Be Consistent: The Most Basic Requirement of Philosophy

Consider the following statements, all from the same paper:

[1] If we take a glance through history, we will see that almost every town of culture that was conquered was pitifully treated and served those who were socially above them. These people were called slaves. Now, these slaves were in constant pain and there lives were full of misery and sorrow. They didn't have any food or source of happiness...

Slaves had a bad life: we can agree on that. What about today's world?

[2] Aside from being slaves to our own decisions, we are also "currency slaves". We must work to bring food and shelter to our homes in order to survive and live long enough to see our children grow up and become the future. But, working to get paid is so normal, we don't truly believe its a form of slavery, is it? If we compare the Hebrew slaves and the Egyptians with our day to day jobs, we will realize it is exactly the same situation. We would be the Hebrew slaves, and we would spend eight hours or more, working for a Pharaoh (a boss) who would pay us half of what we truly deserve. With that money we will pay the house, buy food, medical bills, pay the school and of course the taxes. So, are we really free? Is that the description of someone who is truly free? What if we get tired of that life and decide to defy our boss? The most likely thing to happen is that we would be fired, which means no money which leads to no food ...

Notice, the suggestion is not that some people in today's world are, in effect, enslaved (one could use examples of indentured servitude, people-trafficking, etc.) The suggestion is that "we" are enslaved. So I, the reader, ask myself, am I enslaved? I have before me the description of slavery in the ancient world: pain, misery, sorrow, no food, no source of happiness. I have food, shelter, clothing, foreign travel, paid vacation time and health insurance. I have a beautiful wife, and I married her because I love her. None of that sounds like slavery as described in the first paragraph. True, I have to work to earn a living. I entered into a contract with my employer, and if I break that contract, there will be a price to pay. Still, I chose my job, and I chose my career. I wasn't happy with my employer in Nicaragua, so I decided to get a better job here in Panama. None of that sounds at all like slavery as described in paragraph [1]. Of course, I would be very happy to have my pay-packet doubled, but how on earth can anyone seriously say that everyone is earning half of what they deserve - yet that is all implied by using "We", because the implication is that this description fits all readers of the paper. If I were seriously to describe my life as one of slavery, to compare my comfortable middle class existence with the Hebrew slaves in the Bible, it would reveal me to be very shallow and selfish.

But my main point is not just that I disagree with paragraph [2], it is that paragraph [2] can be refuted by the evidence of paragraph [1]. Paragraph [1] tells us what made slavery so bad in the ancient world: constant pain, misery, sorrow, no food. Paragraph [2] does not attempt to demonstrate that the average reader faces those conditions. It argues not that I lack food, but that the food I do have depends on - oh, the horror - eight hours of work a day.

Read over the different parts of your paper, and ask whether they fit together to present a consistent, coherent position.

Back to Philosophy In Literature