Cruelty that's pointless (as they saw it). The Romans had little issue with crucifying dissidents, torturing slaves, executing the innocent fellow comrades of

Cruelty that's pointless (as they saw it). The Romans had little issue with crucifying dissidents, torturing slaves, executing the innocent fellow comrades of deserting soldiers, and beating their children into compliance. But they saw such cruelty as useful, serving a higher purpose (social order and discipline, mostly). If you want an analogy, today, most people have no problem farming animals to raise them for meat. There's a lot of cruelty inherent in the process, but we do try to take steps to reduce it. And if you outright enjoy the wails of pain from the cow as you beat it needlessly on the way to the slaughterhouse, there's something wrong with you. Just as to the Romans, beating your slaves and sometimes making an example might be necessary, but a slaveowner who took a little too much pleasure in it was morally suspect. It's telling that Roman histories are full of allegations of the capricious torture and rape of slaves by prominent figures. While some of these accusations are probably true, they are generally of a slanderous nature intended to tarnish the reputation of the accused.