They said economically beneficial, not good. This whole exchange seems to prove their point.
I'd like to read arguments on both sides for the economic effects of, say, slavery in America. Did America benefit? If so, over what timescales? Were there benefits in the short term but the ongoing divisions now hurt the economy more? And I can wonder about these things while still not thinking it was good.
That topic has actually been researched, the slave states had less developed economies than the northern states. For the same reason all feudal/slave states have underdeveloped economies.
Of course, some people in this thread are probably ready to laud Hitler's economic acumen, while ignoring his economic gains were due to public spending building a war machine and taking Jewish people's stuff.
HN is one of those places where, as frustrating as it might be, the rules of discourse encourage thoughtful interchange. Here, we at least have the hope that we can be educated or enlightened, and in some cases we may be able to show others the errors in their thinking in a manner that doesn't close off communication.
Utilitarianism defines utility as whatever people value. The hard part is interpersonal comparisons.
Most arguments I can come up with are reasonably close to contemporary arguments for socialism or basic income. Do you consider those arguments (far more socially acceptable) to be similarly "messed up"?
(Note that most of those who have advocated for slavery in recent years, e.g Obama and Rangell, did so from a socialist perspective. Slaves would serve the state, either as "volunteers" for social programs or in the military. I'm not the only one who finds the cases to be pretty close.)
Do you only value white people's well being? Otherwise, if you actually knew anything about the history of slavery you'd have never had that thought. People aren't actually exaggerating about generational PTSD - splitting up over half of new families, corporal punishment, sexual abuse, the list goes on.
Scroll up. I didn't defend slavery on economic grounds. I argued that if someone did attempt to do so, the response to them is likely to be anti intellectual.
