4 ms·
> For example, consider a prison which forces ... it's [sic] inmates to attend classes to learn job skills and avoid behaviors that landed them in prison. Would
by alpha_squared 8y ago
> For example, consider a prison which forces ... it's [sic] inmates to attend classes to learn job skills and avoid behaviors that landed them in prison. Would this not also be a form of slavery given they are forced to attend? Slavery isn't defined by the slave doing something useful to the owner. A slave is still a slave even if they are doing nothing or if they are being commanded to improve themselves. And in this case I wouldn't see it as immoral.
This raised all sorts of alarms in my head, so I decided to look up a more formal definition. In this case, the source is Wikipedia[0]:
> Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property. A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration. Many scholars now use the term chattel slavery to refer to this specific sense of legalised, de jure slavery. In a broader sense, however, the word slavery may also refer to any situation in which an individual is de facto forced to work against their own will.
Your redefinition of slavery is significantly broader than the accepted definition of it. This is extremely problematic in trying to talk about whether or not it's immoral.
- woah 8y agoWhat are you talking about? > In a broader sense, however, the word slavery may also refer to any situation in which an individual is de facto forced to work against their own will. Seems like what they were saying fits well with this.
- komali2 8y agoWell then we're all slaves to our stomachs because if we don't work, we don't eat, we don't eat, we die.
- alpha_squared 8y agoAs facetious as this comment is, this is exactly why it's problematic to broaden the definition of slavery.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y agoIf prisoners are slaves, then it isn't that far a leap to the concept of wage slavery or being enslaved to nature. But please note that I am not the first post in this thread to use a definition that disagrees from the one you are suggesting.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago>Your redefinition of slavery is significantly broader than the accepted definition of it. Please note this is not my redefinition of slavery as I was largely using the definition many other posts here assume, but only pointing out that it isn't limited just to hard labor on the enslaver's behalf. If you think this definition of slavery is wrong, then this would apply to numerous other posts here and the core take away would be that prisoners aren't slaves. At which point we can just pick a different word or create a new word and continue to the point. So, if you have an issue with the word slave, then I'll define a new word to capture what people in other posts are complaining about, praves (yes, just combining prisoners and slaves into as single word). Now, I repeat my point using praves instead of slaves.