On slavery and ethics
05.20.2003A few nights ago, in a discussion on ethics, I brought up the example of slavery. Essentially, I argued that slavery is immoral now and always has been. That is, our perception of what is ethical and moral change over time, but that doesn't make things we find repugnant today ethical in a time when it was socially acceptable.
The reason misogyny, racism, serfdom, and such are broadly repudiated now (and rightly so!) is not because attitudes have changed — as if ethics were a matter of aesthetic taste — but rather because we've learned that these things are immoral.
We also don't oppose these things because of their rationalization. Slavery is not wrong because Southern whites used (false) Christianity to rationalize the institution. As if slavery was no less an immoral practice of the ancient Egyptians or Greeks or modern day Angola.
The point of my argument was that ethics can be dictated by objective rational standards. Slavery — like other such social institutions — is immoral because it violates the ethics that would exist in a rational society. Namely, the preservation of life — both individual and communal — and the tools for preserving life, namely the right to the product of one's labor.
So. What is slavery and why is it morally objectionable? Slavery is the forced extraction of another person's labor w/o compensation. In other words, slavery is theft. It's systematic theft perpetrated under the guise of law — theft institutionalized. Thus, serfdom is also a form of slavery. Even if the landlord doesn't technically "own" the serf, and even if the serf retains some personal property, serfdom is institutionalized theft because it extracts the serf's labor w/o full compensation. A sweatshop is also a form of "wage" slavery if the pay doesn't adequately compensate for a worker's labor and especially if the worker's compelled to work there due to intimidation or systematic withdrawal of competitive options. A thief that steals only my wallet is no less a thief than the one that also steals my car.
We've come to accept that slavery is wrong because we recognize that a person's right to their property — to the product of their labor — is absolute. Neither government nor society has the right to seize a person's property (including their labor) w/o their full consent.
It comes down to this. If you were stranded on a desert island, you'd be forced to find a way to survive. No amount of wailing about your right to shelter, food, clothing will supply them for you. You have to do for yourself. Or you die. It's that simple.
Now imagine that there are two people on the desert island. How does the situation change? If person A choses to swim and tan every day while person B gathers food, what right does A have to B's food? And if A refuses, does B have a right to use force? To demand that B continue to gather food, build a shelter, and provide for A's needs or face death? Under what principle?
We may implore a rich man to help the poor. We may even think that he should help the poor. We may appeal to his reason, his emotion, his self-interest, his religion, his goodwill. We may do all this. But we cannot take his money to give to the poor by force. Likewise, we can implore a poor man to work for very little money. And we may appeal to his patriotism, his sense of duty, his religion. But we cannot force him to accept the salary we choose. That's why we have unions and the right to strike.
Posted by Miguel at 09:57 PM
Comments
Questions:
1. Do you speak only of chattel slavery and serfdom? Can "adequate compensation" ever be food and shelter?
2. What of indentured servitude? How about unpaid internships?
3. Whither taxation? Is this forced extraction compensated for in full? Should a government maintain a monopoly on forced coercion?
3a. What do you mean by "full consent?" As in you have consented to the laws of a state by occupying it?
4. What determines "adequate compensation?" An unfettered marketplace?
5. What of the spoils of war? Historically this is how private armies were largely funded, and the tradition sort of continues today in the awarding of government contracts.
Posted by: Boston Strangler at May 21, 2003 04:55 AM
Ok, to answer your questions:
If you read the whole thing, you'd notice that I don't think just food and shelter is adequate compensation. I included sweatshops in my list of things that might fall under "slavery" (taking another's product of labor w/o just compensation).
Indentured servitude is probably also a form of slavery. Although, in theory, it was supposed to be for a set amount of time meant to pay for the voyage to the colonies. As for unpaid internships, I've never liked them, but that's up to you to decide if its "slavery" or not. Compensation can also include contacts made and other incentives. But. The key is that it's up to YOU. No one can force you to work in an unpaid internship. That's the key.
I think much of taxation is a form of theft if you don't have the right to determine how to spend your money. Imagine if my tax form included a set of instructions I sent the government dictating that I wanted my money spend on programs A, B, and C but not X, Y, Z.
As for states and their monopoly on means of coercion. That's a problem, of course. But it can be superseded if there is adequate democratic control, in which case the states mechanisms of coercion become only tools for our self-defense (from crime, from invasion). But in abstract principle, the government has the guns, they collect taxes, if we don't pay we go to jail -- that's a form of theft, sure.
The issue of democratic consent is a thorny one. I don't think that you necessarily gave consent to a state just by occupying it. There have to be mechanisms that allow you to express your preferences. Of course, it's a common mistake to assume that if a state doesn't abide by YOUR preferences, then the state's not democratic. Not true. Sometimes other people's preferences win out. The only thing that matters is that you can't be deprived of your "live, liberty, or property" w/o "due process" -- which, to me, means full consent. I may consent to live under this government; that doesn't transfer my consent to any and all its actions.
Adequate compensation is defined by the individual. If I think the product of my labor's worth X and the market won't pay me X, then I have the right to withhold my labor from the market. That's my right. I do NOT, however, have the right to use force to dictate what the price of my labor will be.
As to spoils of war. I agree, spoils of war are theft. And you'll notice that most civilized armies don't do that (or at least try). After WW2, we tried to return the stolen art and such to its rightful owners and we even paid for the reconstruction of our enemies (we certainly didn't ask for reparations). As for the famed military-industrial complex. This is a perfect example of theft and racketeering. When governments give preferential treatment to corporations (or entire industries, like steel for example) then prices (both for workers and consumers) are not set independently and, rather, at the point of a gun (since the state has a monopoly on the means of coercion).
Posted by: miguel at May 21, 2003 12:52 PM
Well, you have another post above this one that I have not read yet, but, I would like to mention a thing or two.
As to the whole choosing how your taxes are spent I think that the idea is a lot like the proposal of Communism: It seems like a good idea on paper.
I think if people could choose where their taxes went, the military, senate, and NASA would probably disappear and the NEA would have milehigh billboards over the 58 lane superhighways clogged with firengine traffic.
In agreement, I want to add to your statements saying, Communism is slavery. You don't own your property or the right to choose if you want to work or not. Sorry that sentence sucked, but I will not revise it since I want to get to your newer post.
Posted by: Micah at May 22, 2003 01:44 AM
Oh, yeah, I agree. Soviet Communism (like all totalitarian systems) is indeed a form of institutionalized slavery. I hope I didn't make it sound like I thought otherwise.
And I'm sure the "choose where your taxes go" might not really ever work. But I think it'd be a great principle.
Posted by: miguel at May 22, 2003 01:51 AM
Great post. I can also think of another example of how attitudes have changed over time for the better: Nazi Germany. The genocide of the Jews was accepted during that time, much like slavery was an accepted practice throughout time in different parts of the world. Since the masses agreed with everything that was said, such horrors became the social norm. One can also see this today in the treatment of women in third world coutnries. Their treatment isn't right, but it is what's considered okay by their cultural standards. I'm sure within time their ideas will change. Gloria Steinem put it best, "social change is like a house, you have to start from the foundation and build up."
Posted by: Kara at May 22, 2003 04:27 PM