Is Slavery Moral?

[Phil 1:21]

If I hold an opinion that something shouldn't be done, and you believe you know it is a fact that thing shouldn't be done, we agree that thing shouldn't be done, and whether it is opinion or fact is tangential to the actual question.

If folks always agreed, that would be correct. But as we know, that’s not always the case. So these things are important.

 

[Sanoy]

He isn't overturning actual laws, though. Murderers and thieves are doing "evil", but He isn't advocating letting them get away with it.


Indentured servitude isn't slavery. At worst, it's "renting" people, not "owning" them. I don't think it's inherently immoral, it's just too prone to exploitation to be a good system. Even the Israelites ended up using it to exploit their own people. It was supposed to be a means to get out of poverty, but they paid so little, that when their time was up, they had to re-up on their contracts and go right back into perpetual servitude. But since that isn't slavery, this is just one big straw man to the argument. I already gave you an example of the terrible sort of slavery in my last post, and you ignored it.


Eye for an eye. Notice that indentured servitude was reserved for Hebrew men, and only foreigners could be forced into real slavery. The Israelites were chosen by God and therefore undeserving of such treatment, but foreigners enslaved the Israelites so they were deserving of slavery.


Now I want to take special note of this. You've just called Egyptian slavery "real slavery" so we can do away with this claim of comparisons being anachronistic. "It was a different time and place" holds no water anymore.

He is overturning it, it called for equivalent harm and now He calls for complete forgiveness. I don't see any scenario where the proposition that Jesus confirms the national law as maintained is true when He is literally and explicitly changing it. You will have to draw that proposition out such that the result of Jesus's statements are exactly the same as the law. That plainly can't be achieved.

They don't own the people in the sense you imagine, they still have certain rights. They do however give up certain rights voluntarily. Anything can be abused. What is interesting is that it was their unfaithfulness to God that led to such abuses. Your comment about attacking other cities is far off the topic of slavery. We can talk about that but I'd prefer to finish our current topic to your satisfaction. If we complete this topic and you do decide that you want to talk about it I need to know a bit more about what you are referring too.

You say owning people is bad because your moral intuition about men being free is compelling you. However infringing on ones right to be a servant is a restriction on that persons free will which would leave that person stuck in poverty. Your moral intuition is right to see the freedom of mankind as the proper course but it's being inappropriately applied. Where do you suppose your moral compass points to?

 

[cvanwey]

So in your world view, if there are no adverse consequences to an action it is therefore not wrong? Would that be correct?

Two can play at this game...

Theists state God instills moral intrinsic values upon humans, as we are 'made' in God's likeness. If this is so, then why do most disagree with slavery, where-as 'God' approves it? And by 'God', I mean the humans who wrote the verses

I have already given you way more than you are ever going to return in a response. Because the second you do, you will immediately expose your circular reasoning.

 

[Phil 1:21]

@cvanwey ,

Was that a yes or a no? (we’re still making progress)

 

[Sanoy]

I'm plenty sincere, when I state I have no clue what happens postmortem. I'm also sincere when I state I have never received any needed evidence of justification for a God. I am furthermore sincere when I state when I read many Bible passages, they appear to be the works and writings of humans, whom use 'God' in an attempt to produce objective moral dictates.

So yes, one of us, for sure, is fully justified in their sincerity...

Thank you very much for this list of conditions to your sincerity. I will use it as a guide in navigating through your levels of sincerity in the future.

 

[cvanwey]

@cvanwey ,

Was that a yes or a no? (we’re still making progress)

Every response you provide further demonstrates my initial assessment. Which is, you will use the 'moral argument' to AVOID answering the question I posed to you many posts ago. And anyone whom read these posts will see the sheer dishonesty you continue to display.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Every response you provide further demonstrates my initial assessment. Which is, you will use the 'moral argument' to AVOID answering the question I posed to you many posts ago. And anyone whom read these posts will see the sheer dishonesty you continue to display.

So you’re unwilling to define a term upon which you demand others express an opinion? That’s odd. I suppose we are left to speculate as to why you are unable to articulate your basis for morality. Hopefully this isn’t an indication that such a basis doesn’t actually exist.

 

[cvanwey]

So you’re unwilling to define a term upon which you demand others express an opinion? That’s odd. I suppose we are left to speculate as to why you are unable to articulate your basis for morality. Hopefully this isn’t an indication that such a basis doesn’t actually exist.

I've already provided plenty of basis. More than you care to divulge yourself.

I would 'assume' you've been asked to provide an opinion about something, anything, in the past. I doubt you harped on whether is was actually objective or not...

My point is very simple, as stated many times now... If your opinion differs from the Bible, then this does not appear to align with the claimed inherent nature of God. If you think slavery 'is' moral, you are most likely stating so because that's what it states in a book. Which means, you are not a moral agent, but instead following instructions; which raises an entirely new set of issues...


So is slavery moral, in your opinion?

 

[HypnoToad]

Okay, I'll bite.... 'Good' acts 'may' be based upon any/all of the following - consequences, empathy, sense of community, cooperation, culture, upbringing, homeostasis, and fear of loneliness, all which are actually demonstrably proven to exist, via the existence of the human race.

Those things exist, sure. But none of them actually make slavery immoral.

Consequences - I lose all that low cost labor, I’ll have to work harder myself.. no thanks, I’ll keep my slaves. Consequences say I should keep them.

Empathy - I certainly empathize with my slaves. I keep them fed & sheltered, protect them from enemies, and only beat them when necessary. Empathy doesn’t force me to not have slaves.

Sense of community - there’s a strong sense of community among all us upper class slave owners. And there’s a strong sense of community among all the slaves. Sense of community doesn’t force me to free them.

Cooperation - my slaves and I are constantly working toward the same goals. Cooperation doesn’t compel me to free them.

Culture - here’s the 10 longest lasting cultures in history:
10 Most Long-lived Empires in History
… they all had slavery. Culture didn’t compel them to free the slaves.

Upbringing - as long as I teach my kids that having slaves is morally good, then having slaves is still morally good.

Homeostasis - as long as slavery promotes a stable society (which again is shown by the fact that the 10 longest lasting societies had slaves), slavery is still moral.

Fear of loneliness - my slaves keep me company, so it’s moral to keep them.

If humans do not exist, the cognitive concept of 'morals' don't exist...
If humans must exist for morals to exist, then the human race must remain in existence....
If humans kill humans, humans will soon cease to exist....
It then becomes a necessity for humans to exist, for morals to actually exist....

So we must first agree that humans must exist for morals to even have a chance to exist. If you and I agree, then this may be considered somewhat 'objective', but certainly not 'absolute'. But again, I'm honest in that one can spin this a multitude of ways....

Human existence is necessary? Ok. Well, once again, the most successful societies all had slavery. You can’t have a successful society without successful human existence, so the most successful human existences have all had slavery as part of their cultures.

I don’t see any of your criteria actually capable of determining that slavery is immoral. They may allow for the opinion that slavery is immoral, but that doesn’t make it factually true. You haven't shown anything that makes "slavery is immoral" any more meaningful than saying, "vanilla is better than chocolate."

 

[Phil 1:21]

@cvanwey,

So to recap how we got here…

You don’t believe in objective morality, rather stating that morality is subjective and a matter of personal opinion (#588).

You believe that “[morality] is defined by the ability to distinguish between right and wrong,” which really didn’t address the question asked. But for the sake of progress I allowed the pivot from “moral or immoral” to “right and wrong.” (#592)

When asked the basis upon which you personally distinguish between right and wrong (really “moral or immoral”), after much prodding the best you could state was consequentialism (#615) which holds that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences (the definition of consequentialism). In other words, the end justifies the means.

Seems terribly little progress for how many posts we’ve made, but I’m a patient person. So then, given this and your previous statement that you personally find slavery immoral, I’ll be happy to state and defend my position as soon as you defend yours.

[edit: I see HypnoToad made an awesome post right above mine. You may want to review it before defending your position.]

(we’re still moving forward)

 

[cvanwey]

Those things exist, sure. But none of them actually make slavery immoral.

Consequences - I lose all that low cost labor, I’ll have to work harder myself.. no thanks, I’ll keep my slaves. Consequences say I should keep them.

Empathy - I certainly empathize with my slaves. I keep them fed & sheltered, protect them from enemies, and only beat them when necessary. Empathy doesn’t force me to not have slaves.

Sense of community - there’s a strong sense of community among all us upper class slave owners. And there’s a strong sense of community among all the slaves. Sense of community doesn’t force me to free them.

Cooperation - my slaves and I are constantly working toward the same goals. Cooperation doesn’t compel me to free them.

Culture - here’s the 10 longest lasting cultures in history:
10 Most Long-lived Empires in History
… they all had slavery. Culture didn’t compel them to free the slaves.

Upbringing - as long as I teach my kids that having slaves is morally good, then having slaves is still morally good.

Homeostasis - as long as slavery promotes a stable society (which again is shown by the fact that the 10 longest lasting societies had slaves), slavery is still moral.

Fear of loneliness - my slaves keep me company, so it’s moral to keep them.


Human existence is necessary? Ok. Well, once again, the most successful societies all had slavery. You can’t have a successful society without successful human existence, so the most successful human existences have all had slavery as part of their cultures.

Yup, so appealing to circular reasoning (i.e.) the Bible, is instead a sound justification. And until you can demonstrate anyone other than humans wrote such verses, you are merely adhering to ancient human opinions.

Thnx

 

[cvanwey]

@cvanwey,

So to recap how we got here…

You don’t believe in objective morality, rather stating that morality is subjective and a matter of personal opinion (#588).

You believe that “[morality] is defined by the ability to distinguish between right and wrong,” which really didn’t address the question asked. But for the sake of progress I allowed the pivot from “moral or immoral” to “right and wrong.” (#592)

When asked the basis upon which you personally distinguish between right and wrong (really “moral or immoral”), after much prodding the best you could state was consequentialism (#615) which holds that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences (the definition of consequentialism). In other words, the end justifies the means.

Seems terribly little progress for how many posts we’ve made, but I’m a patient person. So then, given this and your previous statement that you personally find slavery immoral, I’ll be happy to state and defend my position as soon as you defend yours.

[edit: I see HypnoToad made an awesome post right above mine. You may want to review it before defending your position.]

(we’re still moving forward)

I just responded to such a post. You both can now justify the Bible.

Thnx

 

[Phil 1:21]

I just responded to such a post. You both can now justify the Bible.

Thnx

Actually, you haven't. Instead of addressing his post that dismantles your own position using the very criteria you passively set forth, you simply built another straw man. (see below)

Yup, so appealing to circular reasoning (i.e.) the Bible, is instead a sound justification. And until you can demonstrate anyone other than humans wrote such verses, you are merely adhering to ancient human opinions.

Thnx

This would be the time for introspection.

 

[Sanoy]

Another snippet...

If humans do not exist, the cognitive concept of 'morals' don't exist...
If humans must exist for morals to exist, then the human race must remain in existence....
If humans kill humans, humans will soon cease to exist....
It then becomes a necessity for humans to exist, for morals to actually exist....

So we must first agree that humans must exist for morals to even have a chance to exist.

I think this confuses moral ontology with moral knowledge. Moral values may have ontic grounding outside ourselves, while our moral knowledge is retained in ourselves.
It would certainly not be classified as objective, as objective is mind independent and this is mind dependent.

 

[Belk]

@cvanwey,

So to recap how we got here…

You don’t believe in objective morality, rather stating that morality is subjective and a matter of personal opinion (#588).

You believe that “[morality] is defined by the ability to distinguish between right and wrong,” which really didn’t address the question asked. But for the sake of progress I allowed the pivot from “moral or immoral” to “right and wrong.” (#592)

When asked the basis upon which you personally distinguish between right and wrong (really “moral or immoral”), after much prodding the best you could state was consequentialism (#615) which holds that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences (the definition of consequentialism). In other words, the end justifies the means.

Seems terribly little progress for how many posts we’ve made, but I’m a patient person. So then, given this and your previous statement that you personally find slavery immoral, I’ll be happy to state and defend my position as soon as you defend yours.

[edit: I see HypnoToad made an awesome post right above mine. You may want to review it before defending your position.]

(we’re still moving forward)

Why would he need to defend his position in order for you to defend yours? Your position should be (one would assume) completely independent of his.

 

[Belk]

I think this confuses moral ontology with moral knowledge. Moral values may have ontic grounding outside ourselves, while our moral knowledge is retained in ourselves.
It would certainly not be classified as objective, as objective is mind independent and this is mind dependent.

They may have but we have never seen anything outside of ourselves that would show morals being separate from human beings. That would seem to suggest we are the originator for the concept and knowledge of it.

 

[cvanwey]

Actually, you haven't. Instead of addressing his post that dismantles your own position using the very criteria you passively set forth, you simply built another straw man. (see below)


This would be the time for introspection.

'Introspection' will be required, when [you] actually attempt to 'justify' 'objective morality'. Which you have deliberately avoided, when I asked you for your opinion/position a dozen times now (even if it 'is' asking which is better, 'chocolate or vanilla').

I've already concluded (from the jump - way back when), that morals are subjective and added many caveats with 'quotes' (stating that humans may assert 'objectivity', but they are not absolute). I already stated that "I'll bite", many posts ago... And yet, in lieu of all of that, you still refused to respond with your opinion. You have yet to address anything, other than to pick and choose very deliberate portions of my response, in your own strawman.

So if you choose not to answer the question, then please move on. I've dealt with your type of nonsense before. You are using the 'moral argument' to avoid a response.

You are attempting to make me look like a fool, when I all along state that morals are subjective. And yet I still allowed you to feed your apparent inflated ego, by going through the entire senseless process anyways (in which I already knew of the conclusion).

So, now that you 'think' you've actually 'proven' something, can you please answer the question?

Is slavery moral?

 

[Phil 1:21]

Why would he need to defend his position in order for you to defend yours? Your position should be (one would assume) completely independent of his.

If he's incapable of defending his position it seems silly for him to expect others to defend theirs.

 

[Phil 1:21]

'Introspection' will be required, when [you] actually attempt to 'justify' 'objective morality'. Which you have deliberately avoided, when I asked you for your opinion/position a dozen times now (even if it 'is' asking which is better, 'chocolate or vanilla').

I've already concluded (from the jump - way back when), that morals are subjective and added many caveats with 'quotes' (stating that humans may assert 'objectivity', but they are not absolute). I already stated that "I'll bite", many posts ago... And yet, in lieu of all of that, you still refused to respond with your opinion. You have yet to address anything, other than to pick and choose very deliberate portions of my response, in your own strawman.

So if you choose not to answer the question, then please move on. I've dealt with your type of nonsense before. You are using the 'moral argument' to avoid a response.

You are attempting to make me look like a fool, when I all along state that morals are subjective. And yet I still allowed you to feed your apparent inflated ego, by going through the entire senseless process anyways (in which I already knew of the conclusion).

So, now that you 'think' you've actually 'proven' something, can you please answer the question?

Is slavery moral?

I think we're still waiting for you do defend your position. Or is it not defensible? (I'm beginning to see your reluctance in stating it at all, but still willing to persevere)

-----> still moving forward.

 

[Sanoy]

They may have but we have never seen anything outside of ourselves that would show morals being separate from human beings. That would seem to suggest we are the originator for the concept and knowledge of it.

We haven't seen that it is grounded in ourselves either. We have the intuition that they are objective and authoritative. If those intuitions are true then they couldn't be grounded in us.