Slavery as a double-edged sword

It is far from controversial to decry slavery as morally decrepit, and an absolute affront to human rights. What is less talked about, however, and what we began to discuss in class on Tuesday, is the toll slavery takes not only on those being enslaved, but on those who would enslave them. By this, I mean that in the process of enslaving another human being--reducing them to nothing more than property--a person loses their own humanity. Interestingly enough, this opinion is one shared by the enslaved. Equiano eloquently writes, "Such a tendency has the slave trade to debauch men's minds, and harden them to every feeling of humanity! For I will not suppose that the dealers in slaves are born worse than other men--No; it is the fatality of this mistaken avarice, that it corrupts the milk of human kindness and turns it into gall." The fact that slaves themselves seem to understand that the slave trade is a corrupting force points to the absolute moral bankruptcy of the trade, and creates an interesting paradox. Presumably, and understandably, slaves hated the men who propagated the trade itself, but they also seem to realize that the slave trade itself has corrupted these men to a point that they defy their own humanity. The fact that this sentiment presents itself in this piece of literature is especially interesting, as it seems to reach out directly to abolitionists. White abolitionists probably had more in common with slave traders than with slaves themselves, but by showing slave traders (white Americans) as good men who have been corrupted morally by the slave trade, Equiano allows white abolitionists to draw a distinct difference between themselves and the slave traders, and in so doing, allows them to take positions in favor of a group they normally would not relate to as easily as those they are taking arms against.

Practice Makes Perfect

Benjamin Franklin's attempt to sway the reader to marry properly in “Advice to a Young Man on the Choice of a Mistress" fails miserably in comparison to his list of reasons to chase a cougar. Franklin fools the audience into anticipating pithy wisdom in the beginning of the letter with phrases like, "A single Man has not nearly the Value he would have in that State of Union. He is an incomplete Animal." Unbeknownst to the reader, he continues to write a few more lines of tongue-in-cheek marriage advice before relaying the list that puts into detail how he really feels about maximizing one's sexual potential; chasing older women. Franklin makes a pretty radical transition when he wisely advises the reader about the maturing state of a woman's physique; "So that covering all above with a Basket, and regarding only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two Women to know an old from a young one." Franklin’s letter was so controversial and graphic for its time that according to Wikipedia, "Federal court decisions from the mid- to late- twentieth century cited the document as a reason for overturning obscenity laws." This fact speaks to the raunchiness of the letter and reflects it's radical nature in that day and for years to come. Franklin does make some valid, more tasteful arguments when he describes older women as more knowledgeable of the world and more unlikely to have children. He tries to maintain some sort of “good guy” image when he warns that pursuing a young girl too early could ruin her life. I found it amazing that Franklin ends the list with the point, “They are so grateful!” It seems he could only acquire this belief and most of the others through personal experience. It makes me a little uncomfortable when I think about Franklin living his “paradox.” It is unreal that the same man who wrote, “If you get a prudent healthy Wife, your Industry in your Profession, with her good Economy, will be a Fortune sufficient," also wrote, “Because thro' more Experience, they are more prudent and discreet in conducting an Intrigue to prevent Suspicion.” Ben obviously knew a little bit more about how to sneak around with the ladies than sustaining a traditional long-term relationship.

The Prescience of "The Busy-Body"

While Benjamin Franklin’s anonymous “Busy-Body” letters are largely satirical, they display a remarkably prescient understanding of the human fascination with others’ private lives. Many aspects of our own media-driven culture can be seen reflected in the “Busy-Body” letters. The narrator of the letters explains to us in Letter No. 1 that while readers may run the risk of showing up in the letters themselves, “they shall have the Satisfaction, in a very little Time, of seeing their good Friends and Neighbours in the same Circumstances.”

This social voyeurism that Franklin describes can be seen in almost all aspects of modern life in various ways. The astronomical success of Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks allow us to peer anonymously into the lives of our friends. Tabloid journalism allows us to peak into the private lives of celebrities, and the rise of the 24-hour news cycle allows us to constantly monitor the lives of politicians and government officials, waiting for the occasional sex scandal to be revealed for the amusement and derision of 300 million citizens.

One particularly insightful moment comes when the narrator describes “a young Man of Modesty” who is virtuous enough to warrant a high position in life, but does not want to expose himself to “a Place where a pun or a Sneer shall pass for Wit, Noise for Reason, and the Strength of the Argument be judg’d by that of the Lungs.” Fearful of the unfair criticism of the masses, the man opts for a quiet, private life. This description seems extremely reminiscent of our current political climate. No matter how virtuous an individual is, fear of the exposure of some minor, youthful, scandal may prevent him/her from aspiring to public life. In the event that there actually is no scandal in this squeaky clean individual’s past, it is likely that one will be manufactured by someone somewhere.

While Franklin was writing over a century before the television and therefore, was probably not picturing anything like CNN when he wrote this letter, he knew enough to understand the human fascination with meddling in the lives of others. Our current media-driven society is just the logical result of this part of human nature.

Vices and Virtues

If you were to ask anyone if, given the opportunity, they would erase all the vices of the world, the answer would probably tend to be yes. In fact, that person might look at you like you were crazy for even having to ask that question. However, would ridding the world of all vice ve beneficial to society? Would getting rid of every flaw and evil in the world fix everything? Well, according to Bernard Mandeville the answer is an emphatic no.
Mandeville, in his "The Fable of the Bees", sets up a society of bees who act like men. He describes the bees as being corrupt, and immoral, with lawyers who "kept of Hearings willfully,/ To finger the refreshing Fee" and physicians who "valued Fame and Wealth/ Above the drooping Patient's Health". Mandeville depicts a society in which vice rules, in which it is the worse rather than better nature of man that prevails. However, he later adds "Thus every Part was full of Vice,/ Yet the whole Mass a Paradise". According to Mandeville's fable, it is the faulty faculties of man which indeed fosters progress in society. To further illustrate this point, when the figure of Jove removes all vice from the world, society collapses. All bars close, lawyers are out of jobs--it's hardly the perfect society one would suspect.
According to Mandeville, we need vice to make society run. I would disagree. While there is some truth in what Mandeville says, he goes too far in saying vice is necessary for progress. Sure, the vice of vanity drives competition which in turn allows progress, but there are also those who help simply to help, who want progress not merely for their own gain, but for the benefit of others. To say "Bare Virtue can't make Nations live/ In Splendor" is too extreme. Do we have our flaws? Of course we do. But are we a vice driven society? Some people are, but I would like to have a little more faith in people. Mandeville posits that we are driven by our own ambitions, by our own selfish wants and needs. We are evil creatures and it is in being evil that we are able to take steps forward. I would argue that we are flawed. At times we only think of ourselves, but at times we think of anything but ourselves. It is that mix of selfishness and selflessness that makes us what we are, and what allows us to progress.