Is it ever moral to own another person as property?

[Clizby WampusCat]

You say "is". But that different than "was", as moral rules change over time.

In Roman times owning people was ok, apparently.

Yes morality changes over time. Owning someone as property during the Roman times was immoral. Do you think it was moral for Romans to own people as property?

 

[Carl Emerson]

morality changes over time.

Not according to the bible...

Sometimes you quote the bible - how do you determine what is moral?

 

[durangodawood]

Yes morality changes over time. Owning someone as property during the Roman times was immoral. Do you think it was moral for Romans to own people as property?

I thought owning people as property was considered morally ok back then.

But if I'm wrong as a point of history, then I'm wrong.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I thought owning people as property was considered morally ok back then.

But if I'm wrong as a point of history, then I'm wrong.

I'm guessing that @Clizby WampusCat means that, yes, morality changes over time and now we consider the Romans owning slaves was immoral.

That is, it was considered moral then; it isn't considered moral now and we judge them according to our current moral stance.

But, he can correct me, of course.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

The context here is against God’s commandment for the Israelites to own slaves. This person is an atheist and always attacking God.

 

[durangodawood]

...That is, it was considered moral then; it isn't considered moral now and we judge them according to our current moral stance....

That doesnt make sense. Something was moral back then. Or something is immoral now. It breaks language to say "X is immoral back then". That should let us know that morality doesnt backwards-apply.

 

[Tinker Grey]

That doesnt make sense. Something was moral back then. Or something is immoral now. It breaks language to say "X is immoral back then". That should let us know that morality doesnt backwards-apply.

He didn't and I don't say that it was considered immoral back then. We say, pardon me @Clizby WampusCat, that we consider it immoral now whatever they said then.

This is part and parcel with understanding that your average non-believer (people like Sam Harris not withstanding) considers morality subjective.

We expect pacts between humans to vary from generation to generation. We might judge slavery immoral because we find it harmful now and posit that if they'd found a different way, they'd have been better off.

I didn't say morality "backwards-apply". I said we evaluate the past based on our evolved (I did not say better) sense of morality. We consider things in the past immoral because we judge, rightly or wrongly, they could've done better; we judge that our ways are better, rightly or wrongly.

As I've said several times before, based on who I am and when I am I judge the Romans wrong. Based on who I am and when I am, I'd like to think that I'd've been against slavery even in AD 50. Human nature being what it is, I'd likely have found slavery a non-question and wondered why anyone would question slavery.

When I say something like "they shouldn't have done that", I don't blame them. I'm saying that based on what we know now (or 'think' we do), they shouldn't have done that. We think we have reasons for why they shouldn't have done that.

Bottom line: they did the best they could knowing what they knew; we think they were wrong knowing what we know.

The fundamental question of morality is what agreements should we reach that might advance the species. We'll make the best decision we can. We'll move forward. But, I aver, pretending that there can be only one answer, that the answer someone arrived at 2000 years ago is the only answer, is misguided at best.

 

[dóxatotheó]

The context here is against God’s commandment for the Israelites to own slaves. This person is an atheist and always attacking God.

Yeah me and him been debating in Outreach for quite sometime.

 

[durangodawood]

...The fundamental question of morality is what agreements should we reach that might advance the species. We'll make the best decision we can. We'll move forward. But, I aver, pretending that there can be only one answer, that the answer someone arrived at 2000 years ago is the only answer, is misguided at best.

I like your expression of morality as a set of agreements. But, we cannot forge agreements with people in the past, no matter how much our sensibilities compel us. That is why it makes no sense to backwards apply contemporary morality. We can call them ignorant perhaps. No agreement required for that.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

If it's that person's desire to live degenerately and idly, he has a right to do so.

 

[RDKirk]

Clizby WampusCat said: ↑
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.

Well if adoption is ownership then this case applies.

It might be best to define ownership first.

Clizby WampusCat just provided a very good definition of "ownership."

A person owned by another person is property that can be used as any other property: Sold, used as collateral, or used for any purpose, or disposed of in any way desired.

 

[RDKirk]

I never said that. Your question was whether or not it can be ever moral to own a slave. 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?

Oh, wait, you've moved the goalpost. Now you have added "...if the slave neither desires freedom...."

Under your concept, then, may these slaves unilaterally assert their freedom at any point that they desire 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.

I'll make note that you are not a person who believes humans have (or should have) free will. Okay.

 

[RDKirk]

If the slaves becomes a better person as a result of their servitude, how is it not moral?

Has he really become a better person?

This is a millennia old question that to which even the Apostle Paul posed an answer:

If a slave--who is under the control of his master in everything he does, which is the definition of slavery--does what is good by the will of his master, is it the slave who is good, or is it the master?
If the slave does evil by the will of his master, is it the master who is evil or the slave?
If a good slave is one who obeys his master and an evil slave is one who disobeys his master, and the slave disobeys the master's evil command, does that make the slave an evil slave or a good slave?

What, then, is the true nature of that slave?

 

[RDKirk]

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.

That is not a slave in any modern context. In fact, it's only considered "slave" in a very unique Old Testament context.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

So now you're just talking circuitously just to be argumentative. Thanks for playing.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

So now you're just talking circuitously just to be argumentative. Thanks for playing.

No I'm not. I meant every word I said.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Religion makes otherwise good people contort themselves into pretzels in order to rationalize despicable things like owning another human being. It's depressing to watch.

 

[RDKirk]

Religion makes otherwise good people contort themselves into pretzels in order to rationalize despicable things like owning another human being. It's depressing to watch.

Well, there are certainly irreligious people who ran slavery in the past, and certainly even today...so let's not imply "God made me like slavery."

We have the testimonies of English slavers in past centuries who turned away from slavery after becoming Christian, and it was the Christian argument that ended slavery Europe and eventually America.

However, it is certainly peculiar and worth specific discussion that in the early 1800s, Christians in the American southeast would cobble their own unique pro-slavery doctrine out of the bible...and that some would continue to cling to it even today.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Well, there are certainly irreligious people who ran slavery in the past, and certainly even today...so let's not imply "God made me like slavery."

We have the testimonies of English slavers in past centuries who turned away from slavery after becoming Christian, and it was the Christian argument that ended slavery Europe and eventually America.

However, it is certainly peculiar and worth specific discussion that in the early 1800s, Christians in the American southeast would cobble their own unique pro-slavery doctrine out of the bible...and that some would continue to cling to it even today.

I wouldn't imply that. This is an over-simplification, but there are good people and there are bad people. Bad people do bad things, for whatever reason. Religion, however, seems to make some otherwise good people rationalize bad things. Yes, good and bad are typically subjective, but I really don't think some of the folks rationalizing slavery in here would be putting so much effort into making it palatable if they didn't believe their religion condoned or permitted some form of it.

 

[durangodawood]

Well, there are certainly irreligious people who ran slavery in the past, and certainly even today...so let's not imply "God made me like slavery."

We have the testimonies of English slavers in past centuries who turned away from slavery after becoming Christian, and it was the Christian argument that ended slavery Europe and eventually America.

However, it is certainly peculiar and worth specific discussion that in the early 1800s, Christians in the American southeast would cobble their own unique pro-slavery doctrine out of the bible...and that some would continue to cling to it even today.

Its not that hard to find support for slavery in the Bible. Many supportive verses are just there for the picking.