That's a good idea. "the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others ( opposed to egoism)." Glad we cleared that up. The words principle, concern, and devotion all imply some sort of intention.
Merriam Webster confirms by the second definition that the bacteria are acted altruistically. This is the context it is being used, I am not suggesting that bacteria have concern.
Now you're just being dumb. People are humans. Or, to cut off further semantic idiocy, homo sapiens. Happy?
No, not really. Are you saying that intelligent aliens would not be persons? Or even that God does not possess personhood because he is not human? The concept of person as per philosophical academia refers to one that is subject to rights and duties. I should have made this clear.
Computers can't reason. They can do math really fast. Given complex instructions, they can solve some classes of problems. However, they are incapable of thinking for themselves, meaning their results are merely functions of their inputs. They will give determinate answers.
Welcome to philosophy.
I read your link. It actually doesn't even support your point at all. In fact, it contradicts it.
"The Revolutionary War helped lead to new attitudes about slavery, especially among whites in the North. The war inspired a spirit of liberty and an appreciation for the service of the black soldiers. Partly for this reason, some Northern legislatures adopted laws during the late 1700's that provided for the immediate or gradual end of slavery. Another reason for such laws was simply that slaves had no essential role in the main economic activities of the North."e
Yes, in the North. It supports my claims quite well. If you read further you see, "By the early 1800's, most Northern states had taken steps to end slavery. Besides former slaves freed by law, free blacks included those who had been freed by their masters, who had bought their freedom, or who had been born of free parents."
Because these people are no longer slaves, they no longer fall under the blanket of slaves during the early 1800s and any northern slaves would represent a minority. In fact, if you read before that, even more is uncovered, "... Southern cotton industry expanded, and cotton became the chief crop in the region. The planters needed more and more workers to pick and bale the cotton, which led to large increases in the slave population. The thriving sugar cane plantations of Louisiana also used many slaves during the first half of the 1800's. By 1860, about 4 million slaves lived in the South."
Directly after affirms my claim, "Numerous slaves protested against their condition. They used such day-to-day forms of rebellion as destroying property, running away, pretending illness, and disobeying orders. Major slave protests included armed revolts and mutinies."
You are either trolling, red herring, or otherwise, because there is no possible way any rational person would believe slaves
enjoyed being slaves.
None.