Quote: Original post by LessBreadQuote: Original post by slayeminQuote: Original post by LessBread
Slavery is illegal regardless of whether it's coerced or consented to.
Did you mean to say "Slavery is immoral, regardless of whether it's coerced or consented to."?
No, the immorality of slavery is so obvious it doesn't need restating.Quote: Original post by slayemin
Even if you accept the correction, I still have objection with this claim in regards to consent. By its definition, slavery is a form of coercion and the act of coercion is an essential ingredient to what makes slavery immorally wrong. If it's consented to, can you even call it slavery?
Yes, you can still call it slavery. If you need to have it put in terms of definitions, slavery is a condition of servitude where one person owns another person. The mechanism by which such a state of affairs comes about does not change that definition. And for what it's worth, the notion that a person might consent to their enslavement is preposterous and thus not worth discussing by reasonable people. It's an avenue of thought that a person with an interest in justifying slavery might pursue. It reminds me of the "happy negro" justifications made by some antebellum Southerners, just the kind of ideas that "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was written to dispel.
I find it hard to disagree with you. What I'm trying to get at indirectly is that it's probably quite possible (and likely) that slavery still exists today in America. It's just not 'in your face' like it was in the south, pre-civil war. I don't mean the obviously illegal "underground imported sex slaves", but the kind which people might be aware of and yet, ignore. What I have in mind are some of the brothels being operated in Nevada.
Excerpts from Mustang Ranch
Quote: The prostitutes lived on the ranch during their entire shift, which lasted from several days to several weeks. In the 1970s, the women were bikini clad. Their shifts lasted 12 hours per day and they served six customers on average. Women had to pay for their rooms and for any vendors who came to the Ranch. Medicine and cosmetics were purchased by non-prostitute employees who lived in Sparks, Nevada. Doctors came to the ranch to do pelvic exams and check for sexually transmitted diseases. The only time women were allowed out was during menstruation. More than one woman shared the rent for an apartment in Reno or Sparks. Women not working on the ranch were not allowed in. Owner Joe Conforte allowed "out parties" for high rollers to take the women to hotels in Reno. Joe Conforte and his wife Sally were always friendly to regular customers.
Quote: For the safety of the women, every room had a hidden panic button. Gun towers and guards were present to keep the women in and strangers out.
Quote: Alexa Albert, who conducted interviews with several women in the Mustang Ranch from 1993 to 1996, reported that at one point, the brothel required all women to have pimps, who were thought to make the women work harder. Although this practice had stopped by the 1990s, many women were still pressured into the work by boyfriends, husbands, or other family members. About half of the women reported having been sexually abused as children.
So, the question is, "Are these women slaves?" and the answer to that depends on the context of the situation and the precise definition of slavery. It might be a stretch to say "yes". Or, maybe they are closer to being prisoners?
And the other question: "If we consider these women to be slaves, are they consenting to their enslavement?"
In this context, it doesn't seem so preposterous to reconsider whether someone would consent to slavery. There is some degree of consent and also a degree of coercion. The underlying question to wonder about is "what does it take for someone to consent to enslavement?" Would you be someones slave for a year if you get a billion dollars at the end of your term? How about a thousand dollars for one day? Would you be a slave if you were guaranteed a life of security (thus, survival) in a volatile environment?
A brothel in Nevada might be one questionable instance of slavery, but I'm sure there are other situations which we might consider to be slavish (if we only knew about them and could match attributes). There might not be chains and whips anymore...they are usually psychological instead. I also think people could be socialized to consent to what we would consider enslavement. The Fundamentalist LDS leader, Warren Jeffs, comes to mind as well as the Jonestown mass suicide cult.
Ultimately, the purpose of this kind of discussion is not to justify slavery, but to be more sensitive to the less visible forms it might take today. Would we recognize forms of slavery today if we saw it, and would we act to negate it? It depends on our sensitivity to it and moral convictions.
