Is Slavery Moral?

[Skreeper]

No it isn't. It blames God for making hell instead of the guilty who do deeds that deserve that place.

No finite crime deserves infinite punishment. Especially when that punishment consists of torture and torment.

And considering that according to the Bible lying once is equally bad as killing 5 million people that punishment is hardly just or thought through.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If the master who owned the slaves treated them with kindness, good shelter, medication, good food, good salary, good rest time/vacation, wouldnt the slaves be happy ?

lol!!

Ask yourself that question.
Would you be happy being the legal property of let's say Bill Gates?

You'ld live in a mansion and probably have access to the best beds, health care, food, etc.
However, you'ld have no rights, no freedom and basicly be a prisoner of that luxury lifestyle and the property of another person.

No, I would not be happy. Basic freedom, rights and dignity is kind of a pre-requisite.

But its just because many slaves owner treated them bad then people blame God for slavery. Is God to be blamed for that ?

Slavery is slavery. I don't care how the slave is being treated.
Humans aren't products to be sold, bought or inherited.

 

[Noah Ark]

Ask yourself that question.
Would you be happy being the legal property of let's say Bill Gates?

Slave owners should not do that and if they did that why would you blame God.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is the accusation. It is not a description of the actually biblical situation, however. Being all powerful does not mean he is a tyrant as some insist any all powerful good Being would be.

Ow yes, because putting down a law that says "do not treat human beings as products that can be sold/bought/inherited", is so tyranical…

Yes yes, that is what tyrants do: establish some laws concerning basic human rights to make sure humans are treated with a minimum of dignity and respect. Uhu.

If he can tell you not to eat shrimp, he can certainly tell you not to treat people as property.

What is not noticed is being all powerful and good means one is NOT a bully because while bullies might be powerful, they are not good. All powerful AND good puts restrictions on what one can do to ensure good in society.

Uhu.... because telling people not to practice slavery, is "bullying" them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Slave owners should not do that and if they did that why would you blame God.

No idea what you are talking about or how this is in response to the thing you are quoting.

 

[devolved]

Ask yourself that question.
Would you be happy being the legal property of let's say Bill Gates?

You'ld live in a mansion and probably have access to the best beds, health care, food, etc.
However, you'ld have no rights, no freedom and basicly be a prisoner of that luxury lifestyle and the property of another person.

No, I would not be happy. Basic freedom, rights and dignity is kind of a pre-requisite.

You are contextualizing from POV of modern culture, especially as to how you define property.

In context of tribal cultures there was no option for what you would call "freedom of individuals". No one was "free" in context of how we define freedom today, because departure from tribe would mean death. Thus, automatically you were a "slave" to tribe in context of individual responsibilities of tribal members. You'd follow a very strict tribal tradition in order to ensure survival of your tribe. Marriage was a pragmatic arrangement by parents, etc.

Thus, when you were banished from your tribe for whatever reason, you could attempt to survive on your own, which would be unlikely, or you would join the other tribe by starting at the bottom.

It's sort of like mocking Steve Wozniak about not putting more ram into the first computer. That's all they had, and they had to make it work in context of available options.

 

[devolved]

If he can tell you not to eat shrimp, he can certainly tell you not to treat people as property.

Pragmatic application is always predicated on contextual viability.

Again, you can go back and tell Wozniak that he should have 100x more ram, and 1000x more computing power to keep up with what we have today... but what would be the point?

You can't jump over pre-requisites before you demand to remove pragmatic necessity of dealing with contextual problems. Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are contextualizing from POV of modern culture, especially as to how you define property.

I'm not. In fact, in that post I was just replying to a comment made by someone else.

As for how "property" is defined, in your bible it is pretty clear: slaves are the property of their owners, to the point where they can be traded like common goods and be inherited by off spring. They are property in every sense of the word.

In context of tribal cultures there was no option for what you would call "freedom of individuals". No one was "free" in context of how we define freedom today, because departure from tribe would mean death.

I'm pretty sure that slave owners and slaves would disagree.

Thus, automatically you were a "slave" to tribe in context of individual responsibilities of tribal members. You'd follow a very strict tribal tradition in order to ensure survival of your tribe. Marriage was a pragmatic arrangement by parents, etc.

Hilarious. Now you are retreating into "conceptual" and even half "poetic" / "philosophic" usage of the word "slave", just so you can defined this horrible practice of treating people as personal property.

It's sort of like mocking Steve Wozniak about not putting more ram into the first computer. That's all they had, and they had to make it work in context of available options.

No, it's not anything like that.
It's rather about how apparantly the most loving, most just, most ethical entity in the universe aparantly thinks there's nothing wrong with treating humans as personal property and common goods.

If he can tell you not to eat shrimp, he can tell you to not treat people that way.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Pragmatic application is always predicated on contextual viability.

Again, you can go back and tell Wozniak that he should have 100x more ram, and 1000x more computing power to keep up with what we have today... but what would be the point?

No point because this is a completely false analogy.

You can't jump over pre-requisites before you demand to remove pragmatic necessity of dealing with contextual problems. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Nothing to do with hindsight. We are talking about an entity that is supposed to be the most just and even absolute standard of morality.

This god sure had no problem saying all kinds of other controversial things (for that time). But he has no issues with this at all.

 

[devolved]

As for how "property" is defined, in your bible it is pretty clear: slaves are the property of their owners, to the point where they can be traded like common goods and be inherited by off spring. They are property in every sense of the word.

You are throwing the word property like it must have the same contextual meaning as it is to you today. That's simply not the case.

Slaves were "property" as much as a modern worker paying off a debt, or a prisoner working for pennies on the dollar are a "property", or a soldier or athlete signing a contract becomes a "property". The correct economic definition is an "worker asset". They were not entitled to "owning a person". Owners were entitled to their labor as a contractual debt payment means for a certain period of time.

The masters were responsible for slaves. Slaves were their responsibility. In context of children of slaves, they were responsible for them, because contextually they would be safer in that environment than migrating with no home or means of supporting themselves. Same goes for women.

In fact, your modern context of slavery of "kidnapping for ownership" was a death-punishable offense.

“Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession." Ex 16.

If slaves were property, then the following wouldn't make sense in context of property laws. The stolen property was to be returned:

If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.

Slavery was a primarily economic mechanism for paying off debts, serving prison sentence, dealing with surrendered enemy during war, or making sure that women and children had means of surviving. All of that was contractual, and was governed by common law.

Slavery was a contractual agreement, just like marriage was a contractual agreement. You could escape it. You could leave.

You could face consequences, as you would be leaving with nothing, and it would usually mean death. Or you could find community that could adopt you. Or it could be that the debt-owner would seek you out and seek penalty for breaking contract.

Either way, it's not the "ownership" that you are painting it to be.

 

[Dave-W]

If I just so happen to attempt to try and live a moral life, following the Bible to the best of my abilities, at least as a moral compass (the golden rule, etc..), but just can't accept the supernatural claim, because I do not believe in the supernatural, along with not seeing enough evidence to support the resurrection claim, if the Bible is actually correct, then I go to hell, in accordance to scripture.

And what are you going to do about that?

 

[devolved]

Nothing to do with hindsight. We are talking about an entity that is supposed to be the most just and even absolute standard of morality.

Whether something is absolute standard does not mean that there is no nuanced approach when it comes to contextual culture of that time.

Just because MJ is a basketball standard doesn't mean that everyone will magically play ball or even adhere to most of the rules. That requires some training, adjustment, and skill development.

History of religion is that of progressive recognition and understanding of that absolute standard.

This god sure had no problem saying all kinds of other controversial things (for that time). But he has no issues with this at all.

Again...

If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.

Does not sound like "no issues with this" to me. In any context of complex society there are caveats. For example, if we overnight factor out all of the black market activity in the US, then the economy will crash. There are inescapable moral dilemmas that can only be resolved with principled approach. Absolutist approach does not work in these contexts.

Even in context of abortion, most pro-life Christians would take a nuanced view of the issue.

You seem to think that because God is perfect, therefore he must create a perfect reality in which everything would be perfect... but what if perfection is an ideal that takes time to recognize and adopt?

That's essentially Christian model of reality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are throwing the word property like it must have the same contextual meaning as it is to you today. That's simply not the case.

Slaves were "property" as much as a modern worker paying off a debt, or a prisoner working for pennies on the dollar are a "property", or a soldier or athlete signing a contract becomes a "property".

That is simply not true.
Read your bible.


Leviticus 25:44-46
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.


When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Slavery was a contractual agreement, just like marriage was a contractual agreement. You could escape it. You could leave.

That is just as wrong.
You could not leave. You were property of your master.

Either way, it's not the "ownership" that you are painting it to be.

Except that it is.
You can buy them.
You can sell them.
If you own them, your children can inherit them permanently.

That is ownership / property in every sense of the word.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And what are you going to do about that?

Pass judgement on it as being a deeply immoral and unethical system.

 

[devolved]

We are talking about an entity that is supposed to be the most just and even absolute standard of morality.

Sure, and OT slavery as describe carries attributes of justice and mercy in context of contractual agreement between human beings in CONTEXT OF THEIR IMMEDIATE ENVIRONMENT.

You are very much detached from it, hence it's very difficult for you to understand as to why someone would submit themselves to servitude over debt payments or as means for "prison sentence" type of punishment.

Hence, it would be an equivalent of someone agreeing to be your butler for X number of years as means to repay for a car wreck. If they wrote a butler services IOU that you could sell to someone else, you could sell their services to someone else.

There's nothing morally reprehensible about contractual agreement between people. We still do it to this day.

 

[Dave-W]

Pass judgement on it as being a deeply immoral and unethical system.

Immoral or unethical according to who?

 

[Allandavid]

Immoral or unethical according to who?

According to any empathic human being that thinks about it for six seconds...

 

[Dave-W]

According to any empathic human being that thinks about it for six seconds...

And why is their perspective the final authority?

 

[Allandavid]

Sure, and OT slavery as describe carries attributes of justice and mercy in context of contractual agreement between human beings in CONTEXT OF THEIR IMMEDIATE ENVIRONMENT.

You are very much detached from it, hence it's very difficult for you to understand as to why someone would submit themselves to servitude over debt payments or as means for "prison sentence" type of punishment.

Hence, it would be an equivalent of someone agreeing to be your butler for X number of years as means to repay for a car wreck. If they wrote a butler services IOU that you could sell to someone else, you could sell their services to someone else.

There's nothing morally reprehensible about contractual agreement between people. We still do it to this day.

What tripe...

You completely ignore the situation described to you concerning FOREIGN SLAVES. There is no “contract” there...they were bought and sold as property, they could be passed on down to children and they could be beaten to death, provided they survived over the weekend before dying...

 

[Allandavid]

And why is their perspective the final authority?

Because that’s how we survive as communities of humans...