@inhuman
"Referencing ancient texts doesn’t establish moral neutrality — it only shows that slavery existed. Description is not justification. Many historical systems were common, entrenched, and still ethically wrong."
That's not the only thing I did though. I showed that taxation was a form of original slavery and thus if we currently accept taxation as not being inherently morally evil, than slavery by itself is not inherently a moral evil either. Once again, you have to make a moral claim regarding the specific type of slavery to call it moral or immoral.
"Blurring servants, debtors, prisoners, and slaves into one category doesn’t clarify the concept — it dilutes it."
I gave you historical evidence for my claim and you have given me no evidence for yours. A concept might be more diluted than you prefer because it's not what you choose to believe but that doesn't make it wrong. I agree that diluting a term is often a tactic used by people to win arguments who want to change the definition to fit their bias but in this case it's both true to history and you haven't offered me any competing evidence of your claim or your definition.
"Your final definition actually confirms the issue: ownership of a person — partial or total — is precisely what makes slavery unethical."
Not at all. It is not unethical to control your children, it is in fact unethetical to NOT control your children. It is not unethical to collect taxes nor to use a credit card or to employ people under you. These are all historical versions of slavery, defined as slavery and just because you dislike the word "slavery" and you have a very specific version of slavery in your mind doesn't mean that slavery as a concept in history is inherently immoral. Only the actions taken inside of slavery are moral or immoral.
"Referencing ancient texts doesn’t establish moral neutrality — it only shows that slavery existed. Description is not justification. Many historical systems were common, entrenched, and still ethically wrong."
That's not the only thing I did though. I showed that taxation was a form of original slavery and thus if we currently accept taxation as not being inherently morally evil, than slavery by itself is not inherently a moral evil either. Once again, you have to make a moral claim regarding the specific type of slavery to call it moral or immoral.
"Blurring servants, debtors, prisoners, and slaves into one category doesn’t clarify the concept — it dilutes it."
I gave you historical evidence for my claim and you have given me no evidence for yours. A concept might be more diluted than you prefer because it's not what you choose to believe but that doesn't make it wrong. I agree that diluting a term is often a tactic used by people to win arguments who want to change the definition to fit their bias but in this case it's both true to history and you haven't offered me any competing evidence of your claim or your definition.
"Your final definition actually confirms the issue: ownership of a person — partial or total — is precisely what makes slavery unethical."
Not at all. It is not unethical to control your children, it is in fact unethetical to NOT control your children. It is not unethical to collect taxes nor to use a credit card or to employ people under you. These are all historical versions of slavery, defined as slavery and just because you dislike the word "slavery" and you have a very specific version of slavery in your mind doesn't mean that slavery as a concept in history is inherently immoral. Only the actions taken inside of slavery are moral or immoral.
