Is it ever moral to own another person as property?

[durangodawood]

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?

I do not support slavery of any kind. But I dont get to reach back and impose the agreements about right/wrong (morals) we make today on people who are not available to contribute to the agreement.

The really cutting test of this, imo, is: can I look back to American slavery and condemn it? After all, none of those slavers are available to contribute to a moral agreement with my society. To which I'd reply: we can judge them in terms of the moral worldview of their greater contemporary culture. In that light, their behavior still comes off as deeply immoral I think. They ignored the available moral understandings all around them to persist in a self-serving venture of horrific immorality.

I think thats a fairly common occurrence in human history: some group decides to venture into deeply immoral territory, for greed or idealism, and they end up getting violently put down or implode due to unsustainable moral contradictions. State communism of the 20th c. is like this I think.

 

[durangodawood]

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

No. This is not "playing". The moral considerations and consequences for chattel-slavery and family-adoption are totally different. The two practices are totally different. I think youre the one whos playing games here.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

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

And that was an immoral choice as I said based on well being.

 

[Carl Emerson]

No. This is not "playing". The moral considerations and consequences for chattel-slavery and family-adoption are totally different. The two practices are totally different. I think youre the one whos playing games here.

OK I will leave it there - I thought it was a worthy contribution.

Can you clarify if modern enterprises paying super low wages to a captive people market can be seen as 'slavery' ???

 

[Carl Emerson]

And that was an immoral choice as I said based on well being.

Really - go to the gulag or else - was a choice based on wellbeing?

 

[durangodawood]

OK I will leave it there - I thought it was a worthy contribution.

Can you clarify if modern enterprises paying super low wages to a captive people market can be seen as 'slavery' ???

Not at all. (Not that its good either. But its not slavery.)

 

[RDKirk]

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

Roger Williams was using the Christian argument against slavery in 1644, when John Locke was still in knee pants, so, no, not "anyone with a conscience" was advancing those arguments because secular philosophy was not that far along yet in its consideration of the equality of human beings. Most other world philosophies never did come up with arguments against slavery, and it's arguable that the European Enlightenment Era philosophers might not have if Christianity had not placed them in an environment that had not already made it so.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

There was nothing righteous about apartheid, and if ownership of people was part of it, that's just another unrighteous facet of apartheid. Under such a system, it's absurd to argue that blacks had a truly free choice.

Why do we have professing Christians in this thread arguing so hard for a way to moralize slavery? What are you trying to protect?

 

[RDKirk]

The really cutting test of this, imo, is: can I look back to American slavery and condemn it? After all, none of those slavers are available to contribute to a moral agreement with my society. To which I'd reply: we can judge them in terms of the moral worldview of their greater contemporary culture. In that light, their behavior still comes off as deeply immoral I think. They ignored the available moral understandings all around them to persist in a self-serving venture of horrific immorality.

Exactly. In fact, even the slaveholders themselves had earlier agreed that slavery was immoral (but necessary because the money was too good). Then they changed their minds, because the money had gotten even better. They literally changed slaveholding from a "necessary financial evil" to a "necessary societal good," having nothing even to do with skin color per se but something that should be applied to other nationalities deemed "fitted for slavery" such as the Irish and the German.

 

[Carl Emerson]

There was nothing righteous about apartheid, and if ownership of people was part of it, that's just another unrighteous facet of apartheid. Under such a system, it's absurd to argue that blacks had a truly free choice.

I haven't noticed anyone on this thread arguing thus...

Why do we have professing Christians in this thread arguing so hard for a way to moralize slavery? What are you trying to protect?

The suggestion that God is immoral as He tolerated slavery, is often leveled at Christians as if we have an immoral God.

 

[RDKirk]

I haven't noticed anyone on this thread arguing thus...

You haven't been paying attention then, not even to your own posts.

The suggestion that God is immoral as He tolerated slavery, is often leveled at Christians as if we have an immoral God.

God also tolerated divorce, and Jesus told us why. That same answer covers slavery.

But notice that I continually talk about "the Christian argument," not the Jewish argument.

Here is what a lot of Christians get wrong about the bible that opens them up to that charge: A lot of Christians think the bible is "God's manifesto," as though it was handed down in one piece at one time as a single, concise policy guide.

The Bible is not "God's manifesto." God does not change, true, but God's expectations of performance from His people certainly have changed from covenant to covenant. God's expectations of performance have risen with each covenant. The performance He expected after the Mosaic law was higher than He expected before. Things He allowed before the Mosaic covenant were abolished by the Mosaic covenant. Things He allowed under the Mosaic covenant have been abolished under the Messianic covenant.

The answer to that challenge is simply, "That was then, this is now; God demands more of us today than He demanded of Bronze Age men."

For anyone who can't accept that, take your preaching elsewhere.

 

[Carl Emerson]

You haven't been paying attention then, not even to your own posts.



God also tolerated divorce, and Jesus told us why. That same answer covers slavery.

But notice that I continually talk about "the Christian argument," not the Jewish argument.

Here is what a lot of Christians get wrong about the bible that opens them up to that charge: A lot of Christians think the bible is "God's manifesto," as though it was handed down in one piece at one time as a single, concise policy guide.

The Bible is not "God's manifesto." God does not change, true, but God's expectations of performance from His people certainly have changed from covenant to covenant. God's expectations of performance have risen with each covenant. The performance He expected after the Mosaic law was higher than He expected before. Things He allowed before the Mosaic covenant were abolished by the Mosaic covenant. Things He allowed under the Mosaic covenant have been abolished under the Messianic covenant.

The answer to that challenge is simply, "That was then, this is now; God demands more of us today than He demanded of Bronze Age men."

For anyone who can't accept that, take your preaching elsewhere.

Yes good points...

Sadly however many who contemplate the New Covenant look for less demand of righteousness rather than more.

Not that I promote legalism but the old covenant requirements still serve to remind us the He means business with us and expects us to be faithful to His Word.

At the same time, Satan is an arch legalist and loves us wasting hours debating finer points of Law and missing the freedom with responsibilities that the Gospel brings.

 

[Strathos]

I'd also like to say that the question in the OP is rather pointless, as you can invent any kind of contrived scenario where it would be moral to do something.

For example, imagine that aliens show up and demand that you make one guy a slave, or else they'll blow up the earth. In that case, it would be the moral thing to do.

You can invent similar scenarios for crimes like murder, rape, treason, etc.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

'cause owning people is disgusting, and immoral, or do you disagree?

I think that owning people as slaves is immoral and disgusting too but even more disgusting is anyone who would allow him or herself to be owned. Give me liberty or give me death!

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I do not support slavery of any kind. But I dont get to reach back and impose the agreements about right/wrong (morals) we make today on people who are not available to contribute to the agreement.

The really cutting test of this, imo, is: can I look back to American slavery and condemn it? After all, none of those slavers are available to contribute to a moral agreement with my society. To which I'd reply: we can judge them in terms of the moral worldview of their greater contemporary culture. In that light, their behavior still comes off as deeply immoral I think. They ignored the available moral understandings all around them to persist in a self-serving venture of horrific immorality.

So your argument is since slavery at the time of biblical times was accepted as moral by the greater contemporary culture that we cannot judge them for their slavery positions? Ok, How about God? Why did God not tell them to stop it and that it was immoral? God gives commands to not do many things throughout the bible but never against slavery.

 

[durangodawood]

So your argument is since slavery at the time of biblical times was accepted as moral by the greater contemporary culture that we cannot judge them for their slavery positions? Ok, How about God? Why did God not tell them to stop it and that it was immoral? God gives commands to not do many things throughout the bible but never against slavery.

Yes, we cannot judge them in the blame/shame sense. But I think its perfectly appropriate to talk about their ignorance of various moral facts (just as people in the future will talk about ours.)

Of course, my view is consistent with the idea of God is a social construction rather than real being with the attributes described by traditionally theology.

 

[RDKirk]

So your argument is since slavery at the time of biblical times was accepted as moral by the greater contemporary culture that we cannot judge them for their slavery positions? Ok, How about God? Why did God not tell them to stop it and that it was immoral? God gives commands to not do many things throughout the bible but never against slavery.

See my post #131.

In the New Testament, man has progressed to the point that Christ could direct those who followed Him to a far higher standard of morality, which excluded not only slavery but also bigotries based on race, nationality, and gender. He prohibited much of what had been permitted for Bronze Age men.

He did not, however, direct his followers to fix the world...just themselves.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Really - go to the gulag or else - was a choice based on wellbeing?

No. I think you might have misunderstood me.

 

[partinobodycular]

Is it ever moral to own another person as property?

I don't understand. Why would it be immoral to own someone?

Is it immoral simply because you say it is?

 

[durangodawood]

I don't understand. Why would it be immoral to own someone?

Is it immoral simply because you say it is?

Its immoral because our society says so. Probably because we prefer a world where we reject de-valuing people to that extent.