4 ms·
> I think the standard consensus is that he was... well, wrong, at least about chattel slavery, and putting it quite mildly. Is the standard consensus suddenly
by baazaa 5y ago
> I think the standard consensus is that he was... well, wrong, at least about chattel slavery, and putting it quite mildly.
Is the standard consensus suddenly pro-slavery?
> As much as submission to a petty prince, whose dominions extend not beyond a single city, is more grievous than obedience to a great monarch; so much is domestic slavery more cruel and oppressive than any civil subjection whatsoever. The more the master is removed from us in place and rank, the greater liberty we enjoy; the less are our actions inspected and controled; and the fainter that cruel comparison becomes between our own subjection, and the freedom, and even dominion of another. The remains which are found of domestic slavery, in the AMERICAN colonies, and among some EUROPEAN nations, would never surely create a desire of rendering it more universal. The little humanity, commonly observed in persons, accustomed, from their infancy, to exercise so great authority over their fellow-creatures, and to trample upon human nature, were sufficient alone to disgust us with that unbounded dominion. Nor can a more probable reason be assigned for the severe, I might say, barbarous manners of ancient times, than the practice of domestic slavery; by which every man of rank was rendered a petty tyrant, and educated amidst the flattery, submission, and low debasement of his slaves.
Nowadays it's just assumed that any racist must be an advocate for slavery, or gas chambers, or whatever. Actually reading racists (like Hume) would quickly disabuse one of that notion.
- throwawaygh 5y ago>> I think the standard consensus is that he was... well, wrong, at least about chattel slavery, and putting it quite mildly. > Is the standard consensus suddenly pro-slavery? The standard consensus is that slavery is wrong because the people being enslaved were equal in their humanity to those enslaving them. This isn't abstract thing... equal treatment under the law is, for example, encoded by constitutional amendments in the united states. Hume had a decidedly different view on the rationale for ending slavery. He was a philosopher, not merely an elector, so the actual reasons do in fact matter when studying him and his ideas. Do you really believe that the standard consensus on slavery doesn't also include a rejection of racism or an affirmation of equal protection under the law? Come on. Hume was wrong. He knew that 3+3=6 because 3x3=6 and 2+2=4 and 2x2=4. He was wrong, and countering that all is fine here because 3+3=6 after all is stupid. > Nowadays it's just assumed that any racist must be an advocate for slavery, or gas chambers, or whatever. Actually reading racists (like Hume) would quickly disabuse one of that notion. And where do I make that assumption? As GP would say, what an embarrassing reading of both the essay and my comment ;-) Hume's opinions on chattel slavery were profoundly wrong. He's an interesting case because he was wrong in a very particular and peculiar way. Again, the comparison to Heidegger is apt. Obviously, that subtlety -- wrong, but in a weird way -- is the jumping-off point for this article. Again, do you care to actually defend Hume's politics?
- ravi-delia 5y agoI guess I'd have to disagree that anyone who's position on chattel slavery is 'anti' is wrong about chattel slavery. It's honestly kind of a nitpick, but if I didn't read the essay I wouldn't have thought that by saying he was wrong about it you meant he was against it, but in the wrong way. Of course, this could all be one of those weird linguistic quirks. There really isn't any way I could think of to provide evidence I'm even right in this.