Whats So Wrong With Slavery?

Before anyone freaks out let me state that I do of course think that slavery is evil. I am also confident that nearly everyone would agree with me on that. So why would I bother to write about something so universally accepted? Because I am equally confident that many people have no idea why slavery is evil. This is a tragedy.

So, here I go: slavery is evil because every person has an absolute right to his/her own life.

Before I explore that concept further let me confront, and dismiss, some erroneous reasons that people sometimes give:

-Slavery is evil because it is a racist institution. This is ridiculous. If this argument were true then if you enslaved someone of your own race, (as many African tribes still do) there would be nothing wrong with it. Racism is morally wrong, and many people seek to justify slavery on racist grounds, but it is not the reason slavery is evil. Not only is this a flawed argument, it actually trivializes a very serious evil by equating it with a mere foolish error. Yes, that is right, racism is just a foolish mental error. People who are racist are stupid, but they are in no way as evil as slave holders.

-Slavery is evil because the slave owners are viscous to their slaves: they beat them, verbally abuse them, rape them, malnourish them, work them too hard in harsh conditions, etc. This argument is laughable once stated explicitly, but it is very often repeated implicitly by many people. It amounts to the vague feeling that slavery is bad because it involves people being mean to people. So does that mean that if you were 'nice' to your slaves it would be okay? If you treated them like members of the family, but they just couldn't leave, had to work for you, and didn't get paid, everything would be fine? Obviously not, it would still be evil. As a side note: the cruelty with which slave owners treated their slaves was evil, but it was not the reason slavery is evil. A slave owner who abuses his slaves is more evil than one who doesn't, but both are still evil.

-Slavery is evil because the strong are oppressing the weak. This argument is often accepted by people when they hear it, thought they may feel like it could be improved. The reason for this is that the argument combines two seemingly true statements. Slavery is evil -- True. The strong are oppressing the weak in slavery -- Mostly True. The problem is that this argument is a form of begging the question. It shares the same flaw as the following statement: the Bible is true because it says so right here in Mathew 10:15. Slavery is a form of oppression, but the argument offers no explanation for why this oppression is wrong, other than that it is oppression. So we gain no new understanding from this argument. In addition it tries to divert attention away from the true evil of slavery by throwing into the mix some silly strong vs. week class warfare crap. Though it is unlikely, one could imagine a situation in which someone weak enslaves someone strong, e.g. through blackmail or threats toward loved ones etc., and once again, this would still be wrong.

Okay, I won't go through any more examples of bad arguments, because they all can be dealt with in a similar manner. The point is that most people cannot give a good reason why slavery is evil.

Now let me return to the real reason why slavery is evil. Slavery violates a mans right to his life. What does this mean? Obviously it does not mean that as long as one doesn't kill one's slaves then everything is fine. Living only in the biological sense, i.e. breathing & heart beating, is not living as a human being. A man has not only the right to breath, but the right to live his life. He has a right to pursue his happiness. He has a right to direct the course of his life, to take chances, to succeed or fail. And most importantly he has a right to work, and keep the products of his work. This last principle is called the right to property, and it is derived directly from a persons right to life. If man's means for surviving is his own work/mind, then how can he properly have a right to live if he cannot work, keep his products, and thereby survive?

Within the institution of slavery a mans right to life is violated in many ways, but it is chiefly his right to property that is violated. If every other violation of his rights were remedied except for his right to keep the product of his work, would things be okay? If you could travel where you wanted to, live where ever you wanted to live, make decisions about your life, be guaranteed freedom from physical abuse, etc., etc., except that everything you produced by your hard work went to me, and then I gave you some allowance, would you be free or a slave? The answer should be clear that you would still be a slave. In fact on many American slave plantations the slaves were 'free' to lead 'somewhat' normal lives: they had villages with complex social structures, they formed families, they sang songs and entertained themselves, they received rudimentary education, and by and large lived much better than their African counterparts. BUT THEY WERE STILL SLAVES! What was done to them was EVIL. I am NOT justifying it by saying it was 'not that bad.' On the contrary I am pointing out just why it was so bad. If a man does not own the property produced by his own hands, then he does not own his life. This is the root of the evil of slavery. The very idea that one man can own another violates every person's right to life.

Now if a man has a right to his life; if he has a right to his property; can those rights be violated justly some of the time? In other words: can we say that slavery is wrong and evil because it violates a mans right to his life and property, and then turn around and say that a man's right to life and property can be violated under certain circumstances, for example if it serves the greater good, and then in this case it is perfectly fine? (this is one of the arguments put forward by southerners to defend slavery, that it benefited the 'public good' and ending it would be disastrous to the 'general welfare') Is a right absolute or malleable? The answer should be obvious. If a right is not absolute then it is meaningless. If someone can decide that circumstance A makes my right non effectual, then why can't I decide that circumstance B makes your right non effectual? If you feel like the 'greater good' means you can violate my right to property, then why can't I violate your right to life, for some equally silly reason? Degrees make no difference. Once a right is violated, even a little, it is worthless. If you own 5% of my life and that is moral, then why can't you own 6% of my life? Why not 7% or 25% or 75%, or all of my life for that matter. I either own all of my life, or I do not own it at all.

At last we come to the real reason why most people don't identify why slavery is evil. Because if they consciously identified it, then they would know that so much else of what they have accepted as good is also evil by the same exact reason that condemns slavery! They would have to either change their whole mindset, reject former conclusions, give up pet theories, let go of favorable (to them) government programs, and in short: let the slaves go free. Unfortunately many people are not willing to be that honest with themselves. They are content not to know, then they don't have to make any of the painful mental connections. This is why people delude themselves with alternative explanations. If slavery was wrong because of racism, violence, strong vs weak, etc., then there is no threat to their progressive ideas which eschew such things.

Others are willing to know the truth, but ignore the contradictions that this creates with their other beliefs. They are willing to say that a sixteenth century white Georgian man who owned slaves was evil because he violated men's' right to life, but a twenty first century politician who violates a businessman's right to his life is perfectly justified. But they are wrong. Slavery is evil, whether practiced fully in the open as in the 1700s, or piecemeal, partially, through diverse routes, and programs as today. The only remedy is to let men live. Let men own their own life. Let every man relinquish any and all claims they think they may have on their fellow men, and in so doing set themselves and everyone free.