Meaning: Mary Astell, a prominent English writer, raised a thought-provoking question with her quote: "Why is Slavery so much condemn'd and strove against in one Case, and so highly applauded and held so necessary and so sacred in another?" This quote encapsulates the paradoxical nature of societal attitudes towards slavery, highlighting the glaring inconsistency in the way slavery is perceived and justified in different contexts. Through this quote, Astell challenges the prevailing norms and sheds light on the moral and ethical contradictions inherent in the acceptance of slavery in certain forms while vehemently opposing it in others.

Astell was a feminist writer and philosopher who lived in the 17th and 18th centuries, a time when the transatlantic slave trade and the institution of chattel slavery were rampant. Her work often engaged with issues of gender inequality, social justice, and the moral implications of societal norms. In the context of her quote, Astell's inquiry into the disparate treatment of slavery reflects her broader concerns about the arbitrary nature of power dynamics and the selective application of moral principles in society.

The quote raises the fundamental question of why slavery is vehemently condemned in one context while being celebrated and deemed necessary in another. Astell draws attention to the inherent hypocrisy and moral relativism that underpin such attitudes. The condemnation of slavery in one case may be rooted in a recognition of its inherent cruelty and exploitation, while in another case, it may be rationalized and justified through economic, cultural, or racial justifications. Astell's astute observation invites readers to critically examine the underlying reasons for the disparate treatment of slavery and to interrogate the societal values and power structures that perpetuate such discrepancies.

One possible interpretation of Astell's quote is its relevance to the historical context of her time. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the transatlantic slave trade and the exploitation of African slaves were justified through the dehumanization of the enslaved individuals and the economic interests of the colonial powers. The systemic enslavement of Africans was rationalized through racist ideologies and economic imperative, leading to its widespread acceptance and even glorification within certain societal circles. Conversely, the condemnation of slavery in other contexts may have been rooted in moral and ethical principles that were selectively applied based on cultural and political considerations.

Furthermore, Astell's quote resonates with contemporary discussions about modern forms of slavery and exploitation. While the transatlantic slave trade has been abolished, various forms of exploitation, including human trafficking, forced labor, and contemporary slavery, continue to persist in different parts of the world. Astell's question prompts us to reflect on the ways in which these contemporary forms of exploitation are condemned or tacitly accepted based on geopolitical, economic, and social considerations. It calls attention to the need for a consistent and unwavering stance against all forms of slavery and exploitation, regardless of the specific context or circumstances.

In conclusion, Mary Astell's quote encapsulates a timeless and thought-provoking inquiry into the contradictory attitudes towards slavery in different contexts. By raising this question, Astell challenges readers to critically examine the underlying reasons for the disparate treatment of slavery and to confront the moral and ethical implications of societal attitudes towards exploitation and human bondage. Her quote continues to resonate with contemporary discussions about social justice, human rights, and the enduring legacy of slavery, urging us to strive for a more just and equitable world where all forms of slavery are unequivocally condemned.