Is it ever moral to own another person as property?

[Clizby WampusCat]

Is it ever moral to own another person as property?

Edited to add, No should be "it is never moral". not mortal.

 

[Carl Emerson]

When I was in South Africa I met a Christian family who adopted all their black servants into their family...

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

When I was in South Africa I met a Christian family who adopted all their black servants into their family...

So what is your answer to the question?

 

[DragonFox91]

Why do you ask?

 

[Carl Emerson]

So what is your answer to the question?

Do we not own our children...

The family that adopted their servants legally then owned them as part of the family.

This was at their (the servants) request to avoid being beholden to certain apartheid requirements around living in the homeland.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Do we not own our children...

No

 

[Carl Emerson]

No

Who owns them?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Who owns them?

No one

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I could imagine a scenario where the slave owner is benefitting the slave in owning him or her. Perhaps giving direction, security and a living for the slave. So I'll have to answer yes.

 

[dóxatotheó]

Is it ever moral to own another person as property?

Edited to add, No should be "it is never moral". not mortal.

one persons ethical grounds wouldnt fully equate the national state objectivity of morality so even if i say its moral or immoral that wouldnt be the universal approach to it ethical relativism is a inductive fallacy and i would say i can state owning a human being in the grounds of oppression and keeping them as property is objectively immoral but i do believe indentured servitude is considered ethically moral so we cannot state something based upon a ethical approach that is another fallacy. So even in the grounds of religion the use of slaves has a double meaning a use of hebrew words to show the difference between slavery(oppression own as things) and slavery(indentured servitude) which in the timeframe of 8000 BC was morally acceped and throughout history was seen as morally accepted until indentured servitude turn into oppressive slavery so me i can answer this and say yes very much so owning a human being in the grounds of being property is objectively immoral and ethically illogical.

 

[Carl Emerson]

No one

How come then folks are charged for stealing them?

 

[Tinker Grey]

How come then folks are charged for stealing them?

You can be the designated caregiver with certain rights without being an "owner".

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Do we not own our children...

No, we are stewards of them they are not our property. I cannot use them as collateral or to pay a debt or sell them to someone else. They are not our property.

The family that adopted their servants legally then owned them as part of the family.

This was at their (the servants) request to avoid being beholden to certain apartheid requirements around living in the homeland.

How does this answer my question?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

one persons ethical grounds wouldnt fully equate the national state objectivity of morality so even if i say its moral or immoral that wouldnt be the universal approach to it ethical relativism is a inductive fallacy and i would say i can state owning a human being in the grounds of oppression and keeping them as property is objectively immoral but i do believe indentured servitude is considered ethically moral so we cannot state something based upon a ethical approach that is another fallacy. So even in the grounds of religion the use of slaves has a double meaning a use of hebrew words to show the difference between slavery(oppression own as things) and slavery(indentured servitude) which in the timeframe of 8000 BC was morally acceped and throughout history was seen as morally accepted until indentured servitude turn into oppressive slavery so me i can answer this and say yes very much so owning a human being in the grounds of being property is objectively immoral and ethically illogical.

I disagree that indentured servitude is moral but that is a different conversation.

I am unclear your on stance. Do you think it is ever moral to own another person as property?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I could imagine a scenario where the slave owner is benefitting the slave in owning him or her. Perhaps giving direction, security and a living for the slave. So I'll have to answer yes.

So as long as there is benefit to the one treated as property it is moral?

Then why didn't you answer the poll?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

So as long as there is benefit to the one treated as property it is moral?

Then why didn't you answer the poll?

If it benefit's the slave away from a degenerate and idle way of living it seems to me that in such a situation where the individual would use their freedom to their own disadvantage slavery on part of the slaver is morally acceptable.

 

[dóxatotheó]

I disagree that indentured servitude is moral but that is a different conversation.

I am unclear your on stance. Do you think it is ever moral to own another person as property?

i bolded my stance on it objectivity means it is never seen as moral by humans by nature meaning its immoral humans constant seeking of virtue should show what objectivity of morality is equated too in society without contradicting ethics and common grounds constant polemics breaks our minds

 

[Carl Emerson]

No, we are stewards of them they are not our property. I cannot use them as collateral or to pay a debt or sell them to someone else. They are not our property.

How does this answer my question?

Well if adoption is ownership then this case applies.

It might be best to define ownership first.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Who owns them?

We shouldn't regard any interpersonal relationships with the language of ownership.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Carl Emerson]

We shouldn't regard any interpersonal relationships with the language of ownership.

-CryptoLutheran

I think we need to define what ownership is...