Is it ever moral to own another person as property?

[Clizby WampusCat]

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.

You are ok with slavery because people use their freedom in a way you don't agree with? Wow. This is a scary notion. Because people in power can justify forcing slavery on others by their own subjective ideas about what the disadvantages are. I have a hard time believing that you really believe this.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

i bolded my stance on it objectivity means it is never seen as moral by humans by nature meaning its immoral humans constant seeking of virtue should show what objectivity of morality is equated too in society without contradicting ethics and common grounds constant polemics breaks our minds

I read this three times and I don't understand what it means. Can you clarify?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Well if adoption is ownership then this case applies.

It might be best to define ownership first.

The poll is about property. Property like a car that can be bought and sold, used as collateral, passed down to your kids etc.

 

[atpollard]

You are ok with slavery because people use their freedom in a way you don't agree with? Wow.

Why create a poll if you are willing to accept only one answer? That is silly.
Make a position statement in the OP and defend it against anyone that might dare to challenge it.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Why create a poll if you are willing to accept only one answer? That is silly.
Make a position statement in the OP and defend it against anyone that might dare to challenge it.

I am willing to accept any answer. I did respond to the answer with the reasons why I thought it was a bad reason. Now what is your answer to the question?

 

[dóxatotheó]

I read this three times and I don't understand what it means. Can you clarify?

this means its immoral

 

[Carl Emerson]

The poll is about property. Property like a car that can be bought and sold, used as collateral, passed down to your kids etc.

Can you own a dog?

 

[durangodawood]

Do we not own our children....

If you own them, you can sell them.

Like the people trying to give away a box of infants at the entrance to the supermarket.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You are ok with slavery because people use their freedom in a way you don't agree with? Wow. This is a scary notion. Because people in power can justify forcing slavery on others by their own subjective ideas about what the disadvantages are. I have a hard time believing that you really believe this.

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?

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.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Can you own a dog?

Our society allows us to treat our pets as property. I think that we are stewards of them and should not think that we own them or that they are our property.

 

[durangodawood]

....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?.....

Then that person can enroll in some sort of voluntary servitude.

The question tho is about ownership as property of another person. Property is not entitled to have its desires respected.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Our society allows us to treat our pets as property. I think that we are stewards of them and should not think that we own them or that they are our property.

So dogs should not be bought or sold?

 

[durangodawood]

So dogs should not be bought or sold?

Yeah animals are an edge case.
They are property in that we can buy and sell them.
But they cannot be disposed of however we choose and are legally entitled to a certain standard of care.

 

[GospelS]

No one owns anyone like God owns them. All creation is God’s. If He chooses to give me someone, then I accept His wisdom and keep them but I still wouldn’t own them like God owns them. That wouldn’t make me immoral. Now if I treat them as I own them like God owns them, then that’s immoral. And if I take someone on my own will without God giving them to me, then that’s immoral.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Then that person can enroll in some sort of voluntary servitude.

The question tho is about ownership as property of another person. Property is not entitled to have its desires respected.

Indentured servitude being a form of slavery where one subjects their will to a master is a form of slavery no? I wouldn't advocate treating people as mere property like in the classical era. But part of the point of slavery would be to curb the individual desires of some for the master's satisfaction. Yet I'm not defending cases of abuse, only offering a scenario where both parties benefit which seems to me plausible.

 

[durangodawood]

Indentured servitude being a form of slavery where one subjects their will to a master is a form of slavery no? I wouldn't advocate treating people as mere property like in the classical era. But part of the point of slavery would be to curb the individual desires of some for the master's satisfaction. Yet I'm not defending cases of abuse, only offering a scenario where both parties benefit which seems to me plausible.

If you choose submission, thats your choice. Such an arrangement isnt chattel slavery.

If you are owned as property, the arrangement is involuntary by definition. Property doesn't get to decide "Ive had enough of this".

 

[Sketcher]

Is it ever moral to own another person as property?

I can't think of a moral reason to own another person as property in today's world. The Christian abolitionists were right.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

Slavery for slackers? Sell the sinners?

I don't see the morality of this position. Would you care to elaborate?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Slavery for slackers? Sell the sinners?

I don't see the morality of this position. Would you care to elaborate?

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

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

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