key component of society, and a result of Darwinism.
So feelings are in fact a valid argument.
But it is an argument. He's clearly saying that Social Darwinism is not scientific and takes the idea of evolution to scrape up an excuse to call others inferior.
Social Darwinism isn't real because it does not hold up under scrutiny and is not supported by facts. If it did, then humans would be very different creatures.
That isn't to say we shouldn't try to improve the gene pool or society, but those answers aren't gonna come from Social Darwinism because it is a fundamentally flawed idea and was only picked up by idiots looking for an excuse to put themselves on top of said Darwinian structure and keep others down.
"To be threatened and to make an enemy is a breach of peace. To breach peace is to create a conflict. Within a conflict, you engage your enemy. If engaged and you prevail show no favor more than your enemy has. If your enemy has pronounced defeat, do as your enemy would do to you. But for your enemy to threaten your life a life is worth more than any favor could be treated. Therefore if your life was threatened by an enemy and you prevail over your enemy to be resolved on peaceful terms, Make your enemy live the life of a slave of your own labor to restore the life in which your enemy threatened. Since a life is worth more value than any labor would produce, make slaves of your enemies to restore the life that was never spared."
So I can own a Chimpanzee 97% same dna as humans but change 3% and I cant own it? Can any life form own another then? If slavery is wrong so is a lot more.
Whole lot of nothing in this post
>feelings are a result of Darwinism
>le all emotions, morality and natural law are a result of evolution XDDD meme
*tips fedora*