Following rules: inherently a virtue?

[rah]

I asked the question, and people were trying to respond. That's what happens on a discussion forum. I never claimed it was the origin.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Honestly where did this idea come from that slavery came from the question of what to do with captured attackers? It seems far more likely that the first enslavers were themselves attackers...

It seems even more likely that conflict is almost always really hard to pin down in terms of "this side here were the only aggressors, and that side there were not." The enslavers were the winners, but that doesn't really say anything about who were the attackers originally.

 

[Lexicus]

It seems even more likely that conflict is almost always really hard to pin down in terms of "this side here were the only aggressors, and that side there were not." The enslavers were the winners, but that doesn't really say anything about who were the attackers originally.

I think this may reflect our differing views of the origin of war. To me, war spread through humans like a meme, and the means of its spread was by warlike peoples attacking other people. To you war was universal and a logical extension of individual violence.

 

[Farm Boy]

Who is where is a pretty solid indicator on any given day.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think this may reflect our differing views of the origin of war. To me, war spread through humans like a meme, and the means of its spread was by warlike peoples attacking other people. To you war was universal and a logical extension of individual violence.

How it spread has nothing to do with who the winners, and thus the slavers, turned out to be.

 

[Lexicus]

How it spread has nothing to do with who the winners, and thus the slavers, turned out to be.

Wouldn't you expect a militarized culture to pretty much always defeat cultures which lacked even the concept of war?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Wouldn't you expect a militarized culture to pretty much always defeat cultures which lacked even the concept of war?

Sure. That's why I think by the time we would be looking at the origins of slavery there were none of these "innocent cultures" left to worry about.

 

[Truthy]

I think what you're talking about is related to functionalism no? What I think of that is summed up by the observation that one of the most successful civilizations of all time expended enormous labor on giant stone houses for dead guys (Egyptian pyramids). I generally take a dim view of reductive functionalist explanations for cultural phenomena.

But I don't really disagree with the idea that important knowledge can be encoded in culture; note that I said "individuals are capable", not that this is inevitable or even that it happens super-often. I actually think that getting too excited about the capacity of individuals to use reason to critique and improve society can easily lead to Utopian nightmares (liberal capitalism itself being arguably the best example).

The Ancient Egyptians as a "civilization" needed the coordination that came from their religion--the same "intersubjectivity" that bound people together to build the Pyramids. While it looks crazy and pointless, I think that's actually totally functional at the level of "societies" (holding huge populations together, making people consent to taxation to finance administration and armies, defending against threats/spreading the empire, etc). A society needs coordination. Kooky beliefs get civilizations up and running. That's functional (but maybe not necessarily at the individual level). I'd say the provenance is partly Durkheim, partly Darwin. The Durkheimian notion of "collective effervescence" is all about the function of kooky ideologies; it blends well with memetics and evolution (as an aside, I think that of the "founding fathers of sociology", Durkheim's ideas seem to have held up the best).

Or is the argument is that cultural practices are often good for people at the "civilization"-level, not the individual-level? Ie I can gave examples about bread and olive oil being healthy; you can say a lot of culture is just people pointlessly laboring and dying for the glory of god-kings

Utopian nightmares (liberal capitalism itself being arguably the best example).

I notice you're pre-empting the more popular example... that one empire that existed for a while last century somewhere in Eurasia iirc

 

[Lexicus]

Sure. That's why I think by the time we would be looking at the origins of slavery there were none of these "innocent cultures" left to worry about.

I guess I'm placing the origin of slavery earlier than you. Another assumption I'm making is that cultures specializing in war, ie, more highly militarized cultures, would both be more likely to win wars against other cultures and would be more likely to engage in offensive warfare against other cultures.

The Ancient Egyptians as a "civilization" needed the coordination that came from their religion--the same "intersubjectivity" that bound people together to build the Pyramids. While it looks crazy and pointless, I think that's actually totally functional at the level of "societies" (holding huge populations together, making people consent to taxation to finance administration and armies). A society needs coordination. Kooky beliefs get civilizations up and running. That's functional (but maybe not necessarily at the individual level). I'd say the provenance is partly Durkheim, partly Darwin. The Durkheimian notion of "collective effervescence" is all about the function of kooky ideologies (as an aside, I think that of the "founding fathers of sociology", Durkheim's ideas seem to have held up the best).

Or is the argument is that cultural practices are often good for people at the "civilization"-level, not the individual-level? Ie I can gave examples about bread and olive oil being healthy; you can say a lot of culture is just people pointlessly laboring and dying for the glory of god-kings

Yeah, this response actually segues perfectly into what I was going to say next, which is that if everything is functional in this sense then functionalism is an unfalsifiable theory. It's exactly like intelligent design: if there is really no cultural phenomenon that doesn't serve what I'll call a rational/material function, then there is literally no way even in principle to test whether functionalism is accurate, which means that it cannot be any use as science.

I notice you're pre-empting the more popular example... that one empire that existed for a while last century somewhere in Eurasia iirc

My answer would be that that empire itself is best seen as part of the fallout from the larger Utopian project of liberalism.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I guess I'm placing the origin of slavery earlier than you. Another assumption I'm making is that cultures specializing in war, ie, more highly militarized cultures, would both be more likely to win wars against other cultures and would be more likely to engage in offensive warfare against other cultures.

I think that the greatest indicator for likelihood to engage in an offensive war is societal paranoia. They don't have to be good at warfare, or even particularly motivated about it...they just have to be fearful enough that they feel the need to "get off the first shot."

 

[Farm Boy]

I would guess it has more to do with spare fighting age men available to do the devil's work.

 

[Lexicus]

I think that the greatest indicator for likelihood to engage in an offensive war is societal paranoia. They don't have to be good at warfare, or even particularly motivated about it...they just have to be fearful enough that they feel the need to "get off the first shot."

That doesn't exactly contradict what I'm saying. Societal paranoia in this sense would lead to more militarization which would lead to increased chance of success in warfare.

I dunno, I mean, these are all just assumptions, the answers to these questions predate writing and are lost in the mists of time unless our archaeology gets like time-machine good somehow.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That doesn't exactly contradict what I'm saying. Societal paranoia in this sense would lead to more militarization which would lead to increased chance of success in warfare.

I dunno, I mean, these are all just assumptions, the answers to these questions predate writing and are lost in the mists of time unless our archaeology gets like time-machine good somehow.

Agreed. I just, generally, follow a "there are no innocents here" approach, perhaps for my own reasons.

 

[Camikaze]

It's important to distinguish between rules and laws. Laws carry a legitimacy which supposedly renders compliance a freestanding virtue. But it does depend upon acceptance of the grundnorm. But the hypothetical murder of Dicey's blue-eyed babies suggests most people's acceptance has its limits.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I would guess that slavery began as a one on one practice of a strong man dominating a weaker person. then with the success of such dominance, it quickly spread to a wider audience.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I would guess that slavery began as a one on one practice of a strong man dominating a weaker person. then with the success of such dominance, it quickly spread to a wider audience.

In practice, isn't any tribal society pretty much an example of slavery?

 

[Birdjaguar]

In practice, isn't any tribal society pretty much an example of slavery?

I would think not. Slavery happens between people or tribes. I'm sure there are tribes that have not engaged in slavery. Or have I missed your point?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I would think not. Slavery happens between people or tribes. I'm sure there are tribes that have not engaged in slavery. Or have I missed your point?

Yeah, you did. My bad.

I was referring to the idea that within a tribal society the designated "elder" or whatever title goes to the person or persons who are in charge pretty much enjoys the same perks and position as the slaveholder.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yeah, you did. My bad.

I was referring to the idea that within a tribal society the designated "elder" or whatever title goes to the person or persons who are in charge pretty much enjoys the same perks and position as the slaveholder.

I would not agree without more. Supplication and respect don't seem to be slavery to me.

 

[Hygro]

I would guess it has more to do with spare fighting age men available to do the devil's work.

A lot of idle hands in America and those men are depressed and dormant, not eager for war.