Is it ever moral to own another person as property?

[RDKirk]

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

I'm going to say again: It was the Christian argument that ended slavery Europe and eventually America. Clearly--it's a plain historical fact--the Christian argument against slavery is the persuasive biblical argument.

Moreover, the southern American argument to support slavery isn't even taken from "those verses," but is cobbled from a completely absurd source.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm going to say again: It was the Christian argument that ended slavery Europe and eventually America. Clearly--it's a plain historical fact--the Christian argument against slavery is the persuasive biblical argument.

Moreover, the southern American argument to support slavery isn't even taken from "those verses," but is cobbled from a completely absurd source.

What is the Christian argument (as distinct from the arguments anyone with a conscience would advance)?

 

[Carl Emerson]

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.



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.

So for the Christian it is possible to have righteous ownership in a legal sense to the benefit of both parties - I have seen this work and there was no immorality involved.

 

[durangodawood]

So for the Christian it is possible to have righteous ownership in a legal sense to the benefit of both parties - I have seen this work and there was no immorality involved.

Youve seen legal property-ownership of other people?

Are you like 150 years old?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Youve seen legal property-ownership of other people?

Are you like 150 years old?

I mentioned in an earlier post that I witnessed this in South Africa under apartheid in 1972.

Black servants were required to periodically return to the 'homeland'. Some Christian families bonded so well with their servants that that legally adopted them into their families. This was not forced and was a win/win.

I am suggesting that this was a case of 'slavery' being a lifestyle choice and legal guardianship was in my view a form of ownership.

 

[durangodawood]

I mentioned in an earlier post that I witnessed this in South Africa under apartheid in 1972.

Black servants were required to periodically return to the 'homeland'. Some Christian families bonded so well with their servants that that legally adopted them into their families. This was not forced and was a win/win.

I am suggesting that this was a case of 'slavery' being a lifestyle choice and legal guardianship was in my view a form of ownership.

Adoption into family is not at all the same as property ownership.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I mentioned in an earlier post that I witnessed this in South Africa under apartheid in 1972.

Black servants were required to periodically return to the 'homeland'. Some Christian families bonded so well with their servants that that legally adopted them into their families. This was not forced and was a win/win.

I am suggesting that this was a case of 'slavery' being a lifestyle choice and legal guardianship was in my view a form of ownership.

So if a person says, "please be my owner and if I change my mind later, don't let me leave," is the owner behaving morally by agreeing to those terms?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Not according to the bible...

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

This is a good question with a long answer. In summary I define my moral goal to maximize the well being of all. So actions that objectively advance that goal are morally good and actions that are objectively a hindrance to that goal is morally bad. So it is relative to the situation. Lying is not always morally bad or good it depends on the situation for example.

 

[Carl Emerson]

So if a person says, "please be my owner and if I change my mind later, don't let me leave," is the owner behaving morally by agreeing to those terms?

Not at all, and this is not what happened.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

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.

It was. I am saying they were wrong to think that.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Adoption into family is not at all the same as property ownership.

Mmmm... Or are we playing with definitions to make a point?

 

[Carl Emerson]

In summary I define my moral goal to maximize the well being of all.

That is a very subjective measure - communism does this by force - is that still OK ?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Not at all, and this is not what happened.

If they could leave, then they aren't another person's property in the way that's being asked by the OP, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[durangodawood]

It was. I am saying they were wrong to think that.

But your question is: was it ever moral. Thats not the same thing as appealing to current understandings of right/wrong.

As @Tinker_Grey said: "...The fundamental question of morality is what agreements should we reach that might advance the species".

To which I replied: 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...

As a society, we can only work out morality with the people around us.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

That is a very subjective measure - communism does this by force - is that still OK ?

It is subjective. And no, I doubt that doing this by force can be shown to maximize well being of all. It must be done through convincing others it is the best goal. What is a better goal?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

But your question is: was it ever moral. Thats not the same thing as appealing to current understandings of right/wrong.

As @Tinker_Grey said: "...The fundamental question of morality is what agreements should we reach that might advance the species".

To which I replied: 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...

As a society, we can only work out morality with the people around us.

Ok, I believe we can. And treating people as property is always wrong no matter the situation or time. Child sacrifice is always wrong no matter the time or situation. Why is it wrong to judge people morals that think child sacrifice is ok 4000 years ago but not judge those people today that support child sacrifice?

Do you support the use of the slavery as described in the bible? Would you be my slave under the biblical standard?

 

[Carl Emerson]

If they could leave, then they aren't another person's property in the way that's being asked by the OP, if I'm not mistaken.

The OP did not define ownership when he opened the thread so the discussion has become somewhat circular.

It is easy to insist on a particular definition to make a point - this then becomes pedantic.

 

[Carl Emerson]

It is subjective. And no, I doubt that doing this by force can be shown to maximize well being of all. It must be done through convincing others it is the best goal. What is a better goal?

Certainly not Siberia, yet some still chose this option...

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I am wondering where the legal slave markets are located. Do you get proof of ownership papers? Is there a return policy? What about defective slaves, are they replaced free of charge?

Because if there's no such legal market to acquire legal slaves, well then, that would be illegal and thus not moral.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Certainly not Siberia, yet some still chose this option...

What I am saying is that convincing others can be passive aggressive...