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?
questions like this nicely demonstrate how worthless a concept "authoritarianism" really is
Not really. It is the tolerance paradox.
Banning slavery might be authoritarian but it is less authoritarian than allowing it. So on the political scale, banning slavery is anti-authoritarian and allowing it is authoritarian.
I think you are lost in the language. There are no absolute rights, in any legal systems. So any "law" necessarily restricts someone's "rights".
Therefore, you need to think about what "authoritarian decision" means, because if all law restricts someone's rights, all laws are authoritarian by your definition.
Also: terrible example to begin with.
I was about the comment a similar thing.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Human rights describes the individuals that the rights pertain to, no? So those human rights could either be based in legality or in morality, which wouldn't always align. People may also have different beliefs about which human rights are morally justified and which ones aren't. If there's a third kind of human right that isn't based on what's legal or what's believed to be (or, fundamentally is) moral, then what's it based in?
Inherent to the human condition is interesting, but isn't that still a moral stance/belief? Even if you argue that it's objectively moral (and if you don't believe in moral subjectivism/moral relativism) or objectively the right thing for humans to have rights based on the kind of beings that they are, how is that separate from morality? As far as I know when someone says "this is a human right" they're usually asserting that they believe it's morally correct for humans to have a certain right, and that it would be wrong to violate that right. Occasionally someone says "this is a legally protected human right" to emphasise that it's a legal right enforced by law. I'm not sure by what metric rights could be ascribed or theorised conceptually to apply to certain individuals, if not law or ethics.
For example, you could say that the law did violate the enslaved's moral human rights, by assigning other humans a legal right to own them, which many at the time would have also believed was their moral right, even if we don't agree with that today or assert as being objectively immoral. If their human right to not be enslaved wasn't legal or moral, I don't see what the third option could be.
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.
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.
Letting slavers exercise absolute authority over slaves is authoritarian and letting that system remain is authoritarian.
Insofar as authoritarian is a useful metric (not very), Yes and it was good
Yes it's autharitarian to ban slavery. Kind like a revolution is autharitarian. Don't really get the people who don't want to impose , what ya gonna do? Ask nicely?
Authoritarian is a very small portion of people made decision and control the majority, where in democracy the decision is made based on the majority.
Is the decision to end slavery a majority decision? Then it's democratic.
WTF, no. Democracies can be authoritarian. If they abridge rights or compel individuals to action, that's authoritarianism. Doesn't matter it 51 people out of a hundred think they can boss the the other 49 because they voted on it.
That sounds just like what the losing side will say tbh. Brexit is bad, but it's a bad choice made by the majority, in that it's still a democratic process voted by the masses. Democracy is a system, it's the will of the people, not a moral alignment. It's democracy as long as the people affected by the result is there to vote.
Democracy can be authoritarian but then it will be called authoritarian, not democracy.
It is exactly what people in the minority will say. I, as someone often finding myself in the minority, say it often and early. Just because more people agree on something doesn't mean they get to force the rest of us to go along with them.
Depends on what you get to vote on, who gets to vote, if their votes count, etc.
A more democratic system could have done something like, we'll test run Brexit for a few years, make an assessment, and then allow everybody to vote again to continue Brexiting or roll it back. But that's not going to happen because ... well... representative democracy is authoritarian by design. Nobody is going to put a "Roll Back Brexit" question on a ballot who championed a pro-Brexit stance and will fight any attempt to give the people a chance to vote again (heck, they'll probably fight tooth and nail to keep any useful assessments of the effects of Brexit from being pushed into the public sphere to help voters make informed decisions as well).
Thanks, I think this answers my question. Even if it was a majority decision, it seems intuitively like the government (and the majority of people) imposed some kind of authority over the remaining slave owners (who were in the minority), but I understand that generally such a decision wouldn't be considered generally "authoritarian" just because it used that authority, unless it was imposed upon the majority of people.
Representative Democracies are, by definition, authoritarian. A small number of people are elected, democratically, to make the decisions for the majority.
Is the decision to end slavery a majority decision? Then it's democratic.
With the contradiction being that the people who were pro slavery could just decide, "Nah, we're not going to end slavery", and continue to do slavery. Which I'm pretty sure is generally how that went in the USA.
If democracy is authoritarian, then what is the lack of democracy called?
Depends on how things are organized i guess.
Two things that come to mind are dictatorships and aristocracies, at least as far a governments go.
Natural language is inherently imprecise. You're going to have to add a contextual definition if you want this to have a single answer.
If making someone do something is always authoritarian, abolition is authoritarian to slavers and anti-authoritarian to slaves. If implementing a law with no checks and balances is authoritarian, it was authoritarian when Louis XIV did it, but maybe not in other cases. If a policy that upholds any kind of hierarchy is authoritarian, it's always anti-authoritarian.
I think it is a bit unfair to give you shit for your question.
it is normal to confuse authoritarian system with restrictions of freedom. Because generally that is how it works. But not in this case...
Because it is the paradox of tolerance all over again. Technically it is authoritarian to ban slavery but it would be more authoritarian to allow it as people would own people... So on the scale of how authoritarian an action is, banning slavery is as anti-authoritarian as it gets and allowing slavery is as authoritarian as it gets. (Of course, a world without slavery and without any rules would be less authoritarian but... I think we know better than trying that with slavery)
I hope this helps in actually understanding the reason instead of being told what it is.
Yes.
But slavery was also authoritarian.
Any situation where there is a power imbalance that can be enforced through physical or psychological means that somebody doesn't agree with is authoritarian. Employer/employee? Authoritarian. Parent/infant? Authoritarian. Bank/bank customer? Authoritarian. Doctor/patient? Authoritarian.
Probably the only reasonable definition of authoritarian would be something like, "To be ruled/governed by an authority." I've decided that Bill over there gets to be in charge of things, they're the authority. I don't always agree with the decisions they make but they're in charge. Which seems like it would overlap a bit with the idea of democratic centralism.
