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?

  • DragonWasabi@monyet.ccOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    I agree, but technically it was both protecting human rights and taking away other human rights (to own slaves). Do you see what I mean?

      • DragonWasabi@monyet.ccOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        That’s a weird assumption when I said it was good that it was abolished. Humans shouldn’t have the right to own slaves is my belief. (But they did have that right at the time legally speaking). Or another way to put it, is that I don’t think humans have the moral right to own slaves, even if they did have the legal right. This was a response to someone else telling me that banning slavery was an authoritarian decision. I just wanted to get clarification and try to understand it better.

          • DragonWasabi@monyet.ccOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            They legally had that right at the time. I don’t think they should have had that right, or that they morally have that right. I think we’re talking about 2 different meanings of the term “right”. In one sense (legally), they had the right, as in it was codified into law. That’s not a belief as much as a fact. The part which concerns my belief is whether I think they should have had the right or if they have the moral right, which I don’t. I hope that makes sense.

            • socialpankakemix@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              if you don’t believe they had the right to own slaves, then they had no rights taken away, if your saying they did have rights taken away then you are saying they had a right to own slaves.

              • DragonWasabi@monyet.ccOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 months ago

                Do you agree that someone can theoretically have a legal right to do something bad (as in, be legally allowed to do it) without that being a good or moral right for them to have?

                I think you’re only believing “right” to mean one thing and one thing only, when I’m using it in a sense where legality and morality don’t necessarily coincide (even if they do in other contexts, conditionally).

                So when I say they had the legal right to own slaves, and that right was taken away from them, that isn’t a matter of opinion/belief because that’s factually what happened, but that doesn’t mean that I think they had the right morally speaking, which is a different concept.

                I hope this makes sense.

                • socialpankakemix@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  any authority has no incentive to make laws that are moral, only to make laws that maintain the system. rights are not given to you by an authority they are something you have as a person and cannot be taken away only violated.

        • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          So you heard someone use a white supremacist talking point, and now you’re ignorantly repeating it under the banner of asking if it has merit?

          It does not. Repeating this line as you’ve done here is what the white supremacist who fed it to you wants you to do, as it appears to give legitimacy white supremacy. It does not. It is a false claim.

          • DragonWasabi@monyet.ccOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            They weren’t a white supremacist and they were in favor of banning slavery while simultaneously believing it to be an authoritarian decision. They were using this to argue that authoritarianism can be justified sometimes. Your comment assumes that saying something is authoritarian means that you’re against it.

            • Lavitz@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Look buddy, I’m from the south and this is a talking point for Confederate sympathizers. This train of thought has no substance to it. The civil war didn’t just happen to people, slavery did. People did what they had to do to get out and there’s nothing authoritarian about that. You’re not being more intelligent than everyone else and you’re not the smartest person in the room like this gentleman would like you to believe, you’re being gullible.

    • prototype_g2@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      So you are trying to argue that slavery is a RIGHT? This looks like and argument of guilt by association. Authoritarian is seen as bad, by giving the abolishment of slavery the label of “authoritarian” gives of the idea that you want to associate it with being bad.

      If having a law that restricts one’s ability to do something is “authoritarian” then any law is authoritarian, because laws, by definition, determine what behaviour is and isn’t allowed within a society. On that note, morality determines legality, not the other way around.

      Slavery means that, if you’re rich enough, you should be allowed to revoke the rights of others. This is refutable at so many levels. If someone were to “willingly” agree to give up their rights, then just you’re just taking advantage of someone who was born in an unfavourable position and have no other choice other than to accept (and maybe not starve) or starve.

    • livus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I think I see what’s happening here. The missing piece of the puzzle is that there are 2 kinds of rights.

      “Negative rights” = the right to not have certain things happen to you, aka freedoms. Eg freedom from being assaulted.

      “Positive rights” = the right to do/have stuff.

      In the case of enslavement, the negative right - to be free from being forced to work, owned, etc is a much more important right than the positive right to own property.

      • DragonWasabi@monyet.ccOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 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.

        • RBWells@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Human rights are those that apply to all humans. So the right to own slaves can’t be a human right as it doesn’t apply to the owned people. The law created two categories of people, so the rights conferred by that law were not human rights.

        • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yes, when we talk about human rights we mean as distinct from legal rights. No law can grant or take away a human right, it is inherent to the human condition.

          You’ve shown that you understand the distinction but I’ll point out as well that moral right is a third, distinct thing.

          • DragonWasabi@monyet.ccOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I would also add that it seems that rights are a human concept/social construct, even just in the sense that we’re interpreting what we believe to be ethical/right/moral, even if it’s objectively correct; or we’re enforcing laws based on what people believe is correct, or in some cases what serves certain people personally at the expense of what most people believe is right if the laws are corrupt/undemocratic.

            So I think if we’re going to claim that a certain right “just is”, since we’re the ones creating these concepts even if it’s based on our observation of the world and an interpretation that was theoretically objectively correct if not a belief, it falls on us to rationalise and describe how we’re coming to these conclusions and what we’re basing this assertion of a certain right on. Otherwise, “it’s a human right because it’s a human right” is just circular reasoning and has no explanation. How are we formulating our basis for what is a human right? Is it legality? Is it moral beliefs or what we reason (or even logically prove somehow) is objectively morally right? Or … what?

            For example, in the case of animal rights theory, many people believe that there are moral rights that animals hold as moral patients, i.e. “negative rights” (= freedom from something being done to an individual) not to be exploited and killed by humans (moral agents), which extend logically from the belief (or fact) of human rights also being morally correct. And in this view, humans by way of our laws, do hold legally the “positive rights” (= freedom of an individual to do something) to exploit and kill animals, but these legal rights are simultaneously violating the moral rights of the animals to not have these things done to them by humans/moral agents.

            In this case too, similar to what you said about the human condition, we could argue that something about the condition of animals (which could for example be sentience/consciousness, which they share with humans who are also animals), is the basis for them having these rights, but even then we’re still speculating based on what we believe is either subjectively or objectively moral (since in that case obviously what’s legal is in contradiction with what’s deemed to be moral), and I’m not sure what third definition of rights could be being applied there whether it be in the context of human rights or animal rights.