I'm guessing that some did and some did not.
I´m guessing that this is the very point of owning slaves.
But that kind of sidesteps the point - by the standards we would like to set most people in the ancient world had sod-all freedom and a pretty crappy life.
No doubt about that. After all, those were the times when slavery and such methods were still common practices.
We shouldn't put ourselves in the mindset that thinks life in slavery woudl be more different to the life of non-privilaged non-slaves than was actually the case.
I´m not putting myself in this mindset.
Having much self determination is a pretty recent thing for all but the priviledged - and often much of a mirage for them. Not that there isn't a difference, nor that it doesn't matter, but lets not overstate the case.
Well, self-determination was mentioned by one poster in one post of hundreds, so I think it´s not exactly overstated.
But if you wish, we can extend the topic from "slavery" to every form of establishing a society based on "privileged vs. non-privileged". I would be similarly critical of them in general as I am of slavery (as the epitome of such methods).
A very good question. I suppose I'm raising the question "was slavery necessary too boot-strap the process of civilisation?"
Thanks, now I have an idea what at least you are talking about when saying "necessary" in this context.
I don´t have any idea how such a hypothetical question can possibly be answered. Neither can I answer how civilisation would have developed hadn´t slavery stood at its cradle.
Thus, to me it appears you raise an unanswerable hypothetical question just to sidetrack from the actual question of this thread.
I'm not trying to subtract it, but step aside from it for second to see if looking at the historical question might throw some light on the ethical one.
Even if we could conclude (and, as I said, I don´t know how we could possibly conclude such) that we today have a good life because slavery opened the way to today´s society, I fail to see the relevance for the ethical question. I may be wrong, but I tend to think that the slave owners didn´t enslave people with the intention that people in the 21. century in Western Europe and other regions in the world could enjoy civilization as it would turn out in mind.
They were simply exploiting people for their own profits.
Seems self evident to me.
I don´t know how to break it to you without risking to become personal, ebia...maybe in your circles the statement "to ebia it seems self evident" is sufficient for people to accept something for a fact. Here...not so much.
I fail to see the self-evidence. Unless you simply use "out-compete" as a mere euphemism for all sorts of atrocities. Sure, if we want to buy into this terminology, genocide is also a way of "out-competing" another people.
If that´s not what you mean, I guess you would have to explain your claim a little more.
If historians are right in supposing that civilisation depends on cities evolving to service big religious building projects then I'm not sure I can see how the process would boot-strap itself without slaves. Without some of the fruits of civilisation (writing, mathematics, concepts of contract etc) how would those big projects ever have got started other than by simply forcing people to work on them?
Maybe I am naive, but I think paying (in money or naturals or whatever) would have been incentive enough to make people work for you. I´m not sure I see the need for forcing or owning them.
I'm not an historian, so this is purely speculation, but I suspect that they simply would not have - that what happened (or, rather, did not happen) in Australia would happen more universally - a perfectly good hunter/gatherer culture would perpetuate indefinitely without making the leap to what (for lack of a better word) I've labelled civilisation.
Well, as you say it´s all speculation. All we can say is: If things had been different, they would be different today.
I´m not sure I would be unhappier in in good hunter/gatherer culture than in civilisation as it is today.
It is, but don't you think we ought to consider the extent to which we might have benefited from slavery?
See my example of Nazi-Germany and how I might benefit from it.
Answer: No, I don´t think this is a useful approach. I´m not thankful to the Nazis for doing their part in preparing German "civilisation as it is today". It was not their intent, I didn´t ask them to, and I am not even sure I wouldn´t have liked the alternative better.
Not that we say then "oh, it was okay, then", but not to be too smug about ourselves.
I don´t know where and with whom you detected "smugness about ourselves".
I can understand pretty much every person´s motives for their actions quite fine (including murderers, slave owners, rapists, war heads and other criminals) - still I reserve the right to think they are wrong.
BTW, bought any chocolate or cocoa products lately? Made sure none of it was sourced from Cote d'Ivory?
I´m not sure I understand the relevance of this question.
Let´s simply assume that I am buying all my stuff without paying notice how it was produced and whether it comes from sweat shops or other exploitive business practices. Let´s simply say I knowingly and carelessly benefit from exploitation.
Does that make a case for exploitation being justified?
Does the fact that I am doing something wrong mean I have forfeited the right to label it wrong?
Since when is a "tu quoque" an accepted argument?