Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)D

DragonWasabi

@ DragonWasabi @monyet.cc

Posts
7
Comments
33
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Was banning human slavery an authoritarian decision?

    Jump

  • They weren't a white supremacist and they were in favor of banning slavery while simultaneously believing it to be an authoritarian decision. They were using this to argue that authoritarianism can be justified sometimes. Your comment assumes that saying something is authoritarian means that you're against it.

  • Was banning human slavery an authoritarian decision?

    Jump

  • But authority can be used/imposed to take away some else's authority, can't it? Or can authority only be used to do something to someone, not to prevent someone from doing something?

  • Was banning human slavery an authoritarian decision?

    Jump

  • If it was legal for certain people to slap certain other people, then the people doing the slapping would have the authority over the people being slapped to slap them. But then if the law was changed and took away their authority to slap them, that would be using authority over those slappers to stop them. Does this make sense? Both can be true at the same time

  • Was banning human slavery an authoritarian decision?

    Jump

  • Do you agree that someone can theoretically have a legal right to do something bad (as in, be legally allowed to do it) without that being a good or moral right for them to have?

    I think you're only believing "right" to mean one thing and one thing only, when I'm using it in a sense where legality and morality don't necessarily coincide (even if they do in other contexts, conditionally).

    So when I say they had the legal right to own slaves, and that right was taken away from them, that isn't a matter of opinion/belief because that's factually what happened, but that doesn't mean that I think they had the right morally speaking, which is a different concept.

    I hope this makes sense.

  • Was banning human slavery an authoritarian decision?

    Jump

  • At the time it was a legal right that some humans had, even though it came at the expense of others' moral right (that most people now believe they had, including myself) to be free. Please tell me you understand this. I don't think owning others is a human right in a moral sense, even if it was a legal right for some back then. There is a difference between legal rights and moral rights, because legality is not the same as morality. Sorry if that sounds obvious but I think it's necessary to clarify in order to approach this question with understanding.

  • Was banning human slavery an authoritarian decision?

    Jump

  • Legal rights vs moral rights, that's the confusion.

  • Was banning human slavery an authoritarian decision?

    Jump

  • They legally had that right at the time. I don't think they should have had that right, or that they morally have that right. I think we're talking about 2 different meanings of the term "right". In one sense (legally), they had the right, as in it was codified into law. That's not a belief as much as a fact. The part which concerns my belief is whether I think they should have had the right or if they have the moral right, which I don't. I hope that makes sense.

  • Was banning human slavery an authoritarian decision?

    Jump

  • That's a weird assumption when I said it was good that it was abolished. Humans shouldn't have the right to own slaves is my belief. (But they did have that right at the time legally speaking). Or another way to put it, is that I don't think humans have the moral right to own slaves, even if they did have the legal right. This was a response to someone else telling me that banning slavery was an authoritarian decision. I just wanted to get clarification and try to understand it better.

  • Was banning human slavery an authoritarian decision?

    Jump

  • Thanks, I think this answers my question. Even if it was a majority decision, it seems intuitively like the government (and the majority of people) imposed some kind of authority over the remaining slave owners (who were in the minority), but I understand that generally such a decision wouldn't be considered generally "authoritarian" just because it used that authority, unless it was imposed upon the majority of people.

  • Was banning human slavery an authoritarian decision?

    Jump

  • Just as it imposed authority over them to take away their authority, right?

  • Was banning human slavery an authoritarian decision?

    Jump

  • Removing a kind of authority of the people over other people, but wouldn't it be imposing an authority from the government upon the remaining slave owners?

  • Was banning human slavery an authoritarian decision?

    Jump

  • I agree, but technically it was both protecting human rights and taking away other human rights (to own slaves). Do you see what I mean?