Hacker News Reader

It's not exclusively some modern invention to be against slavery. There were people during the era of chattel slavery who thought of slavery as wrong too. Lots and lots of them. Almost 100% of the African-American population, for example...

> Almost 100% of the African-American population

Well, no. Africans (before they were captured and sold to the Dutch slave traders) had slaves. A lot of Africans were sold into slavery by other Africans, the ones they lost tribal wars to. Slavery was very well known in Africa, just as it was everywhere else in the world basically from the moment civilization was created.

Like most things, people were ok with it happening to others and only had an issue when it happened to them.

The idea that all slavery is wrong is a far more modern idea. Unlike the OP I do not present that as a bad thing.

"African-Americans" as a group doesn't actually include those Africans who never ended up in the US, so your response seems kind of irrelevant.

Thank you for the answer.

  Like most things, people were ok with it happening to others and only had an issue when it happened to them.

Bravo! People today will say that slaves were in pain and suffering. Their masters knew that.

  The idea that all slavery is wrong is a far more modern idea.

Yes. People today are like those parrots - just repeating what everyone around them believes. It's like a religion. Religion people adopt is heavily influenced by parents and environment, not critical thinking. That's why I wrote people who are against slavery are not critical thinkers and introspective.

  Unlike the OP I do not present that as a bad thing.

I do not think of human slavery as good or bad. I am NEUTRAL about it. I don't think that anything is inherently right or wrong. When people use those terms, they are expressing their personal feeling, not objective feature of the world.

A runaway domesticated animal may stand a significantly higher risk of injury than its wild brethren.

Domesticated animals also so often have a much higher standard of living than in the wild; it is hard to argue that an owned animal is deprived as much as an owned human.

  A runaway domesticated animal may stand a significantly higher risk of injury than its wild brethren.

I'm talking about what's happening before the escape has happened. Why is domestication(slavery) allowed in the first place?

  Domesticated animals also so often have a much higher standard of living than in the wild;

Slaves in USA had higher standard of living than if they had stayed in Africa.

  it is hard to argue that an owned animal is deprived as much as an owned human.

How is a enslaved human more depraved than a horse? They both are under control of their master and get basics to survive. The difference between them is that horse and human are a different species. In terms of deprivation, it's about the same.

Did you just put evil in quotation marks when referring to human slavery?

No, I put 'Coca Cola'... Can you read?

How edgy to you have to be to try and argue about the morality behind slavery.

When you prove that animals are self aware and conscious to the level of humans you can start to try and make half of this point but you're taking it way too far with this whole energy molecules thing.

What's next, comparing the Holocaust to fish farms?

>What's next, comparing the Holocaust to fish farms?

Way ahead of you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights_and_the_Holocaus...

Several writers, including Jewish Nobel Prize laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer, and animal rights groups have drawn a comparison between the treatment of animals and the Holocaust

  "How edgy to you have to be to try and argue about the morality behind slavery."

How brainwashed do you have to be to mimic the beliefs of people around you?

  "When you prove that animals are self aware and conscious to the level of humans you can start to try and make half of this point"

What do vague labels like 'conscious' and 'self-aware' have to do with slavery?

  "...but you're taking it way too far with this whole energy molecules thing."

Are members of homo sapiens species not clusters of elementary particles? Have you studies physics or chemistry at all?

  "What's next, comparing the Holocaust to fish farms?"

Absolutely. Why is it fine to enslave bio-chemical processes known as 'fish', but not okay to enslave 'humans'? Is it objectively wrong to enslave members of homo sapiens species? If aliens came to Earth and used humans the same way humans use fish, what would be wrong with that?

It's either disingenuous or just plain ignorant to set the bar at objectively wrong, or to imply that everyone thinks it's fine to have pets/eat animals, or that aliens would follow our ethical guidelines. Neither moral universalism nor realism have a dominance in the philosophy of ethics, and even then I highly doubt that those that do actually support those positions do so because of any argument involving being a cluster of elementary particles.

It's like you worked out that the intuitive emotional response that most people use for their moral compass isn't exactly well thought out, googled some phrase sceptical of ethics as a whole, found nihilism, potentially with a detour through scientism, and then burrowed down that rabbit hole without considering any other established school of thought.

You're not going to learn anything, nor teach anyone anything, by asking a bunch of silly comparison questions in a tech forum. Any response short enough for anybody to bother writing is going to need to take a whole bunch of premises as givens and rely on definitions for words you don't agree with. It'll just keep leading to chains of posts like this where you just keep asking stupid comparison questions like you're some form of internet Socrates, and being pleased when people don't reply adequately/at all because you're the one with the negative claim and consider anything other than a full argument from them as a default win for yourself.

He's thinking philosophically, not politically (trying to influence people). We should be quite free to think and discuss things in an objective way without having to continuously show that we agree with contemporary morals.

It might turn out that such a line of reasoning leads to the useless conclusion of "nothing is wrong" but it's certainly worth trying nonetheless. What we do know is that our current set of morals is somewhat arbitrary and could easily be full of "evil" things that make us no better than slaver owners. We just don't know because everyone agrees with us.

>He's thinking philosophically

He's not thinking, he's typing. What he's typing is not a stream of consciousness nor shared with only himself, so he's obviously looking for some form of discussion (whether that's primarily because he wants to influence others is hard to say). However he's doing it while being combative and insulting. If that's what he wants then I'm here to provide.

>We should be quite free to think and discuss things in an objective way without having to continuously show that we agree with contemporary morals.

I agree completely however taking up this cause in the comment section of a tech forum, without putting any substantial argument down first, and then resorting to calling people brainwashed is a poor way to go about it. In fact by doing so that seems to be him saying he not only doesn't agree with contemporary morals but looks down on those that do.

>What we do know is that our current set of morals is somewhat arbitrary and could easily be full of "evil" things that make us no better than slaver owners.

I acknowledged in the post you're replying to that the conventional source of morality is intuitive emotion not well thought out concepts.

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the HN guidelines.

Upvoted for the philosophical discussion, not because I agree.

What do you disagree with?

The premise that non human animals can have rights.