Hi,
There were most likely people in these societies who were non-slaves and felt that slavery was wrong
Conjecture not supported by evidence. We have a lot of writings from the Greeks, from the Romans, from the lands of the fertile crescent, and none of them as far as I know condemns slavery or refers to some lost document that does. If such people as you postulate did exist, then they were silent or ignored.
clearly, there had to be more than a few slaves who felt the same way. (i.e., that slavery was wrong).
No. There were undoubtedly many who felt that *they* being a slave was wrong. They would have rather been slave holder than slave. But the very concept of no slavery was foreign to their thought process. To generalize to a whole population is dangerous. There may have been a visionary or two, but if so, their thoughts were not preserved. Probably because they were (as is common with visionaries) considered crackpots and their opinions not worth recording.
. . . one must be careful in criticizing the foundation of these perspectives too harshly.
I was not criticizing the foundations or the perspectives at all. If pointing out *why* a belief exists threatens that belief, then clearly either the belief is on shaky ground or the believer is. The fear of introspection is a hallmark of insecurity -- a fear shared by religions and ignorant societies. When one is secure, one does not fear, indeed one welcomes, the examination of attitudes and ideals since that helps clarify these ideas and expose contradictions and weaknesses. It is through this (difficult and painful) process that progress in knowledge is made by both individuals and societies.
I personally subscribe to the notion of fundamental human equality . . .
Fine. But realize that that is, for this argument, an *assumption* and not a conclusion. You use that (as you should) as a springboard to argue for a certain treatment of humanity. But that starts where my point ends. My point was that you need to examine why you subscribe to such a belief. To do so, you need to examine those that did not subscribe to your belief (Cicero comes to mind with his instrumentum vocalae). You need to examine why for most of six thousand years of recorded history slavery, caste systems, sexual discrimination, etc. etc, were the *unquestioned* norm. Once you understand *why* most of humanity did not share your viewpoint and why you do, then you are on the path of knowledge and independent thinking.
I am *not* saying that your assumption is wrong (for I hold one very similar -- and don't feel like going further afield by arguing the differences), but simply that your assumption is, at as far as this thread goes, unexamined.
At heart, no individual human being wants not to be heard
Unfounded generalization. And contrary to observation. Most people, in most societies over most of history were concerned about eking out a basic living and were more than happy enough just to be left alone. They did not particularly wish to be ruled, but vastly preferred that than to rule. Even today, in any social group, there are few who wish to lead. Most prefer to follow. And studies have shown that choice, while good in some ways, is actually a stress inducer which most people avoid by simply following the lead of someone in authority (a religious leader, a politician, a spouse, an anchorman, a doctor, a lawyer, a tinker, or a tailor) .
These struggles seem to me to be an indicator that this desire for a right to a voice tends to transcend difference and relativism among local marginalized groups.
So it may seem to you. I simply see it as a case of a few people embracing and preaching the latest fad and most of their society either following these leaders or (mostly) ignoring the whole issue. What you ascribe to the common people as a whole, I see as the result of the efforts of a few charismatic demagogues. Consider the spread of communism. Even while it was failing in Russia and China, there were people who actively tried to promote it in smaller countries (Yugoslavia, Cuba, etc.). Did the struggle for the new world order make the basic tenets of communism correct? If you contend that the spread and adoption of an idea somehow justifies that idea, then you must say "yes". If you say "no", then you must reexamine your argument, for clearly it has a flaw.
It goes without saying that . . . 'difference' remains fundamentally an issue of right or wrong rather than what it simply is; difference.
Then why say it :)
this ethos (of equality) is one that is defended against detractors by the notion that unchallenged ideas run the risk of becoming hegemonic failures of reason.
This is a false exclusion of the middle. In effect you are saying that if everyone's opinions are not held equally valid, then one person's opinions (or worth) will dominate. This is nonsense. Consider the case of medical necessity. If a doctor gives you an option you do not care for, you seek a second opinion from another doctor. You do not hold *everyone's* opinion in equal value (the bum on the corner, the guy that sells you groceries, and your 'idiot' brother-in-law you do not even mention this to, because you frankly don't care what they think). But you do hold members of the medical profession as having opinions of "equal" value. Perhaps 'oligarchy', but definitely not 'hegemony'. And only for this limited field. You might consult your gardener and not your doctor for the care of your lawn.
The visible constraint and marginalization of a slave's inherent entitlement to a voice as a part of 'humanity' is what strikes the modern liberal as "just plain wrong".
And the concept of "inherent entitlement" is what makes the modern liberalism a bad joke. Mankind has no rights other than those that they are willing to fight for. Just because overeducated idiots were handed these 'rights' on a platter by those who bled for them does not mean that these 'rights' are 'entitlements'. The modern liberal is an immature brat who is not thankful for his toys because he did nothing to earn them and has never considered their price. He exercises his sovereignty by the good graces of those who earned it for him and returns the favor by denigrating their sacrifice.
This instinct towards formal equality . . .
Again a generalized platitude having no basis in reality. As far as history and psychology tell us, the instinct is for domination, not equality. Democracy simply shifts the basis for domination away from an hereditary system ultimately based on military prowess to one based on a mixture of financial opportunity, charisma, education, talent, and a few other factors. It may be true that, as an example, Ted Kennedy has no more or less input at the polls than Joe Sixpak. But to say they have political equality is but the punchline of a poor joke.
--Pete
BTW Thank you for the lexical challenge. If the Net were neural, answering your post would have "grooved" my link to Merriam-Webster ;)
There were most likely people in these societies who were non-slaves and felt that slavery was wrong
Conjecture not supported by evidence. We have a lot of writings from the Greeks, from the Romans, from the lands of the fertile crescent, and none of them as far as I know condemns slavery or refers to some lost document that does. If such people as you postulate did exist, then they were silent or ignored.
clearly, there had to be more than a few slaves who felt the same way. (i.e., that slavery was wrong).
No. There were undoubtedly many who felt that *they* being a slave was wrong. They would have rather been slave holder than slave. But the very concept of no slavery was foreign to their thought process. To generalize to a whole population is dangerous. There may have been a visionary or two, but if so, their thoughts were not preserved. Probably because they were (as is common with visionaries) considered crackpots and their opinions not worth recording.
. . . one must be careful in criticizing the foundation of these perspectives too harshly.
I was not criticizing the foundations or the perspectives at all. If pointing out *why* a belief exists threatens that belief, then clearly either the belief is on shaky ground or the believer is. The fear of introspection is a hallmark of insecurity -- a fear shared by religions and ignorant societies. When one is secure, one does not fear, indeed one welcomes, the examination of attitudes and ideals since that helps clarify these ideas and expose contradictions and weaknesses. It is through this (difficult and painful) process that progress in knowledge is made by both individuals and societies.
I personally subscribe to the notion of fundamental human equality . . .
Fine. But realize that that is, for this argument, an *assumption* and not a conclusion. You use that (as you should) as a springboard to argue for a certain treatment of humanity. But that starts where my point ends. My point was that you need to examine why you subscribe to such a belief. To do so, you need to examine those that did not subscribe to your belief (Cicero comes to mind with his instrumentum vocalae). You need to examine why for most of six thousand years of recorded history slavery, caste systems, sexual discrimination, etc. etc, were the *unquestioned* norm. Once you understand *why* most of humanity did not share your viewpoint and why you do, then you are on the path of knowledge and independent thinking.
I am *not* saying that your assumption is wrong (for I hold one very similar -- and don't feel like going further afield by arguing the differences), but simply that your assumption is, at as far as this thread goes, unexamined.
At heart, no individual human being wants not to be heard
Unfounded generalization. And contrary to observation. Most people, in most societies over most of history were concerned about eking out a basic living and were more than happy enough just to be left alone. They did not particularly wish to be ruled, but vastly preferred that than to rule. Even today, in any social group, there are few who wish to lead. Most prefer to follow. And studies have shown that choice, while good in some ways, is actually a stress inducer which most people avoid by simply following the lead of someone in authority (a religious leader, a politician, a spouse, an anchorman, a doctor, a lawyer, a tinker, or a tailor) .
These struggles seem to me to be an indicator that this desire for a right to a voice tends to transcend difference and relativism among local marginalized groups.
So it may seem to you. I simply see it as a case of a few people embracing and preaching the latest fad and most of their society either following these leaders or (mostly) ignoring the whole issue. What you ascribe to the common people as a whole, I see as the result of the efforts of a few charismatic demagogues. Consider the spread of communism. Even while it was failing in Russia and China, there were people who actively tried to promote it in smaller countries (Yugoslavia, Cuba, etc.). Did the struggle for the new world order make the basic tenets of communism correct? If you contend that the spread and adoption of an idea somehow justifies that idea, then you must say "yes". If you say "no", then you must reexamine your argument, for clearly it has a flaw.
It goes without saying that . . . 'difference' remains fundamentally an issue of right or wrong rather than what it simply is; difference.
Then why say it :)
this ethos (of equality) is one that is defended against detractors by the notion that unchallenged ideas run the risk of becoming hegemonic failures of reason.
This is a false exclusion of the middle. In effect you are saying that if everyone's opinions are not held equally valid, then one person's opinions (or worth) will dominate. This is nonsense. Consider the case of medical necessity. If a doctor gives you an option you do not care for, you seek a second opinion from another doctor. You do not hold *everyone's* opinion in equal value (the bum on the corner, the guy that sells you groceries, and your 'idiot' brother-in-law you do not even mention this to, because you frankly don't care what they think). But you do hold members of the medical profession as having opinions of "equal" value. Perhaps 'oligarchy', but definitely not 'hegemony'. And only for this limited field. You might consult your gardener and not your doctor for the care of your lawn.
The visible constraint and marginalization of a slave's inherent entitlement to a voice as a part of 'humanity' is what strikes the modern liberal as "just plain wrong".
And the concept of "inherent entitlement" is what makes the modern liberalism a bad joke. Mankind has no rights other than those that they are willing to fight for. Just because overeducated idiots were handed these 'rights' on a platter by those who bled for them does not mean that these 'rights' are 'entitlements'. The modern liberal is an immature brat who is not thankful for his toys because he did nothing to earn them and has never considered their price. He exercises his sovereignty by the good graces of those who earned it for him and returns the favor by denigrating their sacrifice.
This instinct towards formal equality . . .
Again a generalized platitude having no basis in reality. As far as history and psychology tell us, the instinct is for domination, not equality. Democracy simply shifts the basis for domination away from an hereditary system ultimately based on military prowess to one based on a mixture of financial opportunity, charisma, education, talent, and a few other factors. It may be true that, as an example, Ted Kennedy has no more or less input at the polls than Joe Sixpak. But to say they have political equality is but the punchline of a poor joke.
--Pete
BTW Thank you for the lexical challenge. If the Net were neural, answering your post would have "grooved" my link to Merriam-Webster ;)
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?