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.
If there's mutual consent, the slave can stay if freed, so the state of bondage is unnecessary.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.
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.If there's mutual consent, the slave can stay if freed, so the state of bondage is unnecessary.
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.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.
The more freedom can be sustained, the better. That's my general rule.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.
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.
The more freedom can be sustained, the better. That's my general rule.
The invisible hand of capitalism, which is energized by freedom, has done immeasurable good.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.
I'll just stick with our earlier agreement that involuntary slavery (in other words: "slavery") is 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.
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.
No, my question was is it ever moral to own another person as property.I never said that. Your question was whether or not it can be ever moral to own a slave.
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.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?
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 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.
Fair enough.My answer is “no comment”.
No.Is it ever moral to own another person as property?
Edited to add, No should be "it is never moral". not mortal.
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.Is it ever moral to own another person as property?....
I meant at any time in history. Is there any situation that would warrant owning people 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.
I meant at any time in history. Is there any situation that would warrant owning people as property.
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.The invisible hand of capitalism, which is energized by freedom, has done immeasurable good.
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?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?
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.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.
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?
You say "is". But that different than "was", as moral rules change over time.I meant at any time in history. Is there any situation that would warrant owning people as property.
Legal adoption is ok. Can they leave at any time?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.
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.This was mutual consent.
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.Was it ownership? well that depends on how you define ownership.
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.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.
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.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?
We have laws against harming others.If the answer is yes then we see that unlimited freedom is not beneficial and is harmful.
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.But since we're all subjective here. Why is your subjective morality on freedom greater than my view that freedom should be limited?
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?