To this, I am thinking of acts that would be considered to all men. Common on the basis that all and any man would find the act objectionable. This will be the case irregardless of their creed, loyalties and values system.
I had a discussion with Nanda and Leanna once on the criminality in Slavery. They educated me on the semantic nuances of the term "slavery" and stood to argue that my negative reaction towards Slavery was due to a Euro-centric semantical understanding of the term.
I disagreed and still disagree. Firstly, this postmodern semantical understanding has nothing to do with the basal negative qualities of slavery. True, Southeast Asian slaves may have been in social contracts with their masters. Then their plight would not have been as bad as those of slaves in Europe.
Thus, the term slavery must be defined. My definition of "slavery" is where A imposes his will over B in an unbalanced relationship of power, to the point whereby A can totally and utterly deny B's will if A chooses so.
Also, in my understanding of slavery, A has such power and assertion of his will over B that B is rendered no longer a human (with rationality as a guiding tool of his freedom). B then becomes a means to A's ends.
How then is slavery not a crime? How then is slavery not a common crime? A crime against humanity?
No comments:
Post a Comment