We don't think about it.
How do we justify letting refugees die on sinking ships in the Mediterranean sea, or on the shores of Europe, including young children?
We don't think about it.
How do we justify bombing civilians, hospitals, wedding parties in remote countries we're not even at war with?
We don't think about it.
It's easy, really. The only thing easier than this, is thinking we're morally superior to the Romans, or to modern slave owners, because we don't "own slaves".
We're not (I'm not vegan btw, and do nothing to stop wars or help refugees). We're worse in many respects.
However, even still, most vegetarians are relatively apologetic about their diet, and definitely consider it unacceptable to enforce it on others, or even to preach. They're essentially entirely accepting of this system of mass torture and killing - and most people will even consider that description of this system to be hyperbole, because it's the status quo.
Or, alternatively, because they disagree with you.
Personally I disagree with that point of view, but it's a relatively common one and I do believe it should be acknowledged.
IMHO this is just a really common form of cognitive dissonance, and that internal discomfort comes out as aggressive dismissal in a lot of people.
Keeping a pet dog would also be "kidnapping and slavery" if done to a human, never mind castrating the dog. But few vegans will think twice about it.
(Heck, "domesticating" dogs and cats would be a total crime of "breaking down" and ethnocide if it was done to humans, akin to what Bolson did to Greyjoy in GoT).
So, one can disagree that what we shouldn't do to humans we shouldn't do to animals also -- especially when its about feeding ourselves.
Not to mention that animals kill and eat other animals all the time.
Heck, even the lowly spiders eat much more (in mass) than we do.
The "kidnapping" point on dogs can be applied to people with intellectual disabilities, mental problems, the elderly, children admitted to state care, heck children in general in many many contexts. "Slavery" is even more easily analogised: even excepting volunteerism, the incarcerated, and unpaid internships, bed-and-board remuneration is the actual closest equivalent. And if you've ever worked with a working dog, you'll be hard pressed to argue they're unwilling. Much happier and more willing to work than most humans tbh.
Castration opens up huge cans of worms. Human overpopulation is a very serious problem but the idea of even dissuading reproduction is completely taboo in our society.
The last point is the most cliché and least interesting. Animals kill and eat eachother because they need to: massive physiological differences result in different nutritional requirements, or simply scarcity in the wild. Even so, it's rare (though not unheard of) to see animals involved in the systematic internment and subjugation to extreme suffering of other species.
Only dogs don't have "intellectual disabilities, mental problems" etc. They are perfectly fine to function if let in nature.
>And if you've ever worked with a working dog, you'll be hard pressed to argue they're unwilling. Much happier and more willing to work than most humans tbh.
That's because they've been domesticated and/or conditioned from a small age (living with a human, in an apartment et al). They wouldn't "volunteer" to work otherwise.
>The last point is the most cliché and least interesting. Animals kill and eat each other because they need to: massive physiological differences result in different nutritional requirements, or simply scarcity in the wild.
No, they also do it for fun. Ever watched a cat play with its catch (and then not eat it)?
The greater point is that one can be too ethical for their own good. What's next? The rights of mosquitos?
Not really. Domesticated dogs are quite reliant on us.
> That's because they've been domesticated and/or conditioned from a small age (living with a human, in an apartment et al). They wouldn't "volunteer" to work otherwise.
You're right that it's due to domestication, but it's more innate than you make out. It's instinctive, breeds having been conditioned over countless generations.
> they also do it for fun
True, which I mentioned in my next sentence.
To be clear, I'm not making out that it's wrong to kill animals. I'm not a vegan either. But I think discussing these questions is extremely worthwhile.
> The greater point is that one can be too ethical for their own good. What's next? The rights of mosquitos?
Why not? There's been quite a lot of discussion of this on HN in the context of malarial vectors, with many advocating wiping the species out completely and others rebutting with points on previous disastrous examples of human interference in eco systems. There's very interesting research into actually using mosquitos to combat malarial spread.
You could go further and talk about the rights of protozoa. Why not plants. The further you go, the more bombastically ridiculous the conversation seems to get for some (e.g. those holding to the belief that all killing is wrong) but the more interesting it can be for others. For example, if you look at it from the perspective of minimising - rather than eliminating - harm, it becomes an issue of general environmental conservation, and the stereotypical motivations of animal-rights-motivated vs eco-motivated vegans could almost be combined harmonically.
My statement is indisputably factual, the only subjective element is whether you believe that system is justifiable.
I'm all for more advocacy for those involved in meat production who are adhering to a stricter standard of quality and ethics, but there mere existence doesn't negate the overall dreadful impact of the meat industry as a whole on animal welfare.
The only subjective aspect is whether you believe that's a worthy trade-off, but you can't argue that it isn't happening.
>My statement is indisputably factual, the only subjective element is whether you believe that system is justifiable.
That sure sounds to me like it's universal. Which is why I responded the way I did. I'm not arguing that's everything is totally good. But your statement reads as everything is universally bad. Which isn't factually correct, as you've admitted.
Ultimately yes there's a lot of bad stuff going on in the system. But if you only buy animals that were humanely treated it's pretty easy to sleep at night.
For bombings yes, but for eating animals that's not the case. Modern city dwelling folks might not "think about it", but for millenia people not only knew all about it, but also do it themselves, with their bare hands, skinning the animal and all, with no problems.
In rural places they still do it, including where the majority of the world's population lives.
For one, it was horrible. The pig, which is quite big an animal, had to be caught in its den by three people. Then it was attached to a wooden ladder with rope, all the while shouting and crying, very much like a person.
And then its throat was cut open with a big knife and it was let to bleed in a big steel bucket, still crying and shouting.
I wasn't allowed to watch but managed to hide and do it anyway (and even if I hadn't been close I would have heard the noise from afar).
People were sad and hated doing it; they actually postponed the deed every day for a week because they liked the pig in question.
Today we see nothing and so it's much easier for us to completely forget about it; farm people were much more involved and cared a lot more.
I'd procrastinate it too, just like mucking out stalls: becuase it's messy and work, not because of moral qualms.
Maybe people used to enjoy a a more symbiotic relationship with their livestock / prey which doesn't exist now with advent of factory farming, it's just pure exploitation and obviously. I'm sure not everyone in the middle ages or ancient hunter gathered societies would've been fine with that.
Also, the world's population doesn't live in rural areas according to the UN: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-...
The same reason the profession of a "Mechanic" exists, specialization allows for greater efficiency.
I occasionally do final trimming on cuts of meat for my family, deboning chicken breast or cutting down a steak or tri-tip. But I'm not quick or efficient at it, so better to let someone else do that and pay them for the service.
Same with doing maintenance and repair work on my family's cars. As I've gotten older and made more money at my specialized profession, I'm shifting from doing all my own car work to paying someone else to do it.
Because comparative advantage and the economic benefits of trade and return on specialization exist on the individual level as well as the national level.
Which is also pretty much also a big reason why human societies exist.
Familiarity with history and humans? Being from a rural area myself, and having seen tons of people (including my grandparents) do it, and having travelled all around the world?
Really, you'll contest that the majority of people killed and ate animals themselves (without some specialist to package them for them) for most of recorded history and still do in tons of places?
>Why does the profession of a "Butcher" exist?
For the same reason that the profession of a cook exists, even though people cook themselves all the time too, and used to cook even more so back in the day.
As with tons of other professions, because cities and towns first and foremost.
Note that the "profession of a butcher" in most rural areas around the world either didn't exist at all as something specialized, or was a place one rarely visited, and only if they didn't have land and/or animals of their own.
Because almost everybody (and surely many more than actual framers, cattle raisers etc) had their own animals, for eggs and wool and occasionally (as it was quite expensive and a treat) meat, not everybody did.
>How about Hindu's, Buddhists etc?
These have sacred animals (and some of them, not all), or religious diets. Those have existed since forever (also fasting certain foods for certain times).
But since you've asked:
A vast majority of Indians ate meat regularly and meat eating was never prohibited in ancient India. Certain sections of society and some ascetic traditions practiced vegetarianism both for religious and spiritual purposes, but it is not true that they constituted the majority.
Meat-eating is strictly prohibited in Jainism, whereas it is conditionally allowed in Hinduism and Buddhism. In all three religions, the rules regarding meat eating are established according to their beliefs regarding karma and virtue such as nonviolence and compassion
Hindu law books prescribe rules for meat eating for the four castes and specify which type of meat is allowed for human consumption and under what circumstances. Buddhist texts also lay down rules for meat eating by the monks.
However, as time went by, meat-eating became a more restrictive practice in both Hinduism and Buddhism. Presently, vegetarianism is a fashion and a vanity among the elite and the middle class Hindus. They may not perform sacrifices, worship gods, or practice virtues such as honesty, compassion towards fellow human beings, charity, etc., but would make sure that everyone knows about their preference for vegetarian food because it is the current trend and gives them an aura of superiority in a community that has taken to the filmy practices of pseudo culture and hybrid lifestyles.
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/concepts/meat-eating.as...
Slaughter is outsourced for the same reason people pay nurses to change their sick, elderly parents diapers, it's not a pleasant task. Efficiency might be one reason, but there is more too it.
If you do your research, you will find that in a lot of cultures, taking an animals life was not considered a trivial thing, it had to be done properly, by skilled hunters or butchers, with respect and in some cases, a prayer would have to accompany the task. Take Halal for example.
I've also done quite a bit of travelling and my family also have an agricultural background, so I'm not totally ignorant to the processes and attitudes discussed.
That statement "without problems" only meant "people did it without qualms". It is/was just what you do. And millions upon millions still do it.
I didn't mean that it wasn't messy or physically demanding (especially for puny city dwellers, for the average farmer person it's really not much of a deal) and that people wouldn't want to pay to have someone else do it.
The example I gave of cooks captures exactly that. It's not that the cook does it better than cooking your own (and especially not on places like McDonalds), or that people have any psychological distress doing it, it's just that it's faster, more convenient, more specialized, and allows them to do other stuff with their time (opportunity cost).
Of course for someone that has never experienced having animals around, and his parents and relatives hunting and killing them, etc, it's like killing Bambi. Because essentially for those city/suburban kids their exposure to nature is Disney-like or through the families pets. But in general, It being a "psychologically distressing job" was never much of an issue through history, until people strayed off farm/natural life.
>If you do your research, you will find that in a lot of cultures, taking an animals life was not considered a trivial thing, it had to be done properly, by skilled hunters or butchers, with respect and in some cases, a prayer would have to accompany the task. Take Halal for example.
That's because when those traditions started getting food was difficult and meant to be valued as a "god given fortune" -- they way christians were supposed to pray for their every meal too to god who provided it), and some hygeinic practices were also thrown in as "religious texts" too. Not because they had second thoughts about killing an animal. They were not meant to appease the animal, but the gods. And some of those ritualistic preparations of food are more gory than just cleaning it up and being done with it. Halal slaughter is not by any means pretty., and it also encodes the draining one should do of the blood, not eating dead carcasses and other sanitary precautions in the context of religious law (the same way the 10 commandments are more about a community getting along).
Well, yes and no. People have always eaten meat of course, but the amount of meat per person exploded after WWII. Meat used to be a treat ("kill the fatted calf") that one indulged in maybe twice a week if you were well off.
Now we eat meat or other animal products twice a day, every single day of our lives (which is bad for us btw). It's a scam perpetrated by the meat industry.
My point is, the article in reference, seems to be amazed that people could own slaves and live with themselves; but we do much worse than own slaves, and live with ourselves pretty well, so maybe we should start wondering about ourselves first.
> I am glad to learn, through those who come from you, that you live on friendly terms with your slaves. This befits a sensible and well-educated man like yourself. "They are slaves," people declare. Nay, rather they are men. [1]
They are men. Nothing more to say.
[1] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Let...
I wonder what other things we're not seeing.
I'm a 10,000 BC chieftain. My village of Hutsville is within raiding distance of the northern village of Teepeetown. Teepeetown just a my neighbor of mine. I've never really liked or disliked Teepeetown, as I don't really know them. But I am sure thinking about them now. I'm going to raid Teepeetown before they raid my Hutsville. Whether I like raiding or not, if I don't do the raiding, I'm gonna get raided. Civilization is too hard right now, and someone bigger and stronger than myself will have to figure out how to make that happen.
Fast forward to 500-ish BC. My city state of Rome is within raiding distance of...
Also, life is absolute. The amount of people who are unjustly prevented from living their life is an absolute number, as a percentage of the population.
So I guess I don't really see your point. Do you disagree with any of the above?
Can you explain how this is objectively true? How would we reason a Martian, a Roman, or an Aztec into believing this is morally correct?
We believe it because it is absolutely true in our moral system, which is not some grand system arrived at by reason alone, but by changing social norms and mores - fashions, basically.
To some degree, 'morality' is based in genetics, human being social animals - we all mostly start out with some broad in-group altruism. But the expression given to this varies wildly throughout human societies - people have believed it was perfectly moral, good, and correct to sacrifice slaves to the sun god, and other people have believed that all humans are equal. Neither one of these are objectively correct in any meaningful sense, although I much prefer living in the latter system. But of course, I would say that, being inundated from birth.
> The amount of people who are unjustly prevented from living their life is an absolute number, as a percentage of the population.
The idea that people can be unjustly prevented from living their life is, itself, a moral judgement.
Being a slave means that your masters consider your life to be less valuable than theirs. So even though you're a human being, they deny you rights and treat you like a lower form of life. This is what I meant by unjust suffering, perhaps I phrased it wrong, but my point was that it's simple math. Is this life form a human being? Are they well intentioned? Do you prevent them from leaving or harm them regardless of their good intentions? Does your society condone your actions? If so, morally speaking, you're living in an objectively worse society. You're doing harm to someone of your own species who doesn't wish harm on you.
The same can be said in our society about criminals or the poor. Not universally, but slaves were not universally seen as "lower forms of life" either.
> Is this life form a human being? Are they well intentioned?
The use of "well intentioned" here is a catch-all for being able to say "anyone who does not follow my moral framework may be subjected to the punishments of my moral framework." It is equally capable of condemning the well-intentioned thief stealing food (or money for food) to live, with no ill will but no belief in other opportunities for getting by, and also the well-intentioned parents who refuse medical treatment to a dying child due to the belief in their religion that God will heal the child without the corrupt manipulations of the material world. There is no objectivity here.
Same for respect for life; we seem to be quite indifferent to the victims of our bombs, while we mourn the loss of one soldier (this has been going on forever, but hasn't changed in recent times).
Also, our "way of life" is built on the massacre of trillions of animals, many of which mammals who have feelings very similar to ours; being indifferent to their suffering and death is not an absolute value, nor is it "better" than the opposite.
The US is not a paragon of racial or gender equality (not is any other modern Western society, for that matter), but it is not demonstrably worse than Ancient Rome.
Our common perceptions of Roman history are shaped heavily by romanticized contemporary depictions which downplay the exteme aspects of their culture (except in a few cases so as to exoticize it).
Just with the difference that people usually don't get killed on the arena, and the subject being some kind of martial arts instead of reproducing past battles.
The contestants are there of their own free will and the sports are actually pretty safe.
You might as well claim that all physical sports are in the same camp as slavery, because its physical competition and people get hurt sometimes.
We still have trophy hunters today, who hunt not for food or sustenance, but for a pelt or a tusk.
> are actually pretty safe
We used to think that Boxing and Football were "pretty safe" as well. Then we learned how much impact things like concussions have on a person's life. I can't really imagine that MMA is that much safer when I see people repeatedly being choked out, having joints nearly separated, getting knocked out...
Agree on football and boxing, not a fan of either. As for MMA the jury is still out but I hardly think equating it with slavery makes sense because you "can't imagine" it's safe, even though you don't have the data. I mean, comparing that to literally owning another human?
All sports have physical risk, even solo sports. Does that mean that when I go rock climbing, I might as well be owning slaves or torturing animals?
So were most gladiators, it was a an actual job for many of them, not everything was like on Hollywood movies.
People should read more old actual sources of information and watch less movies.
As for being safe, tell that to the ones that have spoiled their future thanks to major injures to member or head concussions.
As to your claim that modern combat sports aren't safe because some athletes have suffered injury, I'd like to hear why that doesn't apply to any sport. Or even any job where someone at some point gets injured. The fact that a vanishlingly small number of MMA contestants have "spoiled their future" due to injury is irrelevant without knowing the broader context of how many haven't, how it compares to other activities, etc.
Lots of activities are risky, that doesn't make them morally reprehensible and it's baffling to me that anyone can make that claim with a straight face.
Even if it WAS very dangerous and they freely choose to compete in a sport where half will end up with a lifelong injury, it still doesn't have anything to do with slavery, animal torture, murdering civilians, etc.
#1 talks about how free vs slave gladiators changing over time.
Most interesting to me was #3, where it talks about how most were not killed but wounded instead. "historians have estimated that somewhere between one in five or one in 10 bouts left one of its participants dead."
That's a pretty significant difference.
http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/10-things-you-may-...
"Historians have estimated that somewhere between one in five or one in 10 bouts left one of its participants dead."
Just War Theory has existed for long time.
If you really want something we're blind to, it needs to sound a little nuts. For example, cruelty to fungi, or music as a manipulative weapon.
We don't think about it.
We're stuck with feel-good non-sense such as "Pray For Paris", "Hashtags", "Rainbow-color our profile pics" and "Take a picture making hearts with our hands" type of stuff. Even petitions don't work, because our leaders are not beholden to them and they're the ones with the real power.
However. The reality, is that for most of us, we're 100% good towards those around us and those that depend on us. The tragedy is making it seem like that is not good enough. For not caring enough to do something for someone half-way around the world that we never seen or interacted with. That is why the above feel-good nonsense is so widespread: we just want to get rid of the guilt that is being artificially imposed on us.
This really isn't true, even in the narrowest sense. Domestic violence is extremely common!
1. The Old Testament generally approved and regulated slavery, but it was different than the chattel slavery we tend to think of when we think of the word today. It'd have been a little close to the debt slavery you see in this article, but in its ideal form there were provisions for release after a period of time.
2. The New Testament didn't outright condemn slavery, but the Epistle to Philemon is a short book that shines a lot of light on the attitude that Paul had and that Christians used as a basis for their positions on slavery down the line. Onesimus needed to return to Philemon, but Philemon needed to treat him as a brother in Christ. Peter expressed similar views as well.
1) they must end. It is absolutely forbidden for any Christian to own slaves or excessive debts, or to help slavery practices in any way.
2) it is, however, not for Christians to violently take other's property away. Not even slaves. A Christian should campaign for slave owners and creditors to release their charges, maybe even convince them to convert, but violently or legally freeing slaves away is forbidden.
3) Using money to achieve slaves' or debtors freedom is a specifically named virtue.
So it's a "let it die" attitude. End slavery with minimal disruption.
During the middle ages, traders from Southern Europe would often trade with muslims, and as a "good works" effort for their bosses/companies, they'd go to the slave markets of whatever city they were in and buy some slaves. They would be offered a free ride to Europe (and be paid for cleaning the deck or cooking on the way, to get some starter cash) and allowed to settle in Europe. If they didn't speak the language they'd take them to a monastery where they could often stay to learn. This worked, while islam requires slavery and slave trade (halal/wajib), it recognizes that freeing slaves is a good deed. Therefore they'd often sell slaves to be freed at a discount. The freed slaves could, but generally didn't, stay where they were, because muslims would simply capture them again (there's many such things in trade ports in Northern Africa. For instance, these muslim cities would often organize a yearly slave sports event. If the slaves won, they'd often get their freedom for that. However, more often than not, the owners of losing slaves would kill any slave that actually took his freedom).
> This is a command from Allah to slave-owners: if their servants ask them for a contract of emancipation, they should write it for them, provided that the servant has some skill and means of earning so that he can pay his master the money that is stipulated in the contract.
Yeah, let the slaves go, but make sure they sign a contract such that they have to give all their earnings to their masters for the rest of their lives.
1. http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=vie...
It's a good book, and definitely well worth reading. Not that long either.
That's not what the Catholic church taught as late as 1866: https://suchanek.name/texts/atheism/slavery.html
It starts by stating the official position of the Catholic church. Even that translation is wrong (it should read that the Church, Christians and the Popes, past and present, pride themselves on having stamped out slavery everywhere they went). But litarally "Although the Roman Pontiffs have left nothing untried by which servitude be everywhere abolished among the nations, and although it is especially due to them that already for many ages no slaves are held among very many Christian peoples".
Then there is a sentence that should have made a world of difference in the translation of the rest of the document, which should be translated as "as long as we're NOT talking about slavery, here are clarifications about the laws concerning selling your labour/services to others in hopes of answering your questions". The word used is the same. That's because in Latin, as in the Roman empire, there is no concept of slavery. There are labour contracts and everyone providing their labour to someone else (always paid I might add, even in the cases we currently refer to as slavery). The point is, since there is no distinction in Latin between slave labor and non-slave labor, the text continues to use the word for laborer (servus, but keep in mind a slave is a servus, a cafe owner that serves you a drink is a servus, the guy you hire to redo your flooring is a servus).
Needless to say, a fair translation would have avoided the word slavery from that point forward. The English text doesn't. The text alludes to what makes something slave labor, and thus illegal : that the obligation of the laborer is either not limited in time, or wages are either not paid, or only paid in the sense that a debt is made whole (with the explicit exception of criminal debt).
It then states that one can sell one's labor, and that the resulting contract can be traded. It then keeps clarifying things about those contractual obligations, going on at length about the conditions that make labor relations non-slave labor. Firstly, there must be a time limit on the obligation (except in cases of conviction of a crime, ie. you can be convicted to serve for the rest of your life), and there must be payment, actual payment, "forgiving" a debt is not enough, although for instance valued instruction can be considered (partial) payment (in the Roman Republic and Empire it was common to train as a skilled profession (architect/doctor/lawyer/...) by training under someone, on the condition of serving as part of their company for a number of years. You still got paid, in addition to food, lodging, days off, ... but you could not start for yourself for the period specified. Initially this was limited by law to 2 years, eventually it became 20).
It then goes on that there are other conditions : no matter any contract, everyone has the right to marriage (and to not have the resulting family split up), the right to church and education (in the Christian faith, sure, but still), confession, humane treatment, ... And yes, such contracts can be enforced, even after selling/buying. There are strict conditions on the selling and buying of such labor contracts, and the penalty is always the same : if there is so much as reasonable suspicion that someone's being sold into slave labor, not only is the transaction null and void, but the labor contract itself (between the laborer and the boss) is null and void.
Did the American South abide by this letter ? Of course not.
Which ignores the difference in rules applying to Hebrew slaves compared to foreign slaves. As far as foreigners are concerned, you could beat them severely as long as you don't outright beat them to death. You could give wives to your male slaves, and the children would be born enslaved. After your death, these slaves became part of your inheritance.
How is that substantially different from our modern understanding of the word?
> If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone. (Exodus 21:4)
further beating slaves had consequences of letting the slave go free if he is injured (Exodus 21:26-27)
>“When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.
That applies to Hebrew slaves. What happens to the children of foreign slaves is not clearly stated, but it's the logical consequence of the rules applicable to Hebrews and foreigners.
further beating slaves had consequences of letting the slave go free if he is injured
If they are permanently injured. Cf Exodus 21:20-21:
Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
There are no repercussions for whipping them as severely as you like as long as they recover.
A contemporary Jewish reader would have been amazed at an idea that "though shall not kill" for example, applies to gentiles.
"From man unto woman, from infant unto suckling, from ox unto sheep, so that the name of Amalek not be mentioned even with reference to an animal by saying "This animal belonged to Amalek".
The 10 commandments and the covenant of Noah apply to all.
The 513 "mitzvot" apply to Hebrews/Jews only.
> In the early 20th century (post World War I), slavery was gradually outlawed and suppressed in Muslim lands, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France. For example, Saudi Arabia and Yemen only abolished slavery in 1962 under pressure from Britain; Oman followed suit in 1970, and Mauritania in 1905, 1981, and again in August 2007. However, slavery claiming the sanction of Islam is documented presently in the predominantly Islamic countries of Chad, Mauritania, Niger, Mali, and Sudan.[1]
> Instead of evil villains, we find husbands, fathers, mothers and neighbours working with the cultural materials available to them, surviving as best they can.
I think it's an illuminating way of looking at Bad Stuff Normal People Do. We're truly very adaptable animals and can rationalise our actions, which often derive from cultural baggage.
I actually think it's quite hard to break free of that baggage, our values, our education, things we received as given when young and did not bother ever questioning.
Not much writing out there questioning Soviet leadership or Singapore's for that matter, and yet nobody would consider that unanimous tacit acceptance. Except of course the historians in the year 3017.
Slaves could lead very productive and meaningful lives. It was not uncommon for slaves to be freed and made a citizen. Some slaves also held high positions (eg. Dentists, accountants, etc). I also understand that the word slave was interchangeably used with the word family.
Sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome
And Mary Beard's Meet the Romans (an exceptionally good documentary from BBC. Mary is one of my favourites).
Mary talked about a wealthy Roman woman (a business owner) who freed her slave and married him. Depending on who you ask, her slave would have been considered a sex slave before they married. The truth is always a matter of perspective!
Having said that, the Spanish and Italians used boys as young as 6 as slaves for mining silver and malachite. The boys that survived were significantly physically deformed by the time they reached adulthood. There is also significant discussion about little girls who were forced to play with dolls to be good slave housewives (the girls were described as having terrible lives).
Source: Mary Beard's other Roman documentaries and the history of Sicilian mines (can't remember the link, but easily found on Google).
Trivia: the silver was mined for coins!
i finished watching this an hour ago, what a coincidence. i strongly recommend it as well, she discusses the role of slavery in roman society at length -- though it's spread throughout the whole series
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0108U7IHO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/history-of-ancient-ro...