Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
'cause owning people is disgusting, and immoral, or do you disagree?
Sounds like "ends justifies the means".If the slaves becomes a better person as a result of their servitude, how is it not moral?
Well no. I would question the whole notion of freedom itself and whether it is this ultimate thing to strive for. When it comes to human relationships and duties it seems to me complete freedom would inhibit those relations.Sounds like "ends justifies the means".
What is with the religious obsession with "ultimate"? Freedom is among the things humans strive for. It need not be all or nothing. I might be willing to be give something up for a relationship. But a relationship that requires me to give up everything is no relationship at all. It's slavery. And, it's bad.Well no. I would question the whole notion of freedom itself and whether it is this ultimate thing to strive for. When it comes to human relationships and duties it seems to me complete freedom would inhibit those relations.
What is with the religious obsession with "ultimate"? Freedom is among the things humans strive for. It need not be all or nothing. I might be willing to be give something up for a relationship. But a relationship that requires me to give up everything is no relationship at all. It's slavery. And, it's bad.
Why do you think I have an obsession with freedom? I'm not the one throwing out "ultimate". I said specifically I might be willing to give something up for a relationship. That doesn't sound like an obsession with freedom. It is those of faith that insist on all or nothing. It's all freedom (can't have relationship) or nothing (slavery!).Who has the obsession with Freedom here? I've given a scenario where I don't see anything morally wrong with the slave / master relationship. Simply saying slavery is bad, doesn't really constitute an argument for it being bad inherently, in all cases and all times, does it?
At that point you're just regurgitating what your culture has told you.
Why do you think I have an obsession with freedom? I'm not the one throwing out "ultimate". I said specifically I might be willing to give something up for a relationship. That doesn't sound like an obsession with freedom. It is those of faith that insist on all or nothing. It's all freedom (can't have relationship) or nothing (slavery!).
Of course, I am a product of my culture. We all are. I think morality is subjective. I think the reason I think slavery is bad is because of the history that made me me. Would I think slavery was bad if I were a either a plebeian or a senator in ancient Rome. Probably not. As a plebe, I might not like it, but I probably wouldn't think it immoral.
As a modern human, I'm part of a culture that has analyzed the effects of slavery both on the slave and slave owner. This culture finds slavery abhorrent. I'd like to think that were I alive 200 years ago I'd find slavery abhorrent. Chances are, I'd be ok with it.
Morality is inherently flexible. Different times and places give rise to different moralities. Here and now, I find slavery abhorrent. I can't imagine, given what we know now, a situation that would make slavery acceptable. While I can imagine that there are times and places where people did find it so, I cannot imagine regressing to that thinking. I am a product of my time. I find slavery abhorrent and immoral.
Interestingly, while I recognize my morality as subjective, you do not recognize yours as being subjective.
The problem is that here and now there is no justification for slavery. It's pretty simple.Since morality is subject there isn't really anything wrong with my position then eh?
Your being unable to imagine to imagine a situation where slavery is morally acceptable is not my concern. You haven't even attempted to explain via your subjective morality why the scenario I gave is wrong in the first place. You've just declared it so.
IF you don't have an obsession with freedom, what's the problem?
I gave the scenario in my first response to the thread. If we can posit a hypothetical scenario where the slave desired to remain a slave and was satisfied with his servitude to a master, why isn't that subjectively sufficient? Or would you enforce your own subjective will on the slave to break him away from the master?The problem is that here and now there is no justification for slavery. It's pretty simple.
The scenario you propose, is that involuntary chattel slavery? Because that is what the OP is asking about. "Owning another person as property".. The topic isn't about some arrangement of voluntary servitude.I gave the scenario in my first response to the thread. If we can posit a hypothetical scenario where the slave desired to remain a slave and was satisfied with his servitude to a master, why isn't that subjectively sufficient? Or would you enforce your own subjective will on the slave to break him away from the master?
The only way to say this sort of situation is unacceptable is to deny the premise and I don' think you can. Given the variety of human nature and how a majority of people prefer security/safety, it's entirely plausible.
No one's really addressed this sort of scenario. It's been a gut level reaction and nothing more. One response I anticipated but have not heard is that it's better to be free and at liberty, rather than in slavery and bondage. No one's even made that argument yet.
The scenario you propose, is that involuntary chattel slavery? Because that is what the OP is asking about. "Owning another person as property".. The topic isn't about some arrangement of voluntary servitude.
So do you think involuntary chattel slavery is okay today in certain circumstances?My thoughts are towards multiple forms of slavery. Not just the American edition of it. Ancient slavery for one thing in which the person was definitely the property of their master. Even under Christianity slaves were still property, although they could not be regarded as non-human or unworthy of some basic considerations.
Well that's the point in question. Is it always immoral? In all cases? Without exceptions? I am not convinced and you haven't offered an argument against what I'm saying.
I
Given what I know of it, no. Yet, I'm not duty bound to defend all forms of slavery or servitude. For instance, Islamic sex slavery is abhorrent. As were the conditions of captured slaves in the Islamic world and even some parts of the Christian world. I wouldn't really want men to be subject to the conditions captured prisoners of war were when the Knights of Malta caught them.So you think involuntary chattel slavery is okay today in certain circumstances?
Argument for the immorality of owning people. Should that be obvious?
Surrender to me Ignatius. I declare that you are my slave now. You should fetch a good price to work in the diamond mines. They can always use some disposable labor.
You're not duty-bound to defend anything. But participation in the thread should come with a minimal effort to answer the op question on its own terms. It was like pulling teeth to get you there.Given what I know of it, no. Yet, I'm not duty bound to defend all forms of slavery or servitude. For instance, Islamic sex slavery is abhorrent. As were the conditions of captured slaves in the Islamic world and even some parts of the Christian world. I wouldn't really want men to be subject to the conditions captured prisoners of war were when the Knights of Malta caught them.
You're not duty-bound to defend anything. But participation in the thread should come with a minimal effort to answer the op question on its own terms. It was like pulling teeth to get you there.
For me, I don't think morality is transferable across all time and space. But the question: "should they have known better?" is a reasonable one. USA slavery failed this moral test in my opinion. Biblical slavery tho? I'm not acquainted enough with the mindset of the times to say.
The arrangement you outline in that post, is it voluntary? Can the slave terminate it?I did answer the OP on his own terms. Simply because you don't like the answer or want the world to centre around the American experience doesn't make what I said any less valid. You're the one who wants it to be a hyper specific context. The question the OP asked is incredibly open.
How for instance was my argument, in my first response, wrong?
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.The arrangement you outline in that post, is it voluntary? Can the slave terminate it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?