[geye1234]

Couple of points:

- I think taking interest on a (full-recourse) loan is a form of fraud. Or rather, it is to fraud what robbery is to larceny. I also think it produces, in practice, ownership in a share of a person, such that it can be usefully compared with slavery. I think I can make good arguments in support of this. But I don't think people who argue otherwise are dumb, or arguing from self-interest; I just think they haven't fully thought through it. You might extend the same leeway to someone widely acknowledge as one of the greatest minds in history.

- Please let me know of any anti-slavery arguments from that period you're aware of.

- Whether acknowledged or not, all anti-slavery arguments use Aristotelian concepts (as will any attempt at rational discourse, or any attempt at discussion of morals).

[fjknifub]

> - Please let me know of any anti-slavery arguments from that period you're aware of.

Just from a point of common sense logic I would have to assume the vast majority of the slaves' arguments on the subject.

Let me just pull up all of the surviving primary sources written by the slaves of the that period... Oh, right.

[geye1234]

What makes you so sure? Slavery was universal across the human race, or practically so, until well into the second millennium AD. Nobody seriously questioned it. A bit like interest-taking now, which is why I brought it up as an example. Borrowers may complain about their monthly payments, but they don't seriously imagine themselves the victims of injustice qua borrowers.

We imagine that "if I lived back then, I'd be against it", but we forget that the past is a foreign country. People thought and acted quite differently.

[optimalsolver]

>such that it can be usefully compared with slavery.

If you think interest on a loan is even in the same world as selling a human being to the highest bidder from an auction block, then we view the world so differently that I don't imagine efficient communication is possible.

>widely acknowledge as one of the greatest minds in history.

I mean, he's simply not.

>anti-slavery arguments from that period you're aware of

Well Zeno [0] for one, and Alcidamas [1].

And I'll say again, the fact he had to pen this screed in the first place shows that his view wasn't the exclusive one. In fact it shows how middling his intellect actually was that he was unable to see past his own time and place, despite the fact that others could.

>all anti-slavery arguments use Aristotelian concepts

This is more like Aristotle's fanboys trying to shoehorn other people's natural insights into his worldview.

[0] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JbscAAAAIAAJ&q=%22Zeno+a...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcidamas

[geye1234]

Whether I'm right, or am an absolute drooling nutcase, for thinking interest-taking (on a full-recourse loan) is immoral is beside the point.

The point is that it would be idiotic of me to think somebody defending the practice was stupid or immoral, when it is accepted almost everywhere and by everyone. Same is true for Aristotle and slavery. Calling him stupid or evil on this account is misguided. Every individual and every age has its intellectual and moral blindspots. See Boogie_Man's comment above, he covers the various problems with this approach more thoroughly than I have.

[optimalsolver]

>Whether I'm right, or am an absolute drooling nutcase, for thinking interest-taking (on a full-recourse loan) is immoral is beside the point

No it most definitely is not. Could you just confirm the following statement is accurate:

It is your belief that interest taking on loans and legalized slavery are a difference of degree, not a difference in kind.

[geye1234]

> It is your belief that interest taking on loans and legalized slavery are a difference of degree, not a difference in kind.

No. They are comparable, and both moral evils, but are different species of action.

But suppose I said yes, then what? It would not affect the argument. Whether I'm right or wrong about interest-taking per se, I would be wrong to believe that people who defended it were wicked or stupid (rather than simply misguided) given its universality. Similarly, regardless of whether Aristotle was right or wrong about slavery per se, you are wrong to believe that Aristotle was wicked and stupid for defending it (rather than simply misguided) given its then-universality.

[optimalsolver]

>They are comparable

They are not comparable in any way, shape, or form.

>you are wrong to believe that Aristotle was wicked and stupid

He was unquestionably wicked and stupid compared to his contemporaries who were able to see past the miasma that was the culture they were steeped in.

[geye1234]

As a thought experiment:

- Is it possible that you are mistaken about some -- any -- moral issue which is almost universally held by the culture at large?

- If so, would it be reasonable to conclude from this that you're wicked and stupid?

You agree that the answers are "yes" and "no" respectively, right?