Is Slavery Moral?

[Sanoy]

So, the whole "eye for an eye" concept calls for the death of murderers. They took a life, so their life is taken. You're saying Jesus overturned this by calling for complete forgiveness? Or should we say that we can only assume that any changes He called for only apply to the specific things He mentioned. All it takes to "condone" something is to say nothing about it.


I already said that indentured servitude isn't inherently immoral. Time to move on to slavery. Those cities that are "at a distance" are not off topic. That's part of the real slavery in the Bible. The cities near to them within their promised land would be off topic, because then we would only be talking about genocide. Those aren't the cities I'm talking about though.

When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. And when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you. Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. -- Deuteronomy 20:10-15​

That is slavery, and that is the topic.


If someone wants to be a servant, have at it. They should always have the right to change their mind though (not necessarily without any consequences whatsoever), and they shouldn't be forced to be a servant. The "owner" in this scenario is the immoral one who offers no choice to the "servant" other than enslavement to alleviate their poverty.

Well I think we should tackle the proposition at hand, that Christ is not confirming the national law but changing it. We can certainly say for that which he mentions He is changing it, but as to that which He does not mention we would have to look at that line by line which is not necessary to the truth of the proposition. We should complete what we already discussing before adding to it.

You will have to tell me why it means the same as the modern word. Because if I put this in an ANE + OT context I don't see any association with the modern word. I cannot reasonably assume the modern meaning for a 3,000 year old text by default because it's translated into English. The OT condemns involuntary servitude and slave trade with the punishment of death, so why would we assume that a peaceful city would be forced into slavery against the law whose punishment was death (Exodus 21:16)? It doesn't make sense against the law and it doesn't make sense against a peaceful city. Would a city surrender themselves to be forced slaves? But the actual Hebrew text doesn't say "forced" at all. The only sensible hermeneutical conclusion is that it refers to a tributary. I study the ANE and OT scholarship, I even translate ancient languages like Akkadian and Sumerian non professionally. Ancient languages conveyed meaning through highly contextual compound words and ideas. There are parts of the OT that can be read easily, but we must never treat it like a modern work just because it is written in English, it is and will always be a 3,000 year old context and must be treated with care and diligence in understanding.

Voluntary servitude wasn't permanent. It states very clearly that they can be bought back. Why is anyone compelled to alleviate someone elses poverty apart from objective moral values and duties? If you confirm that as objective then what do you ground it in? I know no other feasible grounding to explain our moral imperatives but God.

 

[Moral Orel]

The OT condemns involuntary servitude and slave trade with the punishment of death

Where does it condemn all of that? This claim requires a specific citation.

 

[Sanoy]

Where does it condemn all of that? This claim requires a specific citation.

Exodus 21:16 "“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."

 

[Moral Orel]

I don’t recall saying anything about “need” (pretty sure I covered this a few times). But if he can’t defend his position, it’s silly of him to expect others to defend theirs.

You said that you "can't":

You see, I cannot answer your question without first knowing how you define "moral."

I am pointing out that you absolutely can answer the question. It's best not to answer a question with an irrelevant question though.

 

[Moral Orel]

Exodus 21:16 "“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."

Right, out-and-out kidnapping was outlawed. How does that outlaw all involuntary servitude and the entire slave trade in light of Leviticus 25:44-46?

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.​

 

[dmmesdale]

So, the whole "eye for an eye" concept calls for the death of murderers.

Thru a judicial proceeding. Not individuals.

They took a life, so their life is taken.

That is equality. Allowing a premeditated murderer to live is inequality since the life of the murderer is of more value than the life of the victim. The idea only God can take a life is foreign in the Bible. Humans, thru a judicial proceeding, are obligated to put convicted murderers to death.

You're saying Jesus overturned this by calling for complete forgiveness?

Don't know about that. Can't see forgiving an unrepentant murderer. Can you? They would need to be removed from society.

 

[Sanoy]

Right, out-and-out kidnapping was outlawed. How does that outlaw all involuntary servitude and the entire slave trade in light of Leviticus 25:44-46?

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.​

I feel you are being a bit intentionally obtuse here. Why are you propositionally biased against Israel not condoning slavery? You have given me no hermeneutical approach toward the conclusion that they did condone slavery in the modern sense, and you give every point that I make undue skepticism.

This is very clearly condemning slave trade with the utmost severity and clarity. Not only is the person who forces someone into slavery by taking them condemned to death, anyone found in the company of such a slave trader is condemned to death. You have never answered why Moses, who is clearly convicted against slavery in his murdering of a slave master, would then condone it. Your description says you are seeker, but I am not getting the sense that your seeking is unbiased here. You also will not tell me what you ground the moral values and duties you clearly express in.

Okay so lets take a look here. It says that you can buy slaves. Does that mean they are forced? No. It doesn't say that. It says very little. But it should be assumed by the law forbidding slave trade that it doesn't include slave trade. So if you want to say this refers to modern slavery you will have to show that here, rather than assume it due to the English reading. Language was not robust in vocabulary back then, it was highly driven by context. I think I have done more than enough to show that the conclusion you give it can't be substantiated. Now I may not be able to give you a proof of that, but I think it is the best explanation given the context, and surrounding laws which has not been contested. And if you are a seeker I shouldn't need to give a 'proof. I have been very fair and honest to the text and culture as best I know how as a voluntary student of ANE material and OT textual criticism. I have nothing to hide, as I admit, as Christ does, the law was not a complete fulfillment of morality though it was progressive. So I have no theological reason to obscure the truth from you, I simply speak from my religious duty to the truth.

 

[cvanwey]

Did I say that? Apparently you have no real response to what I did actually say.


Right. And still no justification for skeptics/athiests who claim slavery (or anything else for that matter) is demonstrably immoral beyond personal feelings.

Please let me reiterate one last time. Like I've stated many times now, morals are subjective. This is the driving point...

Placing someone within the 'veil of ignorance' (and yes, this is not the perfect scenario I realize either), one can be asked the following:

- Is murder right or wrong?
- Is stealing right or wrong?
- Is kicking people in the face right or wrong?
etc...

Now, do caveats exist for all the above questions? Of course! But again, my point is that the 'gut reaction' in regards to 'most' human moral compasses will states the above are 'wrong'. Is this subjective? YES.

But this is not really the actual point of the thread...

Again, my driving point is to demonstrate that if humans are built in God's likeness, then humans 'moral compass' 'should' align within God's likeness. Do exceptions except? Certainly. One could develop a brain tumor (pressing on one portion of the brain -affecting their moral compass).

My point is, if the vast majority are asked about slavery, in a 'vanilla setting' the 'human response' is most likely the same... 'It's wrong.' It's safe to say this, because again, using the 'veil of ignorance', the human would not know if they were going to be enslaved themselves or not. It's a fairly safe bet the person asked would not want to be enslaved, just as it's fairly safe to say they would not want any of their close family members enslaved.

So again, though exceptions can and do exist, the 'fundamental' answer is most likely that slavery is 'wrong', just like murder, theft, etc....

I hope this makes this thread clearer?

I see much intellectual dishonesty from a few, but not all... I'm fully aware it is a very subjective question.

However, the Bible instructs and allows for slavery, (and never really) abolishing slavery.

If the majority of humans disagree with such a concept (regardless of situations), and then want to also say that the human spirit is derived from God's moral character, than the concept of slavery seems to be apart from such a conclusion.

My take? As stated prior... The verses for slavery were written by humans, and humans alone.

The point is not really even to prove/disprove a God, but to instead demonstrate that the Bible was written by humans, with no divine intervention. Why? Slavery was considered 'more common' during the time it was written. My take is the ones whom wrote the slavery verses (though would also think slavery was 'wrong' themselves), wrote such verses to enforce such practices and benefits for some, and then state the command came from above to make it objective.

To me, the Bible presents a time capsule of human practices. It demonstrates a time, where people thought witches were real, women were inferior, demons were real, the earth was flat, stars were little specs of light, etc, etc, etc....

To me, the Bible fully demonstrates the limited concepts of what humans 'knew' at the time it was written. To me, the Bible does not appear to demonstrate any forward thinking knowledge of really any sort really.

This, to me, is the nail in the coffin, as to why the Bible looks to have been 'man made', with no claimed 'omniscient' hand.

Slavery is just one topic of many, which seems to demonstrate this conclusion. So though many theists can lay a case, (AND RIGHTFULLY SO), about how my question is nonsense, this is my perspective.

But please let me add one last thing.... If the slavery verses were written by humans, and humans alone, then what OTHER verses were written with no divine intervention?.?.?.?.?

In conclusion, the Bible was written by humans (no different than the Qur'an, or any other claimed holy book), attempting to enforce dictates and also enforce 'moral' laws suitable for some, at a time in which it was written.

Morals change... Slavery was actually more-so accepted by a wider audience at the time it was written. However, I would assume 'God's' moral character would know this...

So the question remains... If God knew that humans would later unanimously oppose slavery in the future, why write very clear and seemingly permanent dictates advocating for slavery? Either don't speak of slavery at all, say 'don't own other humans as property,' or change the verbiage to slavery severely - to not justify such practices in an axiomatic way.

In the future, any "Christian" leader could dictate slavery again, and under "Christian" law, there would appear to be no Bible scripture to state against slavery. Why? Because slavery is 'a okay' according to scripture...

 

[HypnoToad]

Again, my driving point is to demonstrate that if humans are built in God's likeness, then humans 'moral compass' 'should' align within God's likeness.

Your driving point, then, is a non sequitur.

The fall into sin corrupted man's nature, which includes the "moral compass". Man's differences from God's morality is not in contradiction to the Bible, but rather is predicted by the Bible.

 

[cvanwey]

Your driving point, then, is a non sequitur.

The fall into sin corrupted man's nature, which includes the "moral compass". Man's differences from God's morality is not in contradiction to the Bible, but rather is predicted by the Bible.

K, thanks. You obviously did not read the entire thread. If you did, you would realize that your response is a non sequitur

 

[HypnoToad]

K, thanks. You obviously did not read the entire thread. If you did, you would realize that your response is a non sequitur

yeah, right

 

[cvanwey]

yeah, right

Why is murder wrong?

 

[HypnoToad]

Why is murder wrong?

Why I might think it's wrong has no bearing on the fact that none of the possible moral bases you provided earlier actually determine slavery to be immoral in and of itself.

 

[cvanwey]

Why I might think it's wrong has no bearing on the fact that none of the possible moral bases you provided earlier actually determine slavery to be immoral in and of itself.

Please answer the question...

Why is murder wrong?

 

[Belk]

I'm not trying to be obtuse here but what empirical evidence do you have for cognition? Brain states? That is not evidence of cognition, that is just evidence of electrical activity. The only evidence we have of cognition is ostensive through our intuitions and experience and that is not empirical. So I would need to hear what you mean here.

So, just to be clear here. You do not consider that we can map the activity that occurs when we think certain thoughts and recreate those thoughts via stimulation to be evidence of cognition occurring in the brain?

I don't usually read links in lieu of conversation, but in this case I have already heard of this via the headline. That is not reading your thoughts, it is mapping your brain states. You cannot see a thought, you can only see a brain state and map it to a thought by asking the person what they are thinking. If you could see a thought then the whole mapping process that is done by literally asking the person what they are thinking about wouldn't be required.

You can witness your own thought, but we cannot witness anothers thoughts. Inducing a thought has nothing to do with the empiricism of observing a thought. All we can observe are brain states. Our thoughts are not our brain states per the law of identity. Human experience of qualia is not reducible to an identical state of affairs that is observable through empiricism.

What is the law of identity? I'm not understanding what you are trying to convey in this last few sentences. Can you explain it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

That isn't "context", that's part of the definition of what we're talking about. If the person reserves the right to change their mind or if the "enslavement" is temporary, then they aren't owned, they're rented at worst.

No...I don't see that nonsense in the definition of slavery anywhere. If someone agrees to be enslaved for a day they're still a slave. If you have a definition that says otherwise, I'll gladly take a look.

Regardless, you are talking about context...and what's wrong with someone choosing slavery?

 

[HypnoToad]

Please answer the question...
Why is murder wrong?

No. I'm not going down irrelevant rabbit holes with you.

 

[cvanwey]

No. I'm not going down irrelevant rabbit holes with you.

I rest my case....

It's 'wrong' for one of the following...

- It's states it's 'wrong' in the Bible
- You think so (and then you would have to account for why you think so)
- Or it's harmful to society and humanity (non theistic answer)

This is why you will not answer

Now replace 'murder' with 'slavery' and answer the same type of question... Is slavery right or wrong?

According to the Bible, we know it's not 'wrong'. So where does that leave us?

Before you answer, please reference post #710, which states:

'So the question remains... If God knew that humans would later unanimously oppose slavery in the future, why write very clear and seemingly permanent dictates advocating for slavery? Either don't speak of slavery at all, say 'don't own other humans as property,' or change the verbiage to slavery severely - to not justify such practices in an axiomatic way.'

 

[Sanoy]

So, just to be clear here. You do not consider that we can map the activity that occurs when we think certain thoughts and recreate those thoughts via stimulation to be evidence of cognition occurring in the brain?



What is the law of identity? I'm not understanding what you are trying to convey in this last few sentences. Can you explain it?

I think we can, but that is not observing a thought, nor does correlation indicate identity.

The law of identity states that A is the same thing as B if and only if everything true of A is also true of B. So our qualia, desires, thoughts etc, will never be reducible to matter such that they are identical because there will always be things true of A (our qualia)that are not true of B (our matter or brain states). And so if they are not reducible in a way that can satisfy the law of identity then we are not our matter.

 

[HypnoToad]

I rest my case....

It's 'wrong' for one of the following...

- It's states it's 'wrong' in the Bible
- You think so (and then you would have to account for why you think so)
- Or it's harmful to society and humanity (non theistic answer)

This is why you will not answer

Now replace 'murder' with 'slavery' and answer the same type of question... Is slavery right or wrong?

According to the Bible, we know it's not 'wrong'. So where does that leave us?

It leaves us at all of that still being completely irrelevant to the fact that your suggested moral bases don't actually make slavery immoral.