@inhuman Yuki is correct, slavery by itself isn't evil and has never historically been evil. It's also not a single thing and people who think that slavery only means X or Y don't understand the fundamental concept of what slavery is. By many historical definitions, slavery would include anyone who isn't self-employed or holds debt of any kind. By our current standards, forced prositition, service in the army and prison are all considered forms of slavery since your body is not your own. To claim that "slavery is bad" is to fundamentally fail to understand what slavery is. The version of slavery IN YOUR HEAD or perhaps during a certain point in history in a certain place in the world (like chattel slavery) might be bad and we can call out those evil deeds individually for what they are.
Comment by Prinzinc on inhuman
2 Replies
@Prinzinc This argument relies on redefining slavery so broadly that the word loses all meaning. If “slavery” includes employment, debt, prison, and military service, then the term no longer describes a specific system — it just becomes a rhetorical weapon.
Historically and legally, slavery is defined by one core element: the ownership of a human being as property, with the denial of freedom enforced by coercion and violence. Not “owing money,” not “having obligations,” not “being subject to law.”
Comparing slavery to employment or voluntary service is a false equivalence. An employee can leave. A citizen can contest the law. A slave cannot — because their body and labor are owned by someone else.
Yes, forced prostitution and certain prison practices can be described as slavery-like — precisely because they involve coercion and loss of autonomy. That doesn’t make slavery morally neutral; it proves the opposite.
Saying slavery “has never been historically evil” ignores the reality that it has always depended on violence, dehumanization, and exploitation of the vulnerable. Calling specific versions bad while defending the system itself is contradictory.
Expanding definitions to avoid moral judgment isn’t intellectual clarity — it’s moral evasion.
Historically and legally, slavery is defined by one core element: the ownership of a human being as property, with the denial of freedom enforced by coercion and violence. Not “owing money,” not “having obligations,” not “being subject to law.”
Comparing slavery to employment or voluntary service is a false equivalence. An employee can leave. A citizen can contest the law. A slave cannot — because their body and labor are owned by someone else.
Yes, forced prostitution and certain prison practices can be described as slavery-like — precisely because they involve coercion and loss of autonomy. That doesn’t make slavery morally neutral; it proves the opposite.
Saying slavery “has never been historically evil” ignores the reality that it has always depended on violence, dehumanization, and exploitation of the vulnerable. Calling specific versions bad while defending the system itself is contradictory.
Expanding definitions to avoid moral judgment isn’t intellectual clarity — it’s moral evasion.
@Prinzinc did not mean to dislike, my fault i was trying to find the follow up comment