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.

Ignoring cause and effect

There is a series of passages in Atlas Shrugged that I always thought I understood, but only recently have I been able to take their meaning and apply it to something in real life. The passages are those that describe Dagny's first ball, as well as the party at the Reardens' house. Dagny was surprised to discover that no one at the ball was really enjoying themselves. She noted that everyone seemed to expect the lights, decorations, dresses, etc. at the ball to give some sort of special meaning to the occasion that otherwise was not there. It was as if the people were not happy, but somehow expected the setting to make them so. She realized that only those people who have done anything truly worth celebrating can really enjoy a celebration. The people at the ball were not there to celebrate their lives and their love of it, but rather to somehow absorb some form of enjoyment through going through the motions of celebrating. As if their doing that which happy men of self esteem do would give them self esteem. Ayn Rand has identified this as one instance of a larger more common error that people make: ignoring the law of cause and effect. In this case happiness and the ability to celebrate are the effect, self esteem is the cause. The people at Dagny's ball were attempting to gain the effect without the necessary cause. It of course doesn't work and that is why she notices that they are so unhappy.

I have recently made a connection between the principle discussed above and every day life. I think it is worth exploring; not only to further concretize the principle for myself, but also because I think it is just interesting. The effect that people want to fake is sexual enjoyment. By this I don't mean only the physical feelings involved. Anyone can experience those. Sadly however, for many people that is as far as enjoying sex goes, just physical sensations. But there is so much more that can be emotionally enjoyed about sex. But the enjoyment is an effect, not a cause. Without the cause one cannot have the effect. People who desire to have the effect but don't want to be bothered with the causes think that going through the motions will somehow provide for them what they seek. It is just like the people at Dagny's ball who expected the party to provide them with worth, not their worth making the party truly enjoyable.

So if sexual enjoyment is the effect what is the cause? This, I think has many aspects that contribute to it but to name the one I feel is dominant: the cause is an inviolate metaphysical love of life. By this I mean that one has to love one's own life. Of course everyone does love their life to some extent, but they have also accepted so many other contradictory premises that this love is suppressed and not allowed to manifest itself. For example the dominant ethics of altruism teaches people that it is wrong to love ones self above others. People are taught that self love is selfish (which it is, but not in the bad way that altruists imply) and that loving everyone else indiscriminately is the only moral course. Acceptance of this doctrine effectively cuts oneself off from ones sense of loving life, letting it surface only occasionally, and then only to produce guilt in oneself for being 'selfish.' Is it any wonder that people who are cut off from their love of life cannot enjoy the one act that is the physical manifestation of that love? Sex is the physical act that lets one express and live that deep sense of loving life. Without that sense it it just an empty shell, a set of sensations, an animal pleasure.

To give a more narrow example of what I mean: Why do people buy lingerie? There may be many reasons, but a dominant one is just because they think they are supposed to. Girls know that when they get married they are supposed to get some lingerie. But why? Well... because their husband will like it. Why will he like it, and why is that important? BLANK OUT. Most new brides would have no answer to those last questions. People know that they are supposed to somehow enjoy sex, and they think that somehow lingerie will help them in this. Why, well it works for other people doesn't it? The lingerie is like the lights and decorations at the ball, they can serve to make the occasion very nice for those who can celebrate, but for those who have nothing to celebrate they can do nothing. But just as those unhappy people have balls in the hopes that the lights and decorations will make them happy, some couples think that lingerie will help them to be sexy and enjoy sex. How? Somehow.

In truth lingerie does serve a purpose and can greatly enhance sexual enjoyment, but only if the cause, love of life, is there. Without that it is just a waste. The law of cause and effect cannot be ignored.

You can even see this principle manifest physically in the manner in which the lingerie is used. Usually those people who lack the cause of sexual enjoyment will just put the lingerie on and wait to see what happens. A scenario may go like this:
"Wanna have sex?"
"Yeah sure."
"Want me to put lingerie on?"
"O.k."
"Which one?"
"Oh I don't know, which ever."
She goes and puts it on an comes back to bed. She gets under the covers and lays there. He finally musters the interest to go through the motions, and the rest is history. Eventually even this less than thrilling scene begins to happen less and less until the lingerie only comes out on 'special' occasions. And maybe not even then. Why? Well even the most self deluded people can't help but notice that the lingerie is a waste of time, with neither party really enjoying it that much. They eventually drop the pretense, wondering what the big deal was all about. The sad part is that it didn't have to be that way.