Slavery - yes or no?

[Tristesse]

Anyone? No.

Why do you value your car?

Why not anyone? Whats the difference between me valueing something and someone else also valueing something, are they to not also worshipping when they value something? If you have kids, do you value them? Would you consider that worship of your kids? If not, why not? Are you making some kind of special exemption for me?

I value my car because it takes me from point A to point B and on weekends point C (sorry simpsons reference).

 

[Sleeppy]

Why not anyone? Whats the difference between me valueing something and someone else also valueing something, are they to not also worshipping when they value something? If you have kids, do you value them? Would you consider that worship of your kids? If not, why not? Are you making some kind of special exemption for me?

I value my car because it takes me from point A to point B and on weekends point C (sorry simpsons reference).

It depends on what's behind the value. If I value something, it belongs to and came from God. Therefore, I only worship my God.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So..
If you own a slave, and you value that slave (after all, it is your property), it belongs to and came from God. Therefore you only worship God.
And that makes owning another human being as personal property just okey dokey.

 

[Sleeppy]

So..
If you own a slave, and you value that slave (after all, it is your property), it belongs to and came from God. Therefore you only worship God.
And that makes owning another human being as personal property just okey dokey.

That's good. You actually got it.. but I don't think you understand it, as I do.

 

[tumbleweed41]

That's good. You actually got it.. but I don't think you understand it, as I do.

Yes, I understand your theological rationalizations for the practice of human slavery.

I find this rationalization abhorrent and barbaric, but I understand how you came to it.

 

[Sleeppy]

I find this rationalization abhorrent and barbaric, but I understand how you came to it.

No. I don't think you do. That's why that statement was surprising.

Abhorrent and barbaric.. prove each of these.

 

[markymark]

Never, it is unjust and dehumanizing. The authors of the bible were primitive savages.

thats your opinion ....but simply not true

 

[tumbleweed41]

Abhorrent and barbaric.. prove each of these.

As I said, I find your theological rationalizations abhorrent and barbaric.
How does one prove a subjective opinion?

 

[Sleeppy]

As I said, I find your theological rationalizations abhorrent and barbaric.
How does one prove a subjective opinion?

Is it logical? Explain your logic.

 

[nnmartin]

here is quite a good extract from a Christian apologetics point of view.

(source - gotquestions.org)

Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.

so is slavery in the Bible meant to be a metaphor only?

is Jesus trying to teach slave owners to free their slaves?

if accepting God as our salvation should we just accept our lot in life as well, whatever that may be?

 

[Tristesse]

Is it logical? Explain your logic.

If one finds the practice of owning another human as property, and being permitted to beat them, immoral and barbaric, thats their logic to form that conclusion. If you find the practice to be fine and see nothing wrong with it. Then I think you have an immoral and barbaric out look on life.

 

[Sleeppy]

If one finds the practice of owning another human as property, and being permitted to beat them, immoral and barbaric, thats their logic to form that conclusion. If you find the practice to be fine and see nothing wrong with it. Then I think you have an immoral and barbaric out look on life.

There is no logical explanation here.

 

[Tristesse]

There is no logical explanation here.

if you value liberty for individuals, then logically you cannot be in favor of slavery. If you don't value that, then logically you can be in favor of slavery. Logic can run both ways. What we're discussing has nothing to do with logic, but rather moral and immoral behavior.

 

[nnmartin]

so is it ever ok to keep a slave?

can anyone think of a reason when this would be acceptable

 

[tumbleweed41]

so is it ever ok to keep a slave?

can anyone think of a reason when this would be acceptable

No

:no:

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

so is it ever ok to keep a slave?

can anyone think of a reason when this would be acceptable

I gave you a situation in which keeping slaves would be morally fine, but you didn't respond to it.

Do you agree that if your family will starve to death without forced labor, then it would be moral to enslave the enemy who has scorched your earth?

I just threw that scenario together on the spot. I could create more of them.

It's a brutal world out there. We're just a dozen meals away from anarchy. What's OK for our time and place wouldn't be the same as what's OK for another time and place.

Agree? Disagree?

 

[Falvlun]

I gave you a situation in which keeping slaves would be morally fine, but you didn't respond to it.

Do you agree that if your family will starve to death without forced labor, then it would be moral to enslave the enemy who has scorched your earth?

I just threw that scenario together on the spot. I could create more of them.

It's a brutal world out there. We're just a dozen meals away from anarchy. What's OK for our time and place wouldn't be the same as what's OK for another time and place.

Agree? Disagree?

That's an artificial dichotomy to say that the choices are either forced labor or starvation. If someone has the means to feed people, then he could do so without forcing them to labor. Or, he could hire them and pay them in food.

Slavery, as in "considering another person to be your property" is never a morally correct option.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That's an artificial dichotomy to say that the choices are either forced labor or starvation.

Actually it's a hypothetical and it belongs to me. It's my imaginary situation and I declare that in it, there are no other good options.

You're welcome to press me as to the why, of course, but let's just assume that my slave-owner is retarded and cannot come up with any option other than starvation or forced labor. Then we can move on with studying the morality of it.

If someone has the means to feed people, then he could do so without forcing them to labor. Or, he could hire them and pay them in food.

He has no means to feed people, not without slave labor.

And I'm assuming that he would have to pay them in food, just as we hire mules to work for us and pay them in food.

Slavery, as in "considering another person to be your property" is never a morally correct option.

OK. That's a fine opinion. How about killing another human being. Never morally correct, in your view?

 

[Falvlun]

Actually it's a hypothetical and it belongs to me. It's my imaginary situation and I declare that in it, there are no other good options.

You're welcome to press me as to the why, of course, but let's just assume that my slave-owner is retarded and cannot come up with any option other than starvation or forced labor. Then we can move on with studying the morality of it.

But such a situation doesn't occur in the real world, so why figure out the morality of a situation that would never occur? That would be like saying "In my imaginary world, no babies would ever be born unless women were raped", and somehow trying to prove the morality of rape by such a hypothetical scenario. It's just not really helpful.

He has no means to feed people, not without slave labor.

And I'm assuming that he would have to pay them in food, just as we hire mules to work for us and pay them in food.

Again, that's an impossible scenario. Even assuming he must have labor in order to have the means to feed people, he doesn't have to get that labor through slavery; he can get it through some other mutual agreement between free people, like "you do this much work, and I will pay you a potato". In slavery, he'd similarly have to end up feeding his slaves a potato for doing so much work, so there is no difference in his means between the morally reprehensible action of slavery and the morally permissible one of mutual agreement.

If you want to pretend your scenario really only involves those two options, slavery or death by starvation, then there is no moral option; both are still immoral actions.

(And, you don't pay slaves and you don't hire mules.)

OK. That's a fine opinion. How about killing another human being. Never morally correct, in your view?

The circumstances surrounding killing a person determine whether it was morally permissible or not.

But, what circumstances ever make rape right? Similarly, what circumstances could ever make considering another person to be property correct?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

But such a situation doesn't occur in the real world, so why figure out the morality of a situation that would never occur?

We just disagree. I think such a situation could occur in the real world. As I say, we're only a dozen meals away from anarchy. Who knows what reality could happen. I don’t think that my scenario breaks any of the laws of physics.

That would be like saying "In my imaginary world, no babies would ever be born unless women were raped", and somehow trying to prove the morality of rape by such a hypothetical scenario. It's just not really helpful.

I think it's helpful to point out that we can be enslaved by language. What is 'torture'? Is it ever right? We all have an urge to declare that torture can never be right, but we might agree that in some specific situation, inflicting pain upon another human in order to force him to tell the truth... that could indeed be right and moral. He's the only guy who knows where the nuclear bomb in hidden in a major city. We can either allow millions of innocent people to die, or we can inflict pain upon the terrorists to force the truth. I'd have no problem declaring that torture is the correct moral choice in such a case. Others might insist that 'torture' is never right -- even while agreeing that the terrorist should be given pain to force him to talk.

Sometimes we just hate certain words, I think.

Again, that's an impossible scenario. Even assuming he must have labor in order to have the means to feed people, he doesn't have to get that labor through slavery; he can get it through some other mutual agreement between free people, like "you do this much work, and I will pay you a potato".

He rejects your proposal, preferring to join the anarchists. Your family starves to death.

And maybe that's OK for you, but I wouldn't have a problem forcing him to accept. He's just burned my fields. He had no right to do that. Now I'll force him to work for me to replant and harvest. Maybe you would do it, too, preferring to think of it as a ‘repayment of debt’ rather than ‘enslavement’. I don't know.

If you want to pretend your scenario really only involves those two options, s

lavery or death by starvation, then there is no moral option; both are still immoral actions.

In my view of life two mutually-exclusive choices can't both be immoral. Sometimes we have to make hard choices. God can't condemn us for choosing the lesser of two evils. I couldn't believe in such a God anyway.

(And, you don't pay slaves and you don't hire mules.)

OK. My view of language is mushier than yours, I guess. They’re just words. Just tools. I’d rather try to peek behind them at whatever reality might be there.

The circumstances surrounding killing a person determine whether it was morally permissible or not.

Yes, just as with slavery and torture. I guess it's curious to me that you accept the ambiguity of 'killing' but not of 'slavery'.

But, what circumstances ever make rape right?

That one is harder but still doable. Humanity is about to die out. My God has instructed me that He prefers humanity to survive. That can only be accomplished if the last two fecund females are impregnated by the last teenaged boy. Would I instruct the boy to impregnate the females? Probably not. I'd just let humanity die out. But I can imagine another person choosing differently and giving the order.

Years later, the surviving human population would surely hail his choice as a great moral move. Even God might think it right.

What if the terrorist is a female and the only thing she fears is rape? She thinks that if she's ever raped, her God will disown her and she would be free to disclose the location of the bomb.

Sure it's unlikely. But not impossible. People think weird stuff.

Similarly, what circumstances could ever make considering another person to be property correct?

I've answered this one. If you'd let your family die rather than force enemy soldiers -- who'd just burned your fields -- to work at putting in a crop, well, that would be your choice. I'd have a hard time condemning such a decision myself. In fact, I'd consider it immoral not to force them to work for my family's survival. To let my child die in order to be able to claim the moral high ground? That wouldn't seem proper to me.