Is Slavery Moral?

[Kemet]

The Bible is an extant book, slavery is condoned and promoted in the Bible. Unless someone revises the immoral slavery scriptures of the Bible--both the Bible (and Tanakh of Judaism) will always justify slavery.

13th Amendment to the Constitution the United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

Section 1
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Slavery is still legal in America if you are fairly convicted of a crime-- or in far too many cases, framed and unfairly convicted of a crime. Over the last 200 plus years, how many private businesses have maximized their profit because of this flaw in the 13th Amendment.

Seemingly since Chattel Slavery ended, people of all ethnicities "in one worded form or another--have been crusading for policing oversight and reform, sentencing guideline reform, and comprehensive criminal justice reform.

Slavery by Another Name | PBS

Slavery by Another Name
Official Selection of the 2012 Sundance Film Festival

Slavery by Another Name is a 90-minute documentary that challenges one of Americans’ most cherished assumptions: the belief that slavery in this country ended with the Emancipation Proclamation. The film tells how even as chattel slavery came to an end in the South in 1865, thousands of African Americans were pulled back into forced labor with shocking force and brutality. It was a system in which men, often guilty of no crime at all, were arrested, compelled to work without pay, repeatedly bought and sold, and coerced to do the bidding of masters. Tolerated by both the North and South, forced labor lasted well into the 20th century.

For most Americans this is entirely new history. Slavery by Another Name gives voice to the largely forgotten victims and perpetrators of forced labor and features their descendants living today.

 

[devolved]

Slavery is still legal in America if you are fairly convicted of a crime-- or in far too many cases, framed and unfairly convicted of a crime. Over the last 200 plus years, how many private businesses have maximized their profit because of this flaw in the 13th Amendment.

So, if someone committed murder. What do you think the penalty should be?

 

[Kemet]

So, if someone committed murder. What do you think the penalty should be?

I believe in respect for life, justice, fairness, equality and reciprocal retribution. I support a death penalty devoid of systemic racial bias in the application of the death penalty.

How many white people in America have ever been executed for killing a black person, not a black person and other whites--but exclusively killing a black person?

What do you think the penalty should be for someone who commits murder?

Your question and my response are off topic. If you want to, you can start a new topic--and I will be glad to debate you. I don't know say : "Does the Bible support a death penalty that is color blind, and in accordance with fairness and equal justice."

 

[cvanwey]

You are taking a page from necessary regulations and legal structure for a rather barbaric culture, an you are attempting to imply that it's a universal permission and justification to have such culture as an ideal.

I'll make it simpler for you :

I'm a vegetarian, and I cling to a certain ideal in respect to my diet and treatment of animals. We could say that on a personal level (for me) I view certain animal treatment and food farming as barbaric and immoral. Let's say I convince the current president of that, which is not going to happen, but let's say that I did.

So, the president will get up on the podium tomorrow and will say "Guys, eating meat is a part of the barbaric remnant of our past, we should have better respect for life... so eating meat is illegal from this day on". And he signs an executive order making killing animals for food illegal.

What do you think would happen realistically? Would people stop eating meat? Would people stop killing animals for food? Would people start enforcing such practice?

NO. Absolutely nothing would happen. The conservatives would bury such president alive, and liberals would dance on his grave.

So, the best he could do is donate some government charities to education on this issue, or become a vegetarian himself, or create some general regulations against cruel treatment of animals, and lay out some principles that would eventually result in a paradigm shift in our cultural understanding.

So, in a scope of moral proclamations, the plausibility will only make sense with established cultural paradigms.

Eradicating slavery doesn't result by making a specific moral proclamations, but by shifting cultural paradigms in which such moral proclamations would make sense.

Hence, your understanding of this issue seems to stem solely on basis of proclamation, as though that's what drives our motivations, and that's not the case. A single statement of "This is wrong" or "This is Ok now" will not result in a cultural paradigm shift.



Again, coming back to this issue. I'll make it very simple for you too

We could make a list of rules for your kids:

1) Don't hit one another.
2) Don't spit at each other.
3) Don't pee on each other.
4) Don't yell at each other.

And then they come back and ask... is throwing rocks at each other ok? So, you ad it to the list and say. No, it's not ok. And then they come back and say, "Is it ok to throw a piece of wood then?", and you add that to the list and say "Don't throw hard objects at each other".

And the it goes on and on, until you basically say: "Don't do something to each other what you wouldn't want other person do to you". Or, "Love one another, and here's what a loving attitude is like... it's patient, it's kind, it's forgiving, etc".

So, concept is that principled approach to morality will transcend context.

What you are doing is very much like the kid in the above illustration... saying "But there's nothing here that says that owning and beating people is wrong. In fact, here it says that it's ok".

And then I keep showing you a transcendent principle of :

"Love one another, and here's what a loving attitude is like... it's patient, it's kind, it's forgiving, etc".
"Don't do something to each other what you wouldn't want other person do to you"

And what you seem to imply that such principles don't encapsulate such behavior as wrong and immoral. Why would you think so?

You seem to think just because someone could point to this verse, then it will automatically justify slavery, but it's absurd when it comes to a wide variety of transcendent principles that would clearly condemn and invalidate such behavior as wrong.

Thank you again

I enjoyed the analogy. However, it does not address my direct observation, stated a few times now

If slavery was re-instated in the future, according to the Bible, it would not be a sin. Correct?

So is slavery a sin or not?

Sure, there's tons of verses one could look to [instead]. However, in regards to slavery, the Bible talks about it. The Bible allows for it. Heck, it even 'condones' it.

Yes, you can grasp at straws, point to other verses, and lay out scenarios.

My point again, is that slavery (meaning, referencing human slaves as property, beating them with virtually no restrictions, and for life) is never once denied in the Bible.

My conclusion, again, is such passages were written by men, with a clear agenda. Either the Bible authors were slave owners themselves, or, were maybe told to write such verses by slave owners, to 'justify' such practices. And what better way to do so, then to state these 'allowances' were orders from 'above'.

My second conclusion, is there was never a correction/update. So if slavery were ever placed back into law again, there exists no such verses a fundamentalist could point to, to state it is 'wrong', or a 'sin'.

Please tell me why I'm not on the right track?

 

[cvanwey]

Again, I'm not sure you can honestly say that when it comes to principled approach that both Judaism and Christianity hold.

For example:

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

The above commandment supposed to guide all of the human action, because it frames the foundational axiomatic approach to how Christians are to view reality.

Please tell me how one can read above and conclude that it advocates forced labor, and beating people to half-death with a stick?

Because a specific 'amendment' exists, allowing for such.

Furthermore, slaves are considered PROPERTY, and not really humans. The commandments, you are referring to, apply to HUMANS. 'Slaves' don't really qualify, under the apparent Biblical tenets indicated. Slaves are instead classified as property (like a dog, cat, couch, etc...)

And I hate to sound patronizing, because you are extremely intelligent. However, I have placed a slavery verse below, and replaced the word 'slave' with 'dog':

Exodus 21:20-21 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
20 “Sometimes people beat their [dog]. If the [dog] dies after being beaten, the killer must be punished. 21 But if the [dog] gets up after a few days, then the master will not be punished.a]">[a] That is because someone paid their money for the [dog], and the [dog] belongs to them.

Now that's how you 'regulate'

 

[Moral Orel]

Again, I'm not sure you can honestly say that when it comes to principled approach that both Judaism and Christianity hold.

For example:

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

The above commandment supposed to guide all of the human action, because it frames the foundational axiomatic approach to how Christians are to view reality.

Please tell me how one can read above and conclude that it advocates forced labor, and beating people to half-death with a stick?

It seems bonkers to me too, but the ancient Israelites did. Jesus was quoting the OT there, so it's not like He was telling them something they hadn't heard before, and they wrote those other laws anyways.

 

[dmmesdale]

The Bible is an extant book, slavery is condoned and promoted in the Bible.

Then why were the Israelites liberated from Egyptian slavery? All the slave owners agree with you. Are you a Bible scholar? No.

Unless someone revises the immoral slavery scriptures of the Bible--both the Bible (and Tanakh of Judaism) will always justify slavery.

Immoral relative to what? Why should your opinion carry any weight in a world of natural where humans are big-brained apes and nothing more? How bout the Hittites. Is it immoral relative to the Hittite law code?

194. If a free man pick up female slaves, now one, now another, there is no punishment for intercourse. If brothers sleep with a free woman, together, or one after the other, there is no punishment. If father and son sleep with a female slave or harlot, together, or one after the other, there is no punishment.

199. If anyone have intercourse with a pig or a dog, he shall die. If a man have intercourse with a horse or a mule, there is no punishment. But he shall not approach the king, and shall not become a priest. If an ox spring upon a man for intercourse, the ox shall die but the man shall not die. One sheep shall be fetched as a substitute for the man, and they shall kill it. If a pig spring upon a man for intercourse, there is no punishment. If any man have intercourse with a foreign woman and pick up this one, now that one, there is no punishment.
-----------------------
In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias, and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter.[1] The practice of presentism is regarded by some as a common fallacy in historical writing.[2]

 

[devolved]

It seems bonkers to me too, but the ancient Israelites did. Jesus was quoting the OT there, so it's not like He was telling them something they hadn't heard before, and they wrote those other laws anyways.

Sure he did. Hearing and understanding is two different issues.

They agreed to many things they did not do. It's not that different today.

 

[Moral Orel]

Sure he did. Hearing and understanding is two different issues.

They agreed to many things they did not do. It's not that different today.

Presumably, Jesus understood the meaning though, and He still said to maintain every jot and tittle of the awful laws right along with the good ones.

 

[cvanwey]

Then why were the Israelites liberated from Egyptian slavery?

I would like to see credible evidence demonstrating this claim?

 

[cvanwey]

Immoral relative to what?

According to post #412

 

[Moral Orel]

Immoral relative to what?

I thought most Christians saw morals as objective. Are you saying morals are relative?

 

[Landon Caeli]

According to the Bible, the God of the holy Old Testament and New Testament seem to condone slavery (a few samples below):

OT: Exodus 21, Leviticus 25:46
NT: Luke 12:47, and Luke 17:7-10, John 13:16, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2

Does this mean slavery is moral?

Thank you in advance for the response(s).

No

 

[dmmesdale]

I thought most Christians saw morals as objective. Are you saying morals are relative?

No. Premeditated Murder, for example is objective. The reason it is objective is because it is From the finger of God. It is an objective standard applies to all persons equally. Also Exod.23:2. Shall not follow the masses in doing evil..... Consensus does not determine right from wrong for humans, only God does.

If it is from men via consensus then it is not objective.

 

[dmmesdale]

I believe in respect for life, justice, fairness, equality and reciprocal retribution.

Eye for eye.

 

[cvanwey]

No

Then how do you reconcile being/remaining Catholic?

 

[Sanoy]

Presumably, Jesus understood the meaning though, and He still said to maintain every jot and tittle of the awful laws right along with the good ones.

This passage comes from Matthew 5. The context of the law that Jesus is referring is not clear in this section as there is oral Torah, and there are parts of Leviticus that do not appear to be from Moses. Additionally there are various sections of the written Torah like ceremonial commandments, national commandments (such as in Op), and Commandments from the Lord like the 10 commandments.

So which was Christ most likely referring to? Well I think we can draw that context from the verses following. Directly after mentioning that not one iota will pass from the "commandments" Jesus immediately begins partially discussing the 10 commandments.

V21 thou shalt not murder
V27 thou shalt not commit adultery
V33 very similar to thou shalt not bear false witness.
V38 Jesus directly reverses the national law of Israel of which category the OP resides.

So I think we have better context that Christ is not referring to the national laws of Israel but of the commandments given by God. We have no duty to the national laws of Israel, and neither does modern Israel. These national laws were progressive against the backdrop of the cultural code of the ANE and in many cases contextually relevant to the ANE like the ceremonial law of not mixing clothing fibers. (Mixture was a symbol of divinity reserved for the priesthood)

Christians do confirm objective moral values and duties. I think the other poster was asking "relative to what" if you reject God's existence.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Then how do you reconcile being/remaining Catholic?

Because the Catholic Church never said people should have slaves..?

 

[cvanwey]

Because the Catholic Church never said people should have slaves..?

How do Catholics know which parts of the Bible to follow or not to follow?

 

[cvanwey]

Christians do confirm objective moral values and duties. I think the other poster was asking "relative to what" if you reject God's existence.

'Relative' to post #412