Slavery was no longer necessary for a strong economy. → There was a growing belief that, contrary to much earlier thinking, slavery was not essential for economic progress. England and New England were among the most prosperous regions of the Western world in the nineteenth century, and both were based on free labor. Show
Praharsha | 567 days ago journal article Moral Argument Is Not Enough: The Persistence of Slavery and the Emergence of AbolitionPhilosophical Topics Vol. 38, No. 1, Ethics (SPRING 2010) , pp. 159-180 (22 pages) Published By: University of Arkansas Press https://www.jstor.org/stable/43154755 Read and download Log in through your school or library Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. To access this article, please contact JSTOR User Support. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free. Get StartedAlready have an account? Log in Monthly Plan
Yearly Plan
Abstract Slavery seems to us to be a paradigm of a morally wrong institutionalized practice. And yet for most of its millennia-long historical existence it was typically accepted as a natural, necessary, and inevitable feature of the social world. This widespread normative consensus was only challenged toward the end of the eighteenth century. Then, within a hundred years of the emergence of radical moral criticism of slavery, the existing practices had been dismantled and the institution itself "abolished." How do we explain such a "profound transformation in moral perception" (Davis 1975)? It may seem obvious that the moral agency and character of the leaders and activists of the abolition movement, their supporters, and their governmental representatives were the primary motors of change. That is to say, the various actors involved came to see, recognize, or acknowledge the true (morally evil) nature of slavery and were thereby motivated to act against it. This "commonsense," "moral explanation" is endorsed by most of the philosophers who have reflected on the morality of slavery. But despite the intuitiveness of thinking that it was the moral agency of the actors, pitted against the evil and injustice of slavery, that brought about the latter's downfall, I will endeavor to show that such thinking is inadequate both to the facts and to the explanatory desiderata. I contend that it was not ignorance of the supposedly inherent moral status of slavery that maintained people's complicity with it, but practical barriers to them conceiving it dispensable. Journal Information Our semi-annual journal is published by the University of Arkansas Department of Philosophy. Philosophical Topics publishes contributions to all areas of philosophy, each issue being devoted to the problems in one area. Recent issues have been concerned with individuation, introspection, and free will. Publisher Information The University of Arkansas Press advances the mission of the University of Arkansas by publishing peer-reviewed scholarship and literature of enduring value. We curate a list of books by authors of diverse backgrounds writing for specialty as well as general audiences in Arkansas and throughout the world. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.  Southern slaveholders often used biblical passages to justify slavery. Those who defended slavery rose to the challenge set forth by the Abolitionists. The defenders of slavery included economics, history, religion, legality, social good, and even humanitarianism, to further their arguments. Defenders of slavery argued that the sudden end to the slave economy would have had a profound and killing economic impact in the South where reliance on slave labor was the foundation of their economy. The cotton economy would collapse. The tobacco crop would dry in the fields. Rice would cease being profitable. Defenders of slavery argued that if all the slaves were freed, there would be widespread unemployment and chaos. This would lead to uprisings, bloodshed, and anarchy. They pointed to the mob's "rule of terror" during the French Revolution and argued for the continuation of the status quo, which was providing for affluence and stability for the slaveholding class and for all free people who enjoyed the bounty of the slave society. Some slaveholders believed that African Americans were biologically inferior to their masters. During the 1800s, this arguement was taken quite seriously, even in scientific circles. Defenders of slavery argued that slavery had existed throughout history and was the natural state of mankind. The Greeks had slaves, the Romans had slaves, and the English had slavery until very recently. Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it. Defenders of slavery turned to the courts, who had ruled, with the Dred Scott Decision, that all blacks — not just slaves — had no legal standing as persons in our courts — they were property, and the Constitution protected slave-holders' rights to their property. Defenders of slavery argued that the institution was divine, and that it brought Christianity to the heathen from across the ocean. Slavery was, according to this argument, a good thing for the enslaved. John C. Calhoun said, "Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually." Defenders of slavery argued that by comparison with the poor of Europe and the workers in the Northern states, that slaves were better cared for. They said that their owners would protect and assist them when they were sick and aged, unlike those who, once fired from their work, were left to fend helplessly for themselves. James Thornwell, a minister, wrote in 1860, "The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders, they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other." The violence of Nat Turner's 1831 slave revolt frightened many southern slaveholders. Such unrest was used by many as a reason to continue slavery. When a society forms around any institution, as the South did around slavery, it will formulate a set of arguments to support it. The Southerners held ever firmer to their arguments as the political tensions in the country drew us ever closer to the Civil War. The Peculiar Institution QuizInstant Quiz
Which of the following arguments made the cause of abolition widely acceptable in the nineteenth century quizlet?Which of the following arguments made the cause of abolition widely acceptable in the nineteenth century? Slavery was no longer necessary for economic progress.
How was the idea of the nation often presented in the nineteenth century?→ Britain forbade the sale of slaves within its empire in 1807, and in 1834 it emancipated those who remained enslaved. How was the idea of the "nation" often presented in the nineteenth century? → The idea of the "nation" was frequently presented as a reawakening of older linguistic or cultural identities.
Which of the following is true of abolitionists in the first part of the nineteenth century?Which of the following is true of abolitionists in the first part of the nineteenth century? They boycotted slave-produced sugar. creole.
Which of the following is an example of the influence of nationalism outside the Euro56 Cards in this Set. |
What made the moral arguments against slavery more widely acceptable in the nineteenth century?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 IlerngutCOM Inc.
