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.
Its not that hard to find support for slavery in the Bible. Many supportive verses are just there for the picking.
What is the Christian argument (as distinct from the arguments anyone with a conscience would advance)?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.
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.
Youve seen legal property-ownership of other people?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?
Adoption into family is not at all the same as property ownership.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?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.
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.Not according to the bible...
Sometimes you quote the bible - how do you determine what is moral?
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?
It was. I am saying they were wrong to think that.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.
Adoption into family is not at all the same as property ownership.
In summary I define my moral goal to maximize the well being of all.
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.Not at all, and this is not what happened.
But your question is: was it ever moral. Thats not the same thing as appealing to current understandings of right/wrong.It was. I am saying they were wrong to think that.
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?That is a very subjective measure - communism does this by force - is that still OK ?
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?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.
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.
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...
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?