Every human is unique.

"the argument that since a person, and a society, can feel a matter has been resolved, that it has been resolved in principal. Just because society has been deceived does not address the problem presented to you." Again, the problem with Pro's logic is that it is impossible to tell whether or not God has deceived society, rendering compensation impossible. Consequently, although philosophically it might be argued that the matter is not actually resolved, in practice, it is resolved if everyone in society agrees that it has been resolved. Remember: This debate centers around what Pro has referred to as the "moral and legal structures that we take for granted." These structures define compensation in a societal context; according to the law, if everyone in society agrees that compensation has taken place, then compensation has taken place. "Why does society demand as compensation the return to life of the same individual person, and not demand in return a similar person?" Again, society does not demand as compensation the return to life of the same individual person since this is impossible to verify. As far as society is concerned, whenever someone is returned, it is possible that God caused a different person to be returned, similar to the one lost but a different person. Consequently, society can only and does only demand that which can be guaranteed: that the person returned is similar enough to the person lost that it is conceivable for the latter to have become the former. Understandably, the person may hope for the exact same person to be returned, unaffected by the experience, just as one would hope for the same item that was stolen to be returned, untouched; however, this does not affect the actual compensation that can be given or that the family is willing to accept. "I would put it to you that ever since the dawn of man there has never been a single formal argument put forward before a judge that calls for the murderer to return to society a person that can be used as a doppelganger of the person murdered." There has been no formal argument put forward because doing so would defeat the point of returning a doppelganger: if society acknowledged him as a different person than the murdered man, then it would be impossible for "all of society [to] consider the returned person to be the same as the lost one." Instead, the formal demand would call for the return of the real person, and it would be the murderer's responsibility to furnish a doppelganger. "but since the person cannot totally and completely replicate a person, it doesn"t satisfy the actual demands of the family and society. That demand being that the murderer return precisely the same murdered victim to life." A person does not need to "totally and completely replicate a person" to satisfy this demand because "resemblance is based upon superficial characteristics and behavior." For example, in a colorblind society, two poles that are colored differently may be considered to be the same. "My challenge to you was to give a philosophical reason why this demand exists if the victim is not unique. This challenge has not been met." The demand exists so that a person with the same superficial characteristics and behaviors is returned instead of a completely different person. Similarly, if a chair is stolen, the owners will want a chair of the same model back instead of just any chair. "We assume that everyone shares this trait, and this informs the way we treat each-other." If everyone shares the same trait of sentience, why would we treat each person uniquely? It is much more likely for us to follow certain guidelines when dealing with sentient beings. These guidelines would result in us treating people in much the same way (instead of uniquely), especially seeing as Pro has conceded that multiple people can behave in exactly the same way and also have the same exterior appearance. "None of that follows from the idea that every human being isn"t unique." Empirically it does (this was explained last round). "He"s not saying that whites, by virtue of their skin color, are better than blacks. He"s pointing out that African Americans under slavery were doing more for society than when they are freed." Ok. Some other slaveholders did justify slavery using skin color, however. "Why is that so important? Because abolitionists often talked about the cruelty of the slave masters, but that begged the question, "Why should we care?" If someone wants to beat or slaughter their cattle, that"s the owners right. Empathy, or putting oneself into the experience of another, is only relevant if that "other" is sentient, and this is why the abolitionists appeal to the soul." Sentience != uniqueness. Since sentience beings comprise a homogeneous society, it is not okay to harm any of them. If slaves really were unique, with some being more sentient than others, then it would be okay to beat some of them and not okay to beat others. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org.... "The issue you"re avoiding, is that some humans either are or can be made to be inferior to humans. So by your argumentation slavery isn"t immoral per se, it"s only immoral if the humans are sufficiently alike." My point is that if humans are not sufficiently alike, then it is no longer called slavery. For example, if a human cell is used to create a dog that is then "enslaved", this would not be considered slavery. "Imitation is not replication." It servers the same purpose in a societal context. "I was pointing out than utilitarianism would demand that if an offer was sufficient that the transaction would morally need to take place. Suppose instead that the person was just kidnapped and taken into slavery and the slave-owner offered to pay the family and/or the society what he is worth." Under utilitarianism, no such offer would be sufficient for the transaction to take place. This is because the moral transgression associated with involuntary enslaving someone is so great that no amount of moral actions can compensate for it. One cannot steal an item, pay its value to the owner, and then claim that their stealing of the item is justified; it is the owner's choice whether or not to sell, regardless of the value offered. "Since I"ve shown that the position you"ve put forward demands that under certain circumstances slavery is the morally right thing to do" It does not; it at most demands that indentured servitude is the best course of action. Indentured servitude is not inherently immoral.