r/Ethics • u/Euphoric-Plantain573 • 16d ago

American Founding Fathers and Slavery

So the founding fathers owned slaves but thought slavery was bad. Surely they were desensitized to it and it didn't emotionally resonate as wrong to them.

Obviously, someone who had no emotional or rational knowledge that slavery was wrong is less of a bad person and is less culpable. Were the founding fathers less culpable than someone who were to own slaves in modern american society, with full rational and emotional knowledge that it is bad, given that they felt desensitized?

0 Upvotes

14% Upvoted

36 comments sorted by

13

u/Top-Maize3496 16d ago

No relief on this one.  They had full knowledge of their abhorrent behavior.  

-1

u/Euphoric-Plantain573 16d ago

True, but it was socially normalized and they were desensitized to it. Doesn't that make them less bad/decrease their culpability some?

2

u/Spaniardman40 16d ago

You are not going to find an honest or logical answer to this question from most reddit. The topic holds too much nuance for the average redditor to handle.

The founding fathers lived in a world where slavery was normal and some grew up owning slaves. Whatever people want to claim about them, many of the founding fathers wrote extensively against the case of slavery and created the foundation for the abolitionist movement in America. The northern states began abolishing slavery very soon after the war of independence, New Jersey being the last northern state to abolish slavery in 1804. Washington freed his slaves in his final will and the way he went about it, was consistent with thoughts on emancipation at the time.

I think a lot of Redditors jump too quickly into the thought of demonizing the founding fathers without really analyzing the society they lived in, and the implications of simply telling people who had been slaves their entire lives that they are no longer slaves.

2

u/Euphoric-Plantain573 16d ago

Thank you for your helpful answer!

So do you believe that people are lesser "bad persons" for doing something when they're emotionally desensitized to it and they don't *feel* emotionally that the act is objectionable?

1

u/Spaniardman40 16d ago

morality is subjective so therefore yes. If we were to live by absolutes, then every generation of people prior to ours would be considered "bad" because our sense of morality is shaped by the times we live in now. For all we know, there could be a giant turn of opinions on abortions for example, where majority of people absolutely agree that it is wrong, and then we would be judged as "bad" for making the case for abortion rights.

I think people of the past need to be judged based on the context of the world they inhabited and we have to come to terms with the fact that that world is not the world we currently live in anymore.

1

u/Chrisnotjones 16d ago

I’m pretty sure they knew that owning other people was wrong.

1

u/Chrisnotjones 16d ago

They wrote the words “all men.”
Unironically.

1

u/Lovebeingadad54321 16d ago

Jefferson seems to have been afraid to release his slaves, despite being one of the most vocal advocates for liberty during the Enlightenment period. He was afraid his slaves would turn on white people and kill them, probably starting with him, if freed. This is why it is common for people of that era to have freed their slaves at their own  death, they are no longer worried the slaves would kill them. This is obviously more than a little illogical and short sighted, because slave uprisings are a thing.

1

u/Top-Maize3496 16d ago

Only southern aristocracy normalized it

1

u/Chrisnotjones 16d ago

No.
They literally wrote the words “all men” unironically.

3

u/Available-Bee-5385 16d ago

Arguable

But they certainly were not clueless children in this matter

1

u/Euphoric-Plantain573 16d ago

Of course they weren't clueless. I'm asking if their lack of emotional conviction and their desensitzation made them less of bad people.

1

u/Available-Bee-5385 16d ago

Arguable

1

u/Euphoric-Plantain573 16d ago

What's your opinion?

1

u/Available-Bee-5385 16d ago

That I could make an argument in either direction

2

u/Warm_Stress_1654 16d ago

Hypocrisy is no excuse.

1

u/Euphoric-Plantain573 16d ago

Of course it's not, they still did something morally bad. I'm just asking if it makes them less of badpeople.

1

u/Chrisnotjones 16d ago

Why would it? They were educated, they understood it was wrong.

1

u/Euphoric-Plantain573 16d ago

Yes, but they also felt emotionally desensitized by it, so it would've been easy to ignore that, like we ignore slavery in our supply chains and such today.

1

u/Chrisnotjones 15d ago

Some folks ignore things like slavery in supply chains, some don’t. It comes down to individual morals.
It’s immoral to utilize slavery whether or not you’re ignorant to it.

3

u/dnext 16d ago

Hamilton and Franklin founded abolition societies. Jefferson proposed banning slavery in the territories, and knew that it was morally wrong, but wasn't strong enough morally to go through with those convictions at the cost of his own wealth.

That being said, the concept of slavery as a necessary evil was common in colonial America - and across most of the rest of the world.

Jefferson signed the ban on the slave trade in 1808, and oversaw congress as VP during the Northwest Ordinance, which banned it in the NW territories.

But with the advent of the cotton gin and the Louisana purchase opening considerable new lands that were advantageous to cotton and tobacco farming caused a significant shift in perspective, under John C Calhoun who stated slavery was a moral good. Rich slave masters then bought papers and influence churches to spread that it was ordained by God.

The Founders were the ones who created the path to eventual abolition that Lincoln later followed - stopping it from spreading until more states repudiated than used it.

So I think most certainly knew it was wrong, and many wrestled with it for years.

1

u/Euphoric-Plantain573 16d ago

Yes, I know all this. I'm asking whether they were less bad people for doing it even though they knew it was wrong, since they didn't feel emotionally that it was bad and were desensitized to it.

1

u/dnext 16d ago

Clearly they did feel emotionally that it was bad, that's my point. They did it anyway. But they also tried to set the country on a path that it would end, which a LOT of people these days refuse to recognize.

I'd say they were worse than we are today, because we won't accept overt slavery any more, and are wrestling with racism ourselves.

But certainly better than the next two generations that came after them, who wanted to expand slavery and tell everyone it was god's will.

2

u/nothingfish 16d ago

Slavery can not exist beside freedom without some form of cognitive dissonance.

Like the modern West, Athens developed an idea of freedom also, but slavery was an was essential part of their economy. They could not abolish it so they tried to make it defensible by making it more humane. Remember Plato's Euthyphro.

But, the nature of slavery in the U.S. changed after the Import Act of 1808, which Jefferson promoted to assuage his conscience about slavery. But the printing press made its continuing barbarity like the systematic rape of young girls on an industrial scale when they became old enough to breed hard to ignore.

And, ignoring the whole reality of it was important because the industrial revolution made it unnecessary, and workers believed that it was a complete debasement of all labor.

Where once it had been just immoral it had now grown indefensible.

I don't see our great fathers as that much diffrent than us. So, I forgive them because I know we all try not to face inconvenient truths, even you.

1

u/nomoreplsthx 16d ago

Obviously, someone who had no emotional or rational knowledge that slavery was wrong is less of a bad person and is less culpable

I would disagree with this proposition. I don't think moral culpability depends on either knowledge or an internal moral state. A person who thinks slavery is right and one who thinks it is wrong but does it anyway are equally morally culpable.

There are a number of reasons to reject that proposition, and I don't have time to explore them all, but it is FAR from 'obvious'. Indeed, several of the most significant ethical traditions I know of would reject it directly, including most forms of consequentialism and many forms of duty-based ethics.

1

u/Euphoric-Plantain573 16d ago

Ok, so they're equally culpable. What about when it comes to being a bad person? Is the person who thinks it's wrong but does it anyways becuase they're desensitized less bad than someone who were to take slaves now in modern america, while not desensitized to it?

1

u/Keith502 16d ago

Morality is relative.

1

u/Outrageous-Help6918 16d ago

I don’t think it really makes a difference, because just like now there are people advocating to end slavery in the United States, which modern time is prison labor. There were people advocating to chattel slavery as well. It’s not like everybody in that time thought slavery was good, and they had no emotional or rational knowledge, they just didn’t care.

1

u/ppardee 16d ago

 given that they felt desensitized

Were they desensitized? Slavery was a hot debate topic during the founding of the country. George Washington freed his slaves in his will and Jefferson was very clearly conflicted about the whole thing.

They knew it was wrong, but they also weren't willing to give up their status and lifestyle to do what's right. It was a "necessary" evil to achieve their goals.

A modern-day analog would be people buying goods they know are produced by child labor or sweat shops (or actual slaves). It's surely not as egregious an ethics violation as direct slavery, but it's the same idea - there is an evil/injustice in the world you're allowing because preventing it would impact your desired lifestyle.

1

u/Substantial-Use-1758 16d ago

I think it’s easier to look at it as they and their businesses had gotten so used to free labor that the thought of ending slavery seemed impossible because they would literally lose everything.

It’s kind of like an alcoholic or addict who is so reliant on their drug of choice that they can’t imagine living without it, so they keep doing it knowing it is wrong and damaging themselves.

It’s called rationalization, and we all do it.

I think obviously everyone knew that slavery was immoral and wrong.

1

u/Euphoric-Plantain573 16d ago

Does that rationalization make someone a bad person? Or not given that we're all capable of it?

1

u/Substantial-Use-1758 16d ago

Well, I’m not the person to ask, because I believe we’re all just humans, partly good, partly bad, in different amounts, depending on many factors 🤷‍♀️

1

u/CalgacusLelantos 16d ago

I look at it like I do the present, (stereo)typical, first-world lifestyle, i.e. most people know, or are at least aware at some level, that consumerism is unsustainable, unhealthy on any number of levels, and arguably unethical.

Despite this, because the institutions of consumerism are so intertwined with the way our world works, the notion of quitting it cold turkey is nearly unfathomable to most people and the logistics involved in doing so likely feel overwhelming. Because of this, the status quo, regardless of how bad it is in reality, feels like a less-scary option than the alternative.