A hierarchical theory of ethics: First Anomaly
I here refer to the Encarta article on the abolitionist movement.
When I read the section on the Age of Enlightenment, I wondered why this philosophy should have emerged at that time. People had had thousands of years before this time to arrive at a theory that disapproved of slavery. Why should they have suddenly thought of it now? Fortunately, the article was perceptive enough to include this information as well: the Industrial Revolution. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, people lived in a highly stratified society, where the rich dominated the poor and the people in the lower and middle classes were prevented from social advancement. The Industrial Revolution resulted in increased economic opportunity and power to the lower and middle classes. This began to undermine the class system. I can probably flesh this argument out a great deal further by an analysis of the structure of the Industrial Revolution next. But even at this level of analysis, it seems understandable that given the increased expectations of the lower classes, a philosophy that legitimised these expectations would have been at least desirable. In other words, the preconditions for a philosophical revolution would seem to have been met. I therefore placed a great deal of importance on the Industrial Revolution as the reason for an increase in abolitionist sentiment.
However, the Encarta also notes that slave revolts were a major factor in fostering antislavery sentiment among whites. As I argued in the previous section, things would have been different if slaves had meekly submitted to their masters. There would have been no perception of slavery as oppressive and cruel. It also made whites disturbingly aware of their vulnerability in a slave society. Yet the slaves revolted not because they had any increased expectations from the Industrial Revolution, but because they were being cruelly oppressed and mistreated. Therefore, it seems that the slave revolts would have eventually fostered antislavery sentiment among whites anyway.
What conclusions can be drawn for the empirical theory of ethics? Well, to start off with, I think that it is of very great value that we have what constitutes evidence of a paradigm shift in the mores here of a society. We have all the classic ingredients of it. The millennia-old paradigm constituted a hierarchical theory of ethics that morally differentiated slaves from masters. The paradigm was adhered to because it explained the moral observations that slaves did in fact submit willingly to their masters the vast majority of the time. Insubordination, if it occurred, occurred only a minority of the time, and/or for a minority of the slaves. This led many to believe, not irrationally, that some people may simply be better suited to slavery than others, and that it was therefore right to use them according to their proper purpose. This is especially plausible if we view the slavery situation through the lens of Skinnerian behaviourism. The slaves would have submitted voluntarily if they were rewarded more than they were punished for doing so, and this does indeed seem to be the case in classical times:
Encarta article, "Slavery", Section II, "Ancient Period".
Slavery increased in cruelty with the advent of the Atlantic slave trade in the mid-1400s. This would seem to be because of the introduced element of racism of the Europeans towards the Africans. The hierarchical ethic employed towards the blacks was the product not only of a strong class system in Europe, but also racism (see previous section). Once slaves were punished more than they were rewarded for submitting, they started to rebel. This produced an anomaly in the hierarchical ethic. It could not explain the phenomenon of slave revolts in the context of the claim that lower races or classes were better suited to slavery. The claim that they somehow should be enslaved seemed at least practically dubious if this were going to be a difficult effort. Furthermore, the strong suggestion that this was because of the misery being caused by slavery would have fostered antislavery sentiment out of a general concern for non-maleficence. Even Aristotle, who approved of slavery in principle, still argued that slaves should be treated with benevolence. For that matter, even Uncle Tom's Cabin, a book famous for inciting people to the abolitionist cause, contained praise for the benevolent slave holder. If slavery was maleficent, therefore, there was already strong classical moral support for its abolition.
When I read the section on the Age of Enlightenment, I wondered why this philosophy should have emerged at that time. People had had thousands of years before this time to arrive at a theory that disapproved of slavery. Why should they have suddenly thought of it now? Fortunately, the article was perceptive enough to include this information as well: the Industrial Revolution. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, people lived in a highly stratified society, where the rich dominated the poor and the people in the lower and middle classes were prevented from social advancement. The Industrial Revolution resulted in increased economic opportunity and power to the lower and middle classes. This began to undermine the class system. I can probably flesh this argument out a great deal further by an analysis of the structure of the Industrial Revolution next. But even at this level of analysis, it seems understandable that given the increased expectations of the lower classes, a philosophy that legitimised these expectations would have been at least desirable. In other words, the preconditions for a philosophical revolution would seem to have been met. I therefore placed a great deal of importance on the Industrial Revolution as the reason for an increase in abolitionist sentiment.
However, the Encarta also notes that slave revolts were a major factor in fostering antislavery sentiment among whites. As I argued in the previous section, things would have been different if slaves had meekly submitted to their masters. There would have been no perception of slavery as oppressive and cruel. It also made whites disturbingly aware of their vulnerability in a slave society. Yet the slaves revolted not because they had any increased expectations from the Industrial Revolution, but because they were being cruelly oppressed and mistreated. Therefore, it seems that the slave revolts would have eventually fostered antislavery sentiment among whites anyway.
What conclusions can be drawn for the empirical theory of ethics? Well, to start off with, I think that it is of very great value that we have what constitutes evidence of a paradigm shift in the mores here of a society. We have all the classic ingredients of it. The millennia-old paradigm constituted a hierarchical theory of ethics that morally differentiated slaves from masters. The paradigm was adhered to because it explained the moral observations that slaves did in fact submit willingly to their masters the vast majority of the time. Insubordination, if it occurred, occurred only a minority of the time, and/or for a minority of the slaves. This led many to believe, not irrationally, that some people may simply be better suited to slavery than others, and that it was therefore right to use them according to their proper purpose. This is especially plausible if we view the slavery situation through the lens of Skinnerian behaviourism. The slaves would have submitted voluntarily if they were rewarded more than they were punished for doing so, and this does indeed seem to be the case in classical times:
With few exceptions, slaves in ancient Greece were humanely treated. However, the Helots of Sparta, descendants of an earlier, conquered race of inhabitants who were forced to labor on large estates and to fight with the Spartan armies, were severely treated, mainly because they far outnumbered their dependent masters. More typically, slaves were employed in domestic service, in trades, as laborers on country estates, and as seamen and oarsmen. Where they were employed in private domestic service, it was not uncommon to find them on friendly terms with their masters.
Encarta article, "Slavery", Section II, "Ancient Period".
Slavery increased in cruelty with the advent of the Atlantic slave trade in the mid-1400s. This would seem to be because of the introduced element of racism of the Europeans towards the Africans. The hierarchical ethic employed towards the blacks was the product not only of a strong class system in Europe, but also racism (see previous section). Once slaves were punished more than they were rewarded for submitting, they started to rebel. This produced an anomaly in the hierarchical ethic. It could not explain the phenomenon of slave revolts in the context of the claim that lower races or classes were better suited to slavery. The claim that they somehow should be enslaved seemed at least practically dubious if this were going to be a difficult effort. Furthermore, the strong suggestion that this was because of the misery being caused by slavery would have fostered antislavery sentiment out of a general concern for non-maleficence. Even Aristotle, who approved of slavery in principle, still argued that slaves should be treated with benevolence. For that matter, even Uncle Tom's Cabin, a book famous for inciting people to the abolitionist cause, contained praise for the benevolent slave holder. If slavery was maleficent, therefore, there was already strong classical moral support for its abolition.
Comments