NationStates Jolt Archive

The following text is part of a speech I gave at Philosophy Society, a group at my school of around 30-40 people. At Philosophy Society we have an initial talk on an issue, then a discussion about the topic and questions raised. Most of the time, our dicussions are of ethical philosophy; this one is no different. I originally posted this text on my blog (http://talrias.net/2004/11/09/is-charity-slavery/). :)

When you hear the word slavery, you may think of the Romans or Greeks, with the rich patricians controlling tens or hundreds of slaves, whose entire existence is doing what their master demands, and who could be killed with a single word. Even the Greeks’ most learned were in favour of this practice- the philosopher Aristotle once declared all barbarians to be slaves from birth, to be fit for nothing but obedience. Possibly you think of medieval Europe, where serfs toiled in their noble’s estates from birth. You’re probably thinking, however of the widespread 19th century slave trade, where it is estimated that upwards of 12 million people were transported from Africa as slaves, where more than 1 in 6 died not even due to the horrible conditions they were forced into by their owners, but being transported to the Americas.

When I use the word charity, you probably would think of giving money to a beggar on the streets, or an organisation such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. You might think of people who have worked for much of their life to help people who are not as fortunate as they, such as Diana, Princess of Wales.

Most of you would not think these two words, charity and slavery, are related and that to suggest such is to insult both the memories of the millions of slaves worldwide over the ages, and to insult the many charity workers who help bring enormous aid to the unfortunate. This is not my intention. Here are my definitions:

Charity - doing something with no benefit for yourself - ‘pure selflessness’.
Slavery - doing something because of an emotion, such as fear.

Some of you may be unhappy with my definition of slavery - however, think of black slavery. They knew that if they did not work they would be killed, or mercilessly beaten and tortured. They were terrified - is this not an emotion?

I haven’t explained how charity could possibly be slavery yet. How are these similar? As an example, imagine you are watching television, and the programme is interrupted with adverts - and the first advert is soliciting donations for children in Africa who have hardly any water or food. What kind of images do you see? You see thin, starving children with wide eyes staring at the camera; young children holding their crying baby sister; you get the picture. These ads are designed perfectly to make you feel sympathetic for them. You donate; because the ad has appealed to your emotions (namely, pity).

I give money to the homeless sometimes, when I have some spare coins in my pocket. I give them money because I feel sorry for them, again, an appeal to my emotions. I don’t give them money out of rational, reasoned logic - a few pounds won’t help them get back into work.

These two examples are both examples of charity, I would be selfless if I gave money away, as I get nothing back, and they get something. Yet these also fit my definition of slavery - they have appealed to my emotions, and I have done something because of passion rather than reason.

When I talk about charity I am talking primarily about being completely altruistic, or selfless. But how many times when you are charitable do you do it out of logical reason, where you think through where your money goes and to who it helps? Or do you see it as duty to donate, like this Sunday when many people in the Commonwealth remember the lives lost in past conflicts? Admiral Nelson at the Battle of Trafalgar famously stated, “England expects that every man will do his duty” – a clear reference to patriotism. The fact that patriotism requires duty and is duty cannot be contested. Here’s a quote from a Republican referring to a Democrat in the U.S. Senate, shortly after Sept. 11:

“How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism?”

Please note Senator Daschle was not re-elected in the recent U.S. elections! From this example, it is clear that to object is to face criticism and ostracism. If you stand out, it is obvious – and for many people, to be the lone dissenter is to be an anathema.

If you do see it as duty, perhaps we should consider what the word duty is – here’s a dictionary definition:

Duty - An act or a course of action that is required of one by position, social custom, law, or religion.

Is duty not just a polite term for servitude?

Yes. Charity is slavery. So I won't give to charity anymore.

Don't forget that sometimes they hold slave auctions for charity! :p

I don't have time for a detailed post (indeed, I haven't thought this through yet), but I will respond with a sketch of what I'm thinking.

First, I do admit that under your definitions, charity can be slavery. However, I'm not inclined to use your definitions. So, I'll offer alternate definitions of "charity" and "slavery". For comparison, your definitions are:
Charity - doing something with no benefit for yourself - ‘pure selflessness’.
Slavery - doing something because of an emotion, such as fear.
The definitions that I'm clined to use are:

Charity - Voluntarily providing goods or services to someone else without renumeration (or without fair renumeration) OR providing such under persuasion ("Please, think of the poor children").
Slavery - Providing goods or services to someone else without renumeration (or without fair renumeration) under duress, torture, threats thereof, or any other form of coercion ("Work for me or I'll hurt you").

Under these definitions, both charity and slavery are defined by giving something without getting anything in return (or expecting anything in return). However, one is characterized by a voluntary act while the other is characterized by coercion: pain, death, or the threat thereof. (Well, a dead slave can't work, but if you brutally kill one slave in full view of the other slaves, then you can get a message across.)

I will further define "duty" as a responsibility to provide goods or services as a part of a contract or other legal arrangement. For example, if you are a citizen of a country, then you are under the protection of the armed forces of that country, but you understand that the country might need to draft you into those armed forces in times of need. You enjoy the benefits of certain basic services and infrastructure (police protection, roads, public hospitals), but you are required to contribute something to help maintain the services and infrastructure (taxes, military service).

...and reading all of that, I really have said everything I wanted to say, after all. :D

To summarize:
Charity - You give without getting anything in return because you want to or are persuaded to ("persuasion" excludes direct threats against you, implied or explicit).
Slavery - You give without getting anything in return because you are forced or coerced to.
Duty - You give, but get something in return, because the give-and-get is specified in some contract or law.

Overall, this looks merely like a matter of how you define your terms.

"Think about it for a moment."

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

.... who could be killed with a single word.

Yeah... technically. But aside from the economic reasons against this (which you point out below), most slave societies have had laws against killing or torturing slaves. The degree to which these were enforced varies, with such laws tending to be least well enforced amongst the more recent racially-based slave societies.

Even the Greeks’ most learned were in favour of this practice- the philosopher Aristotle once declared all barbarians to be slaves from birth, to be fit for nothing but obedience.
Yes, but you aren't reading the Politics very carefully. Aristotle ultimately deplores slavery.

Possibly you think of medieval Europe, where serfs toiled in their noble’s estates from birth.
Most of serfdom was genuinely distinct from slavery. For one thing, serfs could not be bought and sold separately from the land on which they lived and worked. They had a rather well understood set of legal rights. (Post-plague, many of them also became rather wealthy in the labor shortage.)

Most of you would not think these two words, charity and slavery, are related and that to suggest such is to insult both the memories of the millions of slaves worldwide over the ages, and to insult the many charity workers who help bring enormous aid to the unfortunate.
Yes, that is what I think.
This is not my intention.
Well, you managed to do it anyway.
Here are my definitions:
Charity - doing something with no benefit for yourself - ‘pure selflessness’.
Slavery - doing something because of an emotion, such as fear.
Okay... how about we try definitions that actually have something to do with reality?

First of all, plenty of legitimate charity confers some benefit on the person who performs the charitable deed. Secondly, not all slavery comes down to fear... and even the specific caricature of slavery that you provide does not have to be described in terms of fear. Continuing to perform a service in order to preserve one's life can involve a pretty rational calculation.

Some of you may be unhappy with my definition of slavery - however, think of black slavery. They knew that if they did not work they would be killed, or mercilessly beaten and tortured. They were terrified - is this not an emotion?

Did you bother to do any research on slavery before you wrote this? Yes, fear of punishment is a part of the American experience of slavery. However, there can be no single motive. Many domestic slaves, especially those that returned to Europe with their masters, enjoyed an existence materially better than the one experienced by most free peasants. Fine clothes, a good home, even a certain level of respect. Similarly, slaves with technical knowledge--especially in the production of sugar--were trusted with jobs that, in many cases, no free person even properly understood. These slaves were so critical to the process of producing sugar, in fact, that they tended to exert a strong influence even over decisions made by their owner. In the Caribbean, many of them were eventually freed, and began their own plantations.

As you can see, a variety of very rational--or at least reasonable--motives may compel a person to "go along" with their slave status. Obviously, I mean this as no apology for slavery. Rather, I just want to present a more nuanced view of the phenomenon (complicated even further if you consider ancient slavery as well).

You donate; because the ad has appealed to your emotions (namely, pity).

Yeah, sure. But the advertisement also leads you to believe that a lot of other people are doing the same thing, and that if "everyone" (or many of us) contribute, a lot of good can be done. A rational person realizes that their single contribution hardly "makes a dent" by itself, but such a person also realizes that if everyone thinks this way, few public goods ever get produced. Besides, if it makes me "feel good" to support a good cause, is it not a reasonable decision to do what makes me feel good?

Yet these also fit my definition of slavery - they have appealed to my emotions, and I have done something because of passion rather than reason.

Yes, but your definition of slavery sucks. Slavery is a complex social institution that can hardly be summarized as being "emotional" rather than rational. So much of the world involves emotion that, along with charity, virtually everything else would be "slavery" to you. Slavery has to do with liberty and class, not emotion.



You tailor your definitions to fit your argument. You will rarely convince anyone that way.

This is a ridiculous example of someone generalizing and oversimplifying definitions of words, and yet....I like it. The world needs more eccentric thoughts like these; they ultimately turn out to be wrong and illogical, but add spice to life and charm & quirk to personality not usually observed by the common man. Unfortunately, my mind seems to be past this stage of absurd thinking (though it was fun while it lasted). Thank you for food for thought.

The following text is part of a speech I gave at Philosophy Society, a group at my school of around 30-40 people. At Philosophy Society we have an initial talk on an issue, then a discussion about the topic and questions raised. Most of the time, our dicussions are of ethical philosophy; this one is no different. I originally posted this text on my blog (http://talrias.net/2004/11/09/is-charity-slavery/). :)

When you hear the word slavery, you may think of the Romans or Greeks, with the rich patricians controlling tens or hundreds of slaves, whose entire existence is doing what their master demands, and who could be killed with a single word. Even the Greeks’ most learned were in favour of this practice- the philosopher Aristotle once declared all barbarians to be slaves from birth, to be fit for nothing but obedience. Possibly you think of medieval Europe, where serfs toiled in their noble’s estates from birth. You’re probably thinking, however of the widespread 19th century slave trade, where it is estimated that upwards of 12 million people were transported from Africa as slaves, where more than 1 in 6 died not even due to the horrible conditions they were forced into by their owners, but being transported to the Americas.

When I use the word charity, you probably would think of giving money to a beggar on the streets, or an organisation such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. You might think of people who have worked for much of their life to help people who are not as fortunate as they, such as Diana, Princess of Wales.

Most of you would not think these two words, charity and slavery, are related and that to suggest such is to insult both the memories of the millions of slaves worldwide over the ages, and to insult the many charity workers who help bring enormous aid to the unfortunate. This is not my intention. Here are my definitions:

Charity - doing something with no benefit for yourself - ‘pure selflessness’.
Slavery - doing something because of an emotion, such as fear.

Some of you may be unhappy with my definition of slavery - however, think of black slavery. They knew that if they did not work they would be killed, or mercilessly beaten and tortured. They were terrified - is this not an emotion?

I haven’t explained how charity could possibly be slavery yet. How are these similar? As an example, imagine you are watching television, and the programme is interrupted with adverts - and the first advert is soliciting donations for children in Africa who have hardly any water or food. What kind of images do you see? You see thin, starving children with wide eyes staring at the camera; young children holding their crying baby sister; you get the picture. These ads are designed perfectly to make you feel sympathetic for them. You donate; because the ad has appealed to your emotions (namely, pity).

I give money to the homeless sometimes, when I have some spare coins in my pocket. I give them money because I feel sorry for them, again, an appeal to my emotions. I don’t give them money out of rational, reasoned logic - a few pounds won’t help them get back into work.

These two examples are both examples of charity, I would be selfless if I gave money away, as I get nothing back, and they get something. Yet these also fit my definition of slavery - they have appealed to my emotions, and I have done something because of passion rather than reason.

When I talk about charity I am talking primarily about being completely altruistic, or selfless. But how many times when you are charitable do you do it out of logical reason, where you think through where your money goes and to who it helps? Or do you see it as duty to donate, like this Sunday when many people in the Commonwealth remember the lives lost in past conflicts? Admiral Nelson at the Battle of Trafalgar famously stated, “England expects that every man will do his duty” – a clear reference to patriotism. The fact that patriotism requires duty and is duty cannot be contested. Here’s a quote from a Republican referring to a Democrat in the U.S. Senate, shortly after Sept. 11:

“How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism?”

Please note Senator Daschle was not re-elected in the recent U.S. elections! From this example, it is clear that to object is to face criticism and ostracism. If you stand out, it is obvious – and for many people, to be the lone dissenter is to be an anathema.

If you do see it as duty, perhaps we should consider what the word duty is – here’s a dictionary definition:

Duty - An act or a course of action that is required of one by position, social custom, law, or religion.

Is duty not just a polite term for servitude?

You're confusing two very different notions of freedom and slavery in order to make this connection, bud.

Specifically, if you want to be very, very loose with your conception of slavery, or alternatively if you want to take a strictly Kantian/Hegelian tack, you could say that slavery is "doing something because of an emotion". Kant, for instance, was very clear that while acting out of passion, you might still do the right thing, this was only an incidental feature. You only knew if you did the right thing if you acted from a good will as determined by adherence to the Categorical Imperative. To act according to the passions, then, was in a sense a form of slavery, because you were in effect acting contrary to (or at least in the absence of) reason, and only a rational man can be free.

However, this differs substantially from the notion of freedom/slavery you provide in the intro part of your paper, because that hinges on a far more Lockean interpretation of freedom: the ability to do whatever you choose, provided it doesn't hurt other people's lives or property (the converse being that slavery is the impingement thereof, justifiable only in the case of a person losing a war they started, thereby justly forfeiting their claim to property by arbitrarily rescinding that right for another). The reason why I say this should be fairly obvious: only under the Lockean interpretation of freedom and slavery can one person enslave another. In Kant's view, a man can only enslave himself by acting contrary to reason.

That being the case, your account is incoherent. The best you can say is that sometimes charity is irrational, but that is a far cry from the kind of slavery you imply.

Charity is offered.
Slavery is forced upon.

Charity is offered.
Slavery is forced upon.

Then what is it when you're forced to support charity?

That is, after all, one of the things mandatory taxation does...