Like most things, people were ok with it happening to others and only had an issue when it happened to them.
The idea that all slavery is wrong is a far more modern idea.
Unlike the OP I do not present that as a bad thing.
A runaway domesticated animal may stand a significantly higher risk of injury than its wild brethren.
Domesticated animals also so often have a much higher standard of living than in the wild;
it is hard to argue that an owned animal is deprived as much as an owned human.
"How edgy to you have to be to try and argue about the morality behind slavery."
"When you prove that animals are self aware and conscious to the level of humans you can start to try and make half of this point"
"...but you're taking it way too far with this whole energy molecules thing."
"What's next, comparing the Holocaust to fish farms?"
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave-making_ant > [1] http://www.statista.com/statistics/266471/distribution-of-googles-revenues-by-source/ > paying off initial investors
> Jeff Lawson(1) --- 8,623,617 --- 11.9%
The bar for what? If you mean the bar for a good explanation of what morality is, then the conclusion that it's an objective feature of the world is certainly not necessary.
Come on, there is obviously a tiny minority of people who don't think that. Just like in the Muslim countries, there is a tiny percentage of non-muslims. Majority, however, have conformed to what is accepted by people around them. Same with views on slavery of non-human animals today.
Hmm, what is 'our ethical guidelines'? If emotivism is true and if you look around you and throughout the history, there are no 'our (human) guidelines'. For almost any moral issue, there will be people who like it and those that don't like it.
I don't care what is currently popular in academic philosophy. There are many views in ethical philosophy, so it's unlikely that any of them will be the dominant view. Emotivism seems to be a good description of what moral sentences actually are. You have to differentiate between 'what moral sentences actually are' and 'what people think they are'. So, it's possible to say that emotivism/nihilism is true, while at the same time say that most people think that moral realism is true.
People don't use 'emotivism' for their moral compass, since most people don't even know what it is! How can ethical views and theories influence moral compass of regular people?
Your reference to nihilism is very typical. Most people use it almost as an insult. There are strong religious and political interests in society and nihilism bursts their bubbles and questions fundamental assumptions, so the way they cope is by contaminating the word and using it as an insult.
haha then there is no point in replying. If you're going to redefine words and make arbitrary assumptions, then why bother talking about anything with anyone?
This really ends with insults. You're labeling what I wrote as 'silly' and 'stupid' and trying to insult me by saying I'm wanna be internet Socrates. You've hit rock bottom with the insults.