5 ms·

Though to be fair you can make a very compelling argument that that wasn't the most moral choice

naasking 5y ago
Avoiding a civil revolt and the subsequent death count probably undercuts any such claim to morality, if we're using "human suffering" as the metric.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  There may have been a population with more human suffering than former slave owners.
  - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
    But that suffering wasn't increased by paying off the former slave owners. If anything, it may have reduced it by making it politically feasible to end slavery earlier.
    - kristopolous 5y ago
      Have any evidence? For example, a parliamentary compromise where such a trade-off is documented or something like that
      - fastball 5y ago
        Do you?
        kristopolous 5y ago
        Of what? I'm not making any claims. We've got the internet at our fingertips. I'd hope progressing beyond speculation would be valued
        fastball 5y ago
        The entire thread is speculation, doesn't seem very useful to ask one side for evidence without asking the other. If all you care about is people evidencing their claims, you probably should've asked at the first assertion, not the 2nd/3rd.
        kristopolous 5y ago
        This was the one I was most interested in learning more about. I'm not part of this debate. I'm just curious
  - naasking 5y ago
    Not a population that had more money to wage a war. A war that would dramatically increase the suffering among those slaves.
- scollet 5y ago
  Slavery apologists just keep getting more creative.
  - naasking 5y ago
    I see uncharitable assumptions are still alive and well on the internet.
cryptonector 5y ago
No doubt, but that was what the British did. I made only a statement of fact. Also, as you can see from the other replies, there were other considerations at the time. Compensation to the slave owners is morally repugnant, and yet the alternative might have also had morally repugnant consequences. In any case, that is what they did.
- space_fountain 5y ago
  No I agree, and I think it made sense for you to reply with that honestly I might have had you not, but I think it is fair to say that it’s at least morally counter intuitive
  - kbenson 5y ago
    > I think it is fair to say that it’s at least morally counter intuitive Only in that as a society, we seem to have decided (or come to through emergent behavior) that viewing sweeping socioeconomic changes and what might actually result from them with anything other than a cursory surface analysis is too much effort. :/
  - hammock 5y ago
    >morally counter intuitive That is the insight that is why I started this comment thread in the first place. Honestly, I was hoping for more interesting discussion on HN from it than I got.

Avoiding a civil revolt and the subsequent death count probably undercuts any such claim to morality, if we're using "human suffering" as the metric.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
There may have been a population with more human suffering than former slave owners.
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  But that suffering wasn't increased by paying off the former slave owners. If anything, it may have reduced it by making it politically feasible to end slavery earlier.
  - kristopolous 5y ago
    Have any evidence? For example, a parliamentary compromise where such a trade-off is documented or something like that
    - fastball 5y ago
      Do you?
      - kristopolous 5y ago
        Of what? I'm not making any claims. We've got the internet at our fingertips. I'd hope progressing beyond speculation would be valued
        fastball 5y ago
        The entire thread is speculation, doesn't seem very useful to ask one side for evidence without asking the other. If all you care about is people evidencing their claims, you probably should've asked at the first assertion, not the 2nd/3rd.
        kristopolous 5y ago
        This was the one I was most interested in learning more about. I'm not part of this debate. I'm just curious
- naasking 5y ago
  Not a population that had more money to wage a war. A war that would dramatically increase the suffering among those slaves.
scollet 5y ago
Slavery apologists just keep getting more creative.
- naasking 5y ago
  I see uncharitable assumptions are still alive and well on the internet.

cryptonector 5y ago

No doubt, but that was what the British did. I made only a statement of fact. Also, as you can see from the other replies, there were other considerations at the time. Compensation to the slave owners is morally repugnant, and yet the alternative might have also had morally repugnant consequences. In any case, that is what they did.

space_fountain 5y ago
No I agree, and I think it made sense for you to reply with that honestly I might have had you not, but I think it is fair to say that it’s at least morally counter intuitive
- kbenson 5y ago
  > I think it is fair to say that it’s at least morally counter intuitive Only in that as a society, we seem to have decided (or come to through emergent behavior) that viewing sweeping socioeconomic changes and what might actually result from them with anything other than a cursory surface analysis is too much effort. :/
- hammock 5y ago
  >morally counter intuitive That is the insight that is why I started this comment thread in the first place. Honestly, I was hoping for more interesting discussion on HN from it than I got.