Is it ever moral to own another person as property?

Is it ever moral to own another person as property?


  • Total voters
    27

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟377,931.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Is this arrangement going to benefit me or just you? Why should I be for it then? You aren't considering that in the example I give the slave is willing and wants to stay with his or her master. Why in that scenario should the slave be liberated? No one has answered this.
If there's mutual consent, the slave can stay if freed, so the state of bondage is unnecessary.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,024
3,750
✟287,812.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
If there's mutual consent, the slave can stay if freed, so the state of bondage is unnecessary.
Then it would not be slavery. The master in this instance might insist that the relationship be a master/slave arrangement and what's more the slave is fine with this. I don't think this is an impossible scenario historically. But the issue I see people struggling with is the idea that slavery can in anyway be positive. It must always be viewed negatively. In this certain instance it appears to be positive. In other circumstances, like serfdom, if that is a form of slavery (certaintly it's bondage), I'm willing to bet a good many serfs were content and satisfied most of the time.
 
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟377,931.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Then it would not be slavery. The master in this instance might insist that the relationship be a master/slave arrangement and what's more the slave is fine with this. I don't think this is an impossible scenario historically.
In today's economy, that would be exploitation. There may have been times in history where it would have meant the slave's survival, but it is better to move further from those conditions rather than closer.

But the issue I see people struggling with is the idea that slavery can in anyway be positive. It must always be viewed negatively. In this certain instance it appears to be positive. In other circumstances, like serfdom, if that is a form of slavery (certaintly it's bondage), I'm willing to bet a good many serfs were content and satisfied most of the time.
The more freedom can be sustained, the better. That's my general rule.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,024
3,750
✟287,812.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
In today's economy, that would be exploitation. There may have been times in history where it would have meant the slave's survival, but it is better to move further from those conditions rather than closer.

Perhaps but that's not the actual question. The question was whether it is ever moral to own a slave. Thus we have the whole scope of history to look back into. To presume that slavery was always immoral on part of the slave owner, seems unjustified to me.


The more freedom can be sustained, the better. That's my general rule.

Is it true though? Have most people used the freedom they enjoy in the 21st century for any serious benefit, for either themselves or others? Especially in the western world it doesn't appear we use our freedom, which I grant we have a lot of, for the betterment of society.

Freedom, if it is misused, doesn't seem better.
 
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟377,931.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Is it true though? Have most people used the freedom they enjoy in the 21st century for any serious benefit, for either themselves or others? Especially in the western world it doesn't appear we use our freedom, which I grant we have a lot of, for the betterment of society.
The invisible hand of capitalism, which is energized by freedom, has done immeasurable good.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,408
15,556
Colorado
✟427,882.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Probably not, if it's slavery. Yet in my scenario the slave doesn't seek to terminate the arrangement, but wants it to continue. So in your scenario you've presented a reason for why slavery in that case is not desirable, because there is no way out. You could then posit that slavery in that instance is wrong.

But that doesn't address my own scenario of the willing slave. The slave who gets some benefit from the arrangement, whatever that benefit is. So the challenge is this, in that circumstance, of the willing slave, is it immoral? I haven't really seen anyone here make the argument for why it is. They simply state that slavery is wrong.
I'll just stick with our earlier agreement that involuntary slavery (in other words: "slavery") is wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I never said that. Your question was whether or not it can be ever moral to own a slave.
No, my question was is it ever moral to own another person as property.

If both the master and the slave benefit in the scenario I provided, what is the justification for giving the slave freedom if the slave neither desires freedom and that freedom would put him or her on the path to idleness and degeneracy? Why should this sort of circumstance, be viewed as morally unacceptable?
Because the person once entering into the servitude has no rights to back out. This is why it is prohibited by the 13th amendment in the US, it equates to slavery. We can sign contracts obligating us to do something but we cannot be forced to follow through. There may be consequences of not fulfilling the contract but someone can never be forced to fulfill it.

I think part of the reason you are sort of shocked by this idea is that there is almost a cult of freedom in the Western world, America especially, where any bonds or servitude which is thought to limit the individual is viewed as intolerable. All men are free, is an axiomatic statement which describes our culture. Yet precious few use that freedom for any good. You would perhaps honestly prefer a man be free, free to be idle, free to be degenerate rather than a productive slave or servant whose self indulgent will is contained.
Absolutely. Our culture of freedom is not a bad thing but a good thing. It does not matter what someone does with their freedom. The fact that you by your own subjective opinions of what someone should do with their freedom condones slavery is scary. If you had power over people then people that think like you could make slaves of people based on the fact that you think they are unproductive or degenerate. Freedom is to do whatever you want with that freedom no matter what you think they should do with it. How can one be free if there are requirements to that freedom?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,408
15,556
Colorado
✟427,882.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Is it ever moral to own another person as property?....
Another thing. "Is it ever?" sounds like youre looking to see if anyone has any sort of present tense defense. "Was it ever?" would be asking about the past.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Another thing. "Is it ever?" sounds like youre looking to see if anyone has any sort of present tense defense. "Was it ever?" would be asking about the past.
I meant at any time in history. Is there any situation that would warrant owning people as property.
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,667
9,977
78
Auckland
✟376,544.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I meant at any time in history. Is there any situation that would warrant owning people as property.

I still think my example deserves some consideration.

In South Africa, a Christian family legally adopts their black servants to avoid the trauma of them being forced to return to the homeland.

This was mutual consent.

Was it ownership? well that depends on how you define ownership.

So far I am told we can own a pet but not own a son or daughter, yet there are laws against stealing a baby.

So for me the question is answered in this case and is justified.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,024
3,750
✟287,812.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
The invisible hand of capitalism, which is energized by freedom, has done immeasurable good.
It has, but it hasn't been all good and i would say unrestrained capitalism and Global free trade has done a lot of damage long term. Yet that might that this thread in a widely different direction. All I will suggest is that freedom is not the ultimate good. Sometimes the will needs to be constrained.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,024
3,750
✟287,812.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Absolutely. Our culture of freedom is not a bad thing but a good thing. It does not matter what someone does with their freedom. The fact that you by your own subjective opinions of what someone should do with their freedom condones slavery is scary. If you had power over people then people that think like you could make slaves of people based on the fact that you think they are unproductive or degenerate. Freedom is to do whatever you want with that freedom no matter what you think they should do with it. How can one be free if there are requirements to that freedom?
I do believe I can judge someone for misusing their freedom. For instance, is the young man who spends all his savings in funding his favourite onlyfans girl doing something good or bad? Would it be better if he was prevented from doing so?

If the answer is yes then we see that unlimited freedom is not beneficial and is harmful.

But since we're all subjective here. Why is your subjective morality on freedom greater than my view that freedom should be limited?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟377,931.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
It has, but it hasn't been all good and i would say unrestrained capitalism and Global free trade has done a lot of damage long term. Yet that might that this thread in a widely different direction. All I will suggest is that freedom is not the ultimate good. Sometimes the will needs to be constrained.
It hasn't all been good, and the abundance it has created has not been equal, but it has been spread out enough so that slavery is essentially outmoded as a necessary means of survival and production.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,784
Pacific Northwest
✟728,105.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I do believe I can judge someone for misusing their freedom. For instance, is the young man who spends all his savings in funding his favourite onlyfans girl doing something good or bad? Would it be better if he was prevented from doing so?

If the answer is yes then we see that unlimited freedom is not beneficial and is harmful.

But since we're all subjective here. Why is your subjective morality on freedom greater than my view that freedom should be limited?

Very few people would advocate for "absolute freedom". Some regulatory control is necessitated for the stability of human society to function. I can't go around slaughtering people all willy-nilly, and I shouldn't be allowed to.

I suspect even the most ardent and even extreme libertarian would acknowledge this.

But should freedom, as a principle, be regarded as good? Yes, absolutely. The language of freedom is consistently God's language for redemption, salvation, healing, restoration, and justice. God liberated His people from the bondage of slavery in Egypt. God liberated His people from their Exile in Babylon. The Old Testament liberation of people prefigure the liberation of creation and the human person in Jesus Christ and His atoning and redeeming work. This is the same Christ who declared the fulfillment of Isaiah who wrote,

"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of prison to those who are bound, to proclaim the Jubilee of the Lord and the day of God's vengeance, to comfort all who mourn," - Isaiah 61:1-2

The voluntary slavery of Christ's disciples is just that, a voluntary slavery. The same who says that we must reckon ourselves slaves of God and of righteousness, is also clear that we are regarded no longer slaves, but children.

The use of slavery as a metaphor of our obedience to Christ, our Lord, is very much how we ought to regard ourselves; but it does not speak of how God regards us, as God does not regard us as slaves at all, but as children. Thus we operate, in our participating with God in the world, as humble servants imitating the Humble Servant Himself. In the freedom of God's grace, however, we are not slaves at all but freemen and adopted members of God's oikos, His Household. Our place in God's House is not that of a slave, but rather a child; it is outside of God's House, in the midst of the world, that we labor as servants. And thus the service we render to God from faith and love is the service to our neighbor, that we might present our bodies before God as living sacrifices, holding firm to the work to which we have been called in Christ Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Carl Emerson
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,408
15,556
Colorado
✟427,882.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I meant at any time in history. Is there any situation that would warrant owning people as property.
You say "is". But that different than "was", as moral rules change over time.

In Roman times owning people was ok, apparently.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I still think my example deserves some consideration.

In South Africa, a Christian family legally adopts their black servants to avoid the trauma of them being forced to return to the homeland.
Legal adoption is ok. Can they leave at any time?

This was mutual consent.
I believe it is immoral to allow someone to consent to being a slave. Because that is a condition for life that they cannot later rectify. If they want to enter a contract for work (not servitude) that is ok since both parties are protected by the contract.

Was it ownership? well that depends on how you define ownership.
The bible defines it as property. So whatever you can do with your property you can do with a slave. Like sell them, use as collateral etc.

So far I am told we can own a pet but not own a son or daughter, yet there are laws against stealing a baby.

So for me the question is answered in this case and is justified.
This is what our society in the US allows. We own pets but we cannot do whatever we want with them. If we mistreat them they can be taken away and we can go to jail. Of course there are laws against stealing people. That does not imply the are property.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gene Parmesan
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I do believe I can judge someone for misusing their freedom. For instance, is the young man who spends all his savings in funding his favourite onlyfans girl doing something good or bad? Would it be better if he was prevented from doing so?
You can judge them but preventing them from doing bad things by enslaving them is ridiculous. We have laws to stop people from violating others rights with due process.

If the answer is yes then we see that unlimited freedom is not beneficial and is harmful.
We have laws against harming others.

But since we're all subjective here. Why is your subjective morality on freedom greater than my view that freedom should be limited?
My view is not unlimited freedom. My view is to maximize freedom while maintaining the rights of everyone. So, my view does not unnecessarily restrict freedoms, your does based on the subjective opinions of whoever has the power to enforce them. Whatever the people in power deems beneficial is used to limit others freedom.
 
Upvote 0