Neanderthal slaves

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MindOverMatter2

Guest

It is widely believed that we have no moral right to own people as slaves, but we do have a moral right to own animals and use them for labor and food, so long as we treat them correctly.

Neanderthals are now extinct. But if they existed today would we have a right to own them and use them for labor and eat them as food?

I have my own opinion on the matter, but i would like to see other peoples responses and opinions.

Thanks. No theology please.:rolleyes:
 
I guess it depends on how closely we consider Neanderthals to be related to us. When I was in high school, the consensus seemed to be (at least as presented in my science classes) that there was Neanderthal DNA mixed up with that of Homo sapiens, and that there was a push to “re-classify” humans as Homo sapiens sapiens, and then Neanderthals as Homo sapiens neanderthalis (or similar)…unless it had already happened. Science was not my favorite subject. 😊

If that’s true, then Neanderthals would be the same species as us, but a different subspecies. I think it would also matter if we could produce children with them. As far as I know, it’s genetically possible. That would make them “human enough” in my mind to not make it morally right to “enslave” them.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

It is widely believed that we have no moral right to own people as slaves, but we do have a moral right to own animals and use them for labor and food, so long as we treat them correctly.

Neanderthals are now extinct. But if they existed today would we have a right to own them and use them for labor and eat them as food?

I have my own opinion on the matter, but i would like to see other peoples responses and opinions.

Thanks. No theology please.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
What will we base the moral authority of not keeping humans as slaves on?
The Pagans thought some humans were natural slaves, some natural masters:)

The Science seems to suggest that Neanderthal man was human, either a subspecies of Homo sapiens or a separate human species. If we use Aristotelian logic, and we say:
that keeping Humans as slaves is wrong,
and that Neanderthal man as a species was human,
then it would be wrong to keep any Neanderthal man as a slave.

Theology-free zone.
 
silicasandra said:
I guess it depends on how closely we consider Neanderthals to be related to us. When I was in high school, the consensus seemed to be (at least as presented in my science classes) that there was Neanderthal DNA mixed up with that of Homo sapiens, and that there was a push to “re-classify” humans as Homo sapiens sapiens, and then Neanderthals as Homo sapiens neanderthalis (or similar)…unless it had already happened. Science was not my favorite subject. 😊

If that’s true, then Neanderthals would be the same species as us, but a different subspecies. I think it would also matter if we could produce children with them. As far as I know, it’s genetically possible. That would make them “human enough” in my mind to not make it morally right to “enslave” them.
Click to expand...
This idea was widely discredited when scientists were unable to find Neanderthal DNA in the human genome, then firmly demonstated when they did find it after all, last year if I recall.

That said, from my casual observation it seems like the trend recently is to divide former subspecies into their own species and to get away from the idea that if interbreeding produces viable offspring the two things should be considered the same species.

The answers to the OP’s questions of course depend on if Neanderthals were truely human in the sense of having a rational, spiritual soul, being decended from Adam, all that. That’s a particularly difficult question to answer in my opinion. There are difficulties with either answer.
 
Aelred_Minor said:
This idea was widely discredited when scientists were unable to find Neanderthal DNA in the human genome, then firmly demonstated when they did find it after all, last year if I recall.

That said, from my casual observation it seems like the trend recently is to divide former subspecies into their own species and to get away from the idea that if interbreeding produces viable offspring the two things should be considered the same species.

The answers to the OP’s questions of course depend on if Neanderthals were truely human in the sense of having a rational, spiritual soul, being decended from Adam, all that. That’s a particularly difficult question to answer in my opinion. There are difficulties with either answer.
Click to expand...
I am inclined to believe those who say that Neanderthals were simply human beings with a more robust physiognomy than most (but not all) modern humans have.

But at the very minimum, if there was uncertainty about their humanness, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. It seems to me that being careless of their lives would be a bit like shooting a high powered rifle into a crowded stadium without targeting anybody in particular. Are we innocent of murder if we don’t aim? No.
 
I have sometimes wondered if stories of Dwarves and Trolls: humanoid, physically strong and lived in caves, but not human, were folk memories of Neanderthals.

rossum
 
The Neanderthals buried their dead,
used tools,
used fire,
and made primitive jewelry.

It is likely they could talk, although no proof is possible now.

They were humans, not animals.

It would be wrong to enslave them.
 
I have sometimes wondered if stories of Dwarves and Trolls: humanoid, physically strong and lived in caves, but not human, were folk memories of Neanderthals.

rossum
Click to expand...
It’s very likely.

Racial memory can last a long time even without written records.

7,500 years ago, the Black Sea suddenly filled up when a natural rock bridge spanning the straits at Constanstinople broke apart and the Black Sea plains flooded permanently. Evidence of submerged villages have been found. This may be the inspiration for Noah’s flood.

Very few Neanderthal remains have been found. The latest are from tens of thousands of years ago, but we can’t be sure there weren’t still some alive just a few thousand years ago.

The Sunday paper comics page had a Prince Valiant story a few years ago in which Prince Valiant encountered the last of the Neanderthals. Prince Valiant takes place in the time of King Arthur, around 800 A.D. Not likely this story was realistic, but it’s not absolutely impossible. 🤷

There was a huge ape in Southeast Asia that stood up to ten feet tall.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus
Supposedly it went extinct 100,000 years ago, but who can be sure of that?
 
empther said:
It’s very likely.

Racial memory can last a long time even without written records.

7,500 years ago, the Black Sea suddenly filled up when a natural rock bridge spanning the straits at Constanstinople broke apart and the Black Sea plains flooded permanently. Evidence of submerged villages have been found. This may be the inspiration for Noah’s flood.

Very few Neanderthal remains have been found. The latest are from tens of thousands of years ago, but we can’t be sure there weren’t still some alive just a few thousand years ago.

The Sunday paper comics page had a Prince Valiant story a few years ago in which Prince Valiant encountered the last of the Neanderthals. Prince Valiant takes place in the time of King Arthur, around 800 A.D. Not likely this story was realistic, but it’s not absolutely impossible. 🤷

There was a huge ape in Southeast Asia that stood up to ten feet tall.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus
Supposedly it went extinct 100,000 years ago, but who can be sure of that?
Click to expand...
Caucasians in particular bear some of the skeletal characteristics of Neanderthals. One of my daughters is a forensic anthropologist. I can’t remember all of those little similarities, but there are a number of them.

Regardless, and joking but not entirely, one can always suspect at least one member of a German farming community of being more Neanderthal than not. 😃
 
This is a tough answer. I think that if we were able to see and meet a Neaderthal, we would not feel comfortable “owning” one. They are too human, and intelligent. They were skilled in making stone tools and had a culture. We could probably preach to them and teach them of God’s Kingdom instead! It’s very likely that once we learned how to communicate with them, they would understand concepts like this (though we will never know for sure). They had brains as large as, or larger, than modern man.

But if it’s not ok to own a Neaderthal as a pet or slave (which seems to be the consensus) where do you draw the line? Look at the following picture:
4.bp.blogspot.com/_84ijlM83vuQ/TVJTR0U4oFI/AAAAAAAAA-8/y_PftR_yLT8/s400/evolution-of-man-B.jpg

Circle the one that is ok to keep as a slave or pet. 🙂 Tough call, guys.
 
Garyjohn2 said:
This is a tough answer. I think that if we were able to see and meet a Neaderthal, we would not feel comfortable “owning” one. They are too human, and intelligent. They were skilled in making stone tools and had a culture. We could probably preach to them and teach them of God’s Kingdom instead! It’s very likely that once we learned how to communicate with them, they would understand concepts like this (though we will never know for sure). They had brains as large as, or larger, than modern man.

But if it’s not ok to own a Neaderthal as a pet or slave (which seems to be the consensus) where do you draw the line? Look at the following picture:
4.bp.blogspot.com/_84ijlM83vuQ/TVJTR0U4oFI/AAAAAAAAA-8/y_PftR_yLT8/s400/evolution-of-man-B.jpg

Circle the one that is ok to keep as a slave or pet. 🙂 Tough call, guys.
Click to expand...
I recall reading the opinion of some anthropologist or other that if we passed a Neanderthal on the street dressed and coifed in a modern manner, we would not notice him particularly.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I am inclined to believe those who say that Neanderthals were simply human beings with a more robust physiognomy than most (but not all) modern humans have.

But at the very minimum, if there was uncertainty about their humanness, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. It seems to me that being careless of their lives would be a bit like shooting a high powered rifle into a crowded stadium without targeting anybody in particular. Are we innocent of murder if we don’t aim? No.
Click to expand...
I would agree with that approach were we to actually somehow meet living Neanderthals today, for example if they were cloned. In reality we have the luxury of living thousands of years after their extinction and there has not (yet) been a serious discussion about whether we should try to bring them back, so the discussion is purely academic, and we can assert without reasonable fear of justifying atrocities that if Neanderthals were not true humans they would not have human rights.

Some archeological evidence does certainly seem to lend support to the idea that they were human. But in some cases might the evidence be misinterpreted? Was burial really done for religious/ritual reasons or was it a convenient way to avoid disease or attracting dangerous predators? Is a trace of flower pollen with a body really evidence that flowers were thrown into the grave out of love, or might the individual have just walked through a field of wildflowers shortly before their death or something? Are the beads used by late Neanderthals after contact with modern humans evidence of human creativity and symbolic thinking or just an imitation of human behavior by what could be considered an extremely intelligent ape?

Also their degree of tool use strikes us as human, but we know apes and crows use and even make tools too and if Neanderthals were not human we would still expect much more complex behavior due to their brains being so much more similar to our own compared to extant animals. Trying to deduce the existence of a spiritual soul in such an intelligent animal by its behavior from this end of history might be comparable to if all other vertebrates had gone extinct tens of thousands of years ago and then we encountered a chimpanzee. The chimp might challenge our idea of human uniqueness, but it would be wrong to conclude it was human because its appearance and behavior were so much closer to our own than those of the insects and squid we were accustomed to defining our idea of advanced non-human animal life.

Certainly the longer the list of apparently human-like behaviors, the more we suspect that Neanderthals really were human, even if no individual piece of evidence is conclusive. However, if Neanderthals, especially Neanderthals prior to any hybridization with modern humans, were indeed human that would push back the date for common human ancestry uncomfortably far back into brutish beings for whom there is not the same kind of evidence to support ideas of creativity, hope in an afterlife, etc.
 
Aelred_Minor said:
Certainly the longer the list of apparently human-like behaviors, the more we suspect that Neanderthals really were human, even if no individual piece of evidence is conclusive. However, if Neanderthals, especially Neanderthals prior to any hybridization with modern humans, were indeed human that would push back the date for common human ancestry uncomfortably far back into brutish beings for whom there is not the same kind of evidence to support ideas of creativity, hope in an afterlife, etc.
Click to expand...
But would it? There are incontestably human beings living today whose advancement seems hardly above that of Neanderthals, and there were human beings living just a few hundred years ago (e.g. the natives of Tierra del Fuego) with whose accomplishments those of Neanderthals would compare favorably.

But you’re right, we can’t go back and observe them or discuss the weather with them.
 
tonyrey said:
Do you believe in keeping them in captivity, experimenting on them and killing them?
Click to expand...
We’re talking about apes here, just to make it clear.

I believe apes are animals; certainly a higher order than many, but animals nonetheless. As animals, I believe they were created for the proper service of mankind. When one says “proper”, one takes into account that apes might, for instance, be more subject to, say, foreboding than, say, cattle, just as cattle are more subject to it than, say, earthworms. We must consider the nature of each creature in making these judgments.

So, for instance, if we keep apes in captivity, which I believe is at least mildly educational for mankind, I would say we ought to make it as natural and comfortable an environment as possible, given their nature. In doing so, of course, we ought to also protect them against the natural hazards that nature itself has in store for them. So, for example, since some apes are given to murdering and cannibalizing their own kind, this should be prevented in the course of captivity.

If experimenting on apes can lead to important cures for humans, then I certainly accept the idea of experimentation. Every precaution, however, should be taken to prevent undue panic or pain.

I would not support killing apes unless they pose a hazard to humans in a particular environment. I feel the same about any animal.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I recall reading the opinion of some anthropologist or other that if we passed a Neanderthal on the street dressed and coifed in a modern manner, we would not notice him particularly.
Click to expand...
Don’t remember where it was, but there was an exhibit in a natural history museum where they’d reconstructed a Neanderthal skeleton and built a carefully designeed full-scale model based on it. Rather than put it in stereotypical “caveman” gear, ie. a fur loincloth, they put a business suit on the figure.

He looked like this short, red-haired guy who used to buy bread in the bakery where I worked, I kid you not.

Since Neanderthalers had some semblance of culture (ie. using tools, burying their dead, possibly speaking, though their language may not have had the intricacy of, say, modern English), I’d say they’d qualify as humans and therefore, should not be treated as animals or slaves. To think otherwise is, to me, the same disordered thinking that lead to Europeans and people in the Americas of European ancestry to enslave and use as slaves their Afro-Caribbean brethren and their brethren who belonged to the indigenous tribes of South America.
 
The real question of course comes down to what would a Neanderthal do if raised as a human, sent through school and then let free into the world. Could he hold a job, even a simple one? Could he for example keep a house clean and respect the laws of the land? I am not saying he could or could not, I do not know. However my view is that if he could live in the real world, then he should not be owned as a slave, however if he could not, then the idea of using them as a slave would be okay as long as they were well treated. One could say that my dog is my slave, however my dog is very happy being my slave.

Great question, sorry I do not have a better answer for you.

Pax :signofcross:
 
Speedypizza said:
The real question of course comes down to what would a Neanderthal do if raised as a human, sent through school and then let free into the world. Could he hold a job, even a simple one? Could he for example keep a house clean and respect the laws of the land? I am not saying he could or could not, I do not know. However my view is that if he could live in the real world, then he should not be owned as a slave, however if he could not, then the idea of using them as a slave would be okay as long as they were well treated. One could say that my dog is my slave, however my dog is very happy being my slave.

Great question, sorry I do not have a better answer for you.

Pax :signofcross:
Click to expand...
You might want to think some more about this. Your standard would allow enslaving many of the mentally disabled, not to mention some of the truly stupid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top