I mean can’t we just enslave them if they think working a lot without asking much in return is ethical? If they think that the poor deserves to be poor and they will go to hell anyways so if we keep them poor and enslave them and tell them that they deserve it and should be working for us and simply accuse them of being sinful if they do not comply? If they want to be crushed under capitalism so much then why not just give them what they want and we can live comfortable and enjoyable lives while they are working for us.

Edit: Calvin says “It is enough to be successful at your job in for the lord to love you” and “The only job of business owners and traders should be increasing their wealth because even the god gave the duty of ruling over others to them”. Zubritski, Kerov, Mitropelski, The Primitive Community, the Slave Society, the Feudal Society, p.257 I read the book in a different laguage so made the translation by myself but of course you can find it in english too. So dear friend, it is perfectly ethical for calvinists to work their asses off without asking for much in return since business owners have to be as greedy as possible meaning that they should give as little as possible to their workers and in return, the only thing god wants from workers is to be good at their job and it is enough. Furthermore, Calvinists also believe that god chose an elected few and gave them the wealth and they will also go to heaven while all others will go to hell no matter what and thats why they are poor. By that logic, it is perfectly ethical for protestants if we ensave them and make them work for us for almost nothing in return and abuse them as much as we want too. We can eat an entire table of food while watching them suffer and beg us to give them some food even a single piece of bread and not even give that one since they also respect property rights at its fullest and they will still find this ethical. I hope this explains.

  • Libb@piefed.socialEnglish
    2·
    8 days ago

    That is why the ’ Enlightenment’ ideas should not have been thrown out the window.

    I would suggest you read people like Jean-Jacques Rousseau or Etienne de La Boétie, maybe even Voltaire. Those were all French (or French speaking) but they all have been translated into English for a good reason: it’s worth reading them even if you are not lucky enough to read French.

    They, as well as many other thinkers btw, they have reflected on what it meant to be free while they were living in a not free society. And considered what it could mean to be free and to live with other free people.

    Way too grossly summarized: it means to respect the other, to have empathy for the other, to know the only true ground to building a society and working together while remaining free is not through a religion or the ‘family’ (family being an ad hoc association between people, dixit Rousseau) but it is in the the realization we can do a lot more work by freely/willingly working together than working alone. And then it follows that no matter how absolutely free we may decide we are we should be fine with putting limits to our own freedom as a way to make sure other people will also put limits to their (and not threatens ours), making sure we don’t end up considering all other persons as mere… resources that re waiting for us to exploit them.

    That’s why it’s important, as free persons, to recognize certain limits to our individual freedom (and power) including agreeing a common set of values, moral and educative, that we all agree to follow and to enforce them upon all of us equally (oneself included). Like… to not enslave your neighbor (no matter the color of their skin, faith, or whatever else).