-57

Was banning human slavery an authoritarian decision? (self.asklemmy)

submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by DragonWasabi to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

84 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Obviously it was a good thing that it was banned, but I'm just wondering if it would technically be considered authoritarian.

As in, is any law that restricts people's freedom to do something (yes, even if it's done to also free other people from oppression as in that case, since it technically restricts the slave owner's freedom to own slaves), considered authoritarian, even if at the time that the law is passed, it's only a small section of people that are still wanting to do those things and forcibly having their legal ability to do them revoked?

Or would it only be considered authoritarian if a large part of society had their ability to do a particular thing taken away from them forcibly?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Nemo@midwest.social 33 points 8 months ago

Owning others is NOT a human right. It is a violation thereof.

[+] DragonWasabi -8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

At the time it was a legal right that some humans had, even though it came at the expense of others' moral right (that most people now believe they had, including myself) to be free. Please tell me you understand this. I don't think owning others is a human right in a moral sense, even if it was a legal right for some back then. There is a difference between legal rights and moral rights, because legality is not the same as morality. Sorry if that sounds obvious but I think it's necessary to clarify in order to approach this question with understanding.

[-] seaQueue@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

Legal rights are not human rights. I suggest you go look up the definition of human rights, they're a separate concept.

A country or state passing a law that makes it legal to punch clowns in the face on Tuesday doesn't make that action a human right, it just means that country passes fucked up laws.

[-] DragonWasabi 1 points 8 months ago

I'm fairly sure human rights can be used to describe either moral rights or legal rights. In most contexts people are using human rights in a moral sense, but it can be used in a legal sense too. If you're arguing for a third definition of human rights which isn't based in morality (what's good) or legality (what's been passed as law), then what is it based in?

load more comments (5 replies)

this post was submitted on 18 May 2024

-57 points (26.1% liked)

Asklemmy

44656 readers

873 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS