Is Slavery Moral?

[DogmaHunter]

Certainly, it allows slavery, and it allows for stoning people with rocks... in context of that culture that was already doing those things.

The question is about whether it views these concepts as inherently good, or whether it requires the people of the day to set ideals that would lead to eradication of these practices.

You seem to be interested in narrowing your view to a stain that you claim ruins the entire painting, and it doesn't. The painting holds up just fine.



It's not "mine" and it's not a "rulebook". The problem is that you don't really understand what and why it is, and you are commenting like you do. You are clearly not a historian, and you clearly not a sociologists. So, your subjective preference for today's cultural norms is noted, and I and most of the Christian world would agree with you.

But, respond to Bible like it's a series of Tweets. "Oh, look at this tweet right here..., the author must be a racist homophobe!".

If you resided in that culture, you wouldn't recognize these concepts as inherently immoral, because these would be your reality with a set of the present-day cultural norms.

The point of the Biblical narrative is progression out of these norms to a society that we live in today ... and even transcending out society for a better one.

But, why do we have these norms in our day and age? What is the basis for our norms?

In your worldview you need to cling to some vacuous concept of "well-being", and to insist that it's self-evident enough that every human on earth would just follow along. But why didn't these people 2000 years ago, if that concept is so self-evident? Our view of well-being is very much predicated by our cultural presets, and of itself it's not enough for a guiding principle, because of wide variety of subjective views for personal well-being.

That's why inner-city gangs form. They are concerned about their immediate well-being far more in a context of their immediate survival. So, they have no problems infringing on well-being of other people around them, and there goes your basis for morality, because it's only as strong as the environment that supports it.

And the environment that supports it today is inherently religious. And just because you wake up today and decide that there's a record in the bible about people 3500 years ago practicing slavery is BAD ... doesn't mean that you personally would behave any better in that culture.

Hence, I'm not really sure what you are critical of here? You seem to have an inherent dislike for cultural norms of people 3500 years ago? Great! I share your dislike.

But, you seem to ignore that you didn't just wake up and magically figured out the cultural presets of today to have something to compare to. These were handed down to you by previous culture, and a culture before it, and a culture before it... all with successive improvements that were driven by ideals of religious morality.

Hence, you pointing to infancy of that morality 3500 years ago would be like pointing to an infant child today and criticizing it for not being able to walk. It's rather ignorant and misguided.

You're making the same apologetic excuses that I already addressed in this thread.

This isn't a case of my making moral judgements about ancient cultures by today's standards.

I understand very well that people back then didn't really know any better and it isn't fair to hold them to our standards.

And in that sense, I fully understand and actually expect writings from that time to treat these matters as trivial and normal.

But that is assuming that these writings reflect the ideas and beliefs of those ancient people and NOT the opinions of an omnibenevolent and all powerful god!

That's what the problem is here... You people seem to want it both ways.
I don't believe in the bible. For me, it is just a book reflecting the culture of that time - so I fully expect absurd beliefs and deeply immoral nonsense (by our standards).

BUT, if you wish to claim that this book reflects the opinions of this god.... then I can only conclude that my moral standard is superior to that god's standard.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No one has ever observed a thought except the one having it.

That's not exactly correct.
Ever heared of brain scans?
These days, there's even technology that can somewhat visualise what a person is thinking.

If you could observe a thought you would not have to ask the person whose brainstate you are looking at what he is thinking about.

So, what's your point with this?

 

[cvanwey]

I am going after the content, in fact I'm the only one of us doing so. I am surprised you are offended that I revealed the truth in regards to the source of this thread. Did you think people thought you were reading the Bible and came across this? They didn't, people know you, they have read what you have written and it comes off pretty clearly. The Bible doesn't endorse slavery in the modern sense. The final outcome of this thread was pages ago, it is just willful clinging now.

It states specifics within a broad section, that is the source of the ambiguity. This is a collection of law, not the book of law. No...it does not say that. And I know the verse you are manipulating to list that, so don't bother quoting them if all you are going to do is point at the English word.

Translators do use Hermenutics and history to translate, but sometimes they are stuck with a difficult choice. Do they go with the LLX, Qumran, Peshita, or the Masoretic, which we already saw makes a difference between the Masoretic and LLX as Greek is a much more descriptive language. Do they with a full contextual understanding or do they define the word as it is. In a controversial topic like this one if they go with the word they can merely hope the reader is diligent in the truth, if they go with the context then they are accused of white washing the Bible. Again I encourage you to learn a little bit about translation and ancient languages.

I know a little Greek and Hebrew, and a little grammar. You don't need to know either to study these texts. There are plenty of resources out there which is exactly how I have been making this case. I downloaded the LLX in Greek found the relevant words looked at their meaning, put the meaning in the sentence and viola it made sense. I also study ANE journals, OT Journals, and Pseudopigrpha Journals. But hey who needs that lets just read it in English and make specious polemics.

Again, you really answered or addressed practically none of my questions or observations, and yet, state that you are. Well, if denial works for you, who am I to stop you. Please re-read my prior posts...

Below are some bullet points:

- What is the 'correct' definition of the word 'slavery', in which the many English versions are apparently misusing?

- Why are all the English versions wrong, but you are right?

- What do the words/phrases 'beat', 'slaves for life', and 'property' actually mean, and why am I bias and reading them wrong?

- Maybe you should contact the transcribers of the English version to give them your input, so many do not misread these verses any longer?

- So basically, if a verse appears 'bad', then maybe it must be translated wrong? Okay. Whatever makes you sleep better at night.

- Why did God use humans to write stuff, just like every other religion prior and post? This is a very fallible method, as evidence by the obvious.

- Why did God not assure the originals were preserved?

- Why present in text, with differing languages, dying languages, misinterpretations, etc? This does not appear reliable.

Why didn't Jesus just write them himself, in a permanent form, and hand them out to all nations? Instead, speaks, and awaits others to write stuff centuries later.

I would love the get the real rundown about Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46 (from you). Maybe you can teach some of us naive and uneducated translators?

 

[devolved]

But that is assuming that these writings reflect the ideas and beliefs of those ancient people and NOT the opinions of an omnibenevolent and all powerful god!

From what we observe in Biblical narrative the "opinions of omnibenevolent God" work through transforming societal structures where these can be salvaged and transformed.

Thus, the goal seems to be for self-discovery of certain ideals through cultural evolution, as chosen by original humans (outlined in the Genesis fall story) rather than God's enforcement of these ideals on global population.

Thus, slavery in such a view is not God's command of ideals, but rather God's permission in context existing cultural presets, because such preset bootstrapped the economic processes of that society and managed welfare and kept people on the fringes of society from a certain death.

You could argue that if you were God you could do better, but again, if we dropped you in a culture 3500 years ago, not only you wouldn't be able to convince other people of better viability of your moral preferences, you wouldn't have cultural prerequisites such preferences to function.

You seem to think that mere proclamation of different commands would do otherwise, while in context of manageable morality of the OT Israel fails consistently to the point of cultural demise.

The bottom line is that God doesn't come down and fixes our daily problems. It's our world, and Christian view is that we were given a choice of self-progression and self-discovery, and we made such a choice. Hence, what you have as a Biblical narrative is quite consistent with the concept of God's hiddenness and cultural evolution of humanity. God appears when it sees it fit to correct our cultural narrative. Otherwise, we are to look the ideals and attempt to do better as individuals and as cultures.

OT Israel is by no means a model for human behavior. Bible makes the opposite point. It's an example of failure to live up to ideals.

 

[cvanwey]

Ok. So (for some reason) you don't think that hermeneutics comes into play at any time when one slaps open the Bible and, while visually scanning the texts therein, comes across the word "slavery," or "slave." So, if hermeneutics doesn't come into play for the 'ordinary reader,' what conceptual dynamics do come into play? Anything I should be aware of that my graduate and undergraduate work didn't inform me of?

It's almost as if you think that only those persons who employ hermeneutical gymnastics (whatever those would actually be) undergo the activity of "interpreting" the texts, while somehow all other people who approach the texts in a more simplified manner do not thus interpret those same texts. They 'just' read them.

I mean, here's what it boils down to. If I'm going to bother to try to discuss this with you, but you actually harbor a position that is already sure of itself, one that by which you feel you're already "in the know," then it would probably be better for me to take the position of the student and you just baste me with the riches of your knowledge. Otherwise, we can try to discuss this as two intelligent people who have respective viewpoints and who might learn something from each other.

Okay... Why don't you tell me what Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46 actually means, which differs from the English version. I will set back and await my education. Apparently, textual criticism seems to only be required for the 'bad' stuff. I see no correction when someone is reading the 'good' passages from the English version

 

[devolved]

That's what the problem is here... You people seem to want it both ways.
I don't believe in the bible. For me, it is just a book reflecting the culture of that time - so I fully expect absurd beliefs and deeply immoral nonsense (by our standards).

We don't merely expect it both ways. The idea is that it does go both ways. Hence, you are framing a false dilemma.

A good analogy would be that of a drug addict. You could force one to go cold turkey and die in the process. Of you could permit one to gradually progress out of the dependence.

Looking out of context you could say that doctors are enabling the addict by giving permission and providing drugs. In context, they are helping him to progress out of certain loop of dependence.

Hence, my while point is that you lack the broader view to observe the full scope of possibility of Christian claims, and you are doing so while enjoying the human culture that was built on the bedrock of religious ideals.

No matter how much Harris will appeal to "obvious concept of well-being"... it doesn't work without per-requisites of a culture that would allow for such concept to be exercised. And we did not get this culture simply because we developed better research methodology. Better research methodology doesn't stop gang violence and our inherent need to band for survival or our tendency to impose our will on other to secure future survival.

You need something much stronger than methodology to not merely inform culture, but inform it in such a way that would have justifications that transcends individual preferences.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't agree with your definition of owning....but again, I don't see how it matters anymore. I provided an example of a willing and consenting slave that fits your definition of property.

That isn't what I asked. In my example that demonstrates what I mean by "own", is Bob being moral? This is the fundamental question, so you don't get to dodge it. Here it is again:

So, let's say we have Jim and Bob. If Jim says one day that he wants to be Bob's slave, you're saying it's no immoral for Bob to take control of all of Jim's rights, retain the ability to sell/loan Jim to his friends, inherit him to anyone he names in his will, physically abuse him up to and including killing him, and to ignore any pleas of protest should Jim ever change his mind?

Are you saying that this woman volunteered for this? Because I don't think so.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think that's very disturbing.

Because?

 

[Ana the Ist]

That isn't what I asked. In my example that demonstrates what I mean by "own", is Bob being moral? This is the fundamental question, so you don't get to dodge it. Here it is again:

Are you saying that this woman volunteered for this? Because I don't think so.

This is a logical fallacy...pretty sure its called a false equivalency. I'll have to look it up to be certain...it might just be moving the goalposts.

We defined slavery as owning a person as property. Then after trying to come to an agreement on the definition of property and not really succeeding, we agreed to just proceed with the understanding that we'd go with what is meant as property during the time of American slavery.

As such, all those things you listed as behaviors that happened to slaves were certainly possible...but they have nothing to do with the question of whether or not slavery can be moral. As you can see from the petition, one need not be bought to be a slave. One can be a slave and never be sold. One can be a slave and be set free instead of passed down as an inheritance. One could be a slave and never be abused. One can agree to be a slave...and be set free if they change their mind.

So none of those things are part of the discussion of the morality of owning a person as a slave. A large percentage of women are victims of domestic violence....that doesn't make viewing marriage as moral the equivalent of viewing domestic violence as moral.

So not only is your question not fundamental...it's entirely irrelevant, and appears to be a hail Mary attempt at deflecting from the topic.

To answer your question though... yes, she was petitioning to be a slave knowing full well all of those things could happen to her.

 

[Sanoy]

That's not exactly correct.
Ever heared of brain scans?
These days, there's even technology that can somewhat visualise what a person is thinking.



So, what's your point with this?

You cannot observe a thought Dogma. What they do is map brain states, from brain scans, to what a person says they are thinking about. That last part is a requirement, because you can't see thoughts unless you are the one thinking them. You also can't 'know what it's like to ...' from a brain scan. Correlation does not mean identity, and the law of identity, which I discussed earlier, shows they are not the same.

 

[Sanoy]

Again, you really answered or addressed practically none of my questions or observations, and yet, state that you are. nations? Instead, speaks, and awaits others to write stuff centuries later.

No, you need to address my questions remember? Remember how you were going to bear your burden...but still didn't. You can start doing that now, while I sit back in your skeptics chair and make ridiculous epistemic demands of you like "prove it". I'm looking forward to this very much so if you could start bearing the burden of your OP that would be...pretty much a requirement.

 

[cvanwey]

No, you need to address my questions remember? Remember how you were going to bear your burden...but still didn't. You can start doing that now, while I sit back in your skeptics chair and make ridiculous epistemic demands of you like "prove it". I'm looking forward to this very much so if you could start bearing the burden of your OP that would be...pretty much a requirement.

Honestly Sanoy,

This response seems to make very little sense? I would love to address any direct questions you have for me. However, this response is vague. My OP asks if slavery is moral? Since then, we have ~800 posts; going in many directions. In my last response, I posed many very specific questions.

Since I honestly don't know which burden to bear, I will start with the core of 'my' assertion again, which is...

Any and all text written to paper, is written by humans. Any and all text, which claims to be inspired by anything other than humans bears a severe burden of proof. I assert, that Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46 were written by humans, and did not receive any divine inspiration. This is why I also assert that the passages are 'immoral.' I state these verses are immoral for the following reasons.

1. Most humans do not agree. Meaning, if humans are built in God's likeness, would then intrinsically agree with such passages; like murder, theft, cheating, trespassing, etc...

2. (Rhetorical question, due to my own observation)... If a leader, in any Christian based country, had ultimate power to impose slavery as law again, please demonstrate a Biblical verse which would tell this leader they are mistaken. And if you were able to find some Bible verse, please tell me why this specific verse takes precedence over Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46?

3. Slavery was more common place at the time it was advocated. However, God would place provisions in the book, stating very specific circumstances, with no ambiguity, as to the correct and incorrect ways to allow people to 'pay off debts.' Furthermore, would use verbiage, which would not so easily be placed out of context, due to time.

4. If morality is dictated via divine command, then humans are following commands, and not a moral agent. Meaning, we are not evaluating whether something is 'right' or 'wrong'. We are instead being told what to do, an do not assess it's moral value.

5. Say an individual receives a message from God to kill their child. How would this moral agent know the message did not come from God? Well, most likely the same reason most would know Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46 did not come from God

In such a conclusion, are you honestly going to tell me the burden of proof sets on my side?

And in regards to 'hermeneutics'... Again, my observation stems from the fact that all English translations use 'slavery', 'property', 'beat', etc... If I'm reading it wrong, and the Biblical authors choose such words, you are saying I'm not translating correctly, because these words actually mean something else? If so, then wouldn't the Bible (claimed source of inerrancy) be using 'better and more accurate' terms, as to not cause such misinterpretation and confusion for many?

This will be a good start...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay... Why don't you tell me what Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46 actually means, which differs from the English version. I will set back and await my education. Apparently, textual criticism seems to only be required for the 'bad' stuff. I see no correction when someone is reading the 'good' passages from the English version

What? Wait a minute! I thought you wanted us to establish some other things first? Are you wanting me to tackle the definition and essence of 'slavery,' or do you want me to first discuss and layout the importance of hermeneutics? Or do you want me to discuss the application of textual criticism? Or do you want me to evaluate your axioms by which you assume your position? Or, do you want me to explain the meaning of biblical passages?

I ask, because you seem to move around all over the place with a hop-skip-and jump routine, and then pour the snow down upon us with 52 question pick up. So, which is it? I'm not going to address everything all at once. If you think I should, in my estimation that's expecting too much, and it's not something for which I have ample amount of time for which to spare. I do have a life. So, pick your poison ... and stick with it. It's going to be one thing at a time. Otherwise, if this turns into some kind of game that you're wanting to play (i.e. the typical attempt to run in circles around Christians and get them all worked up for the sake of working them up and then seeing them squeal), then I'll be out of her faster than you say ...

 

[cvanwey]

What? Wait a minute! I thought you wanted us to establish some other things first? Are you wanting me to tackle the definition and essence of 'slavery,' or do you want me to first discuss and layout the importance of hermeneutics? Or do you want me to discuss the application of textual criticism? Or do you want me to evaluate your axioms by which you assume your position? Or, do you want me to explain the meaning of biblical passages?

I ask, because you seem to move around all over the place with a hop-skip-and jump routine, and then pour the snow down upon us with 52 question pick up. So, which is it? I'm not going to address everything all at once. If you think I should, in my estimation that's expecting too much, and it's not something for which I have ample amount of time for which to spare. I do have a life. So, pick your poison ... and stick with it. It's going to be one thing at a time. Otherwise, if this turns into some kind of game that you're wanting to play (i.e. the typical attempt to run in circles around Christians and get them all worked up for the sake of working them up and then seeing them squeal), then I'll be out of her faster than you say ...

I'm actually not playing games at all. I also notice that instead of my precise and direct questions being answered, they are 'answered' with differing responses. I then chase the responses given, which do not pertain to my prior questions; which lead to new questions or observations, because of the new response. It is a two way street, I must admit

So moving forward, it may be better, on both sides, to pose very small and precise questions/answers. I do admit it is very confusing, to try and keep all conversations on a specific point. I'm new to posting and am still learning my way as well. Someone gave me a good piece of advise, which is sometimes hard to follow... Which is, 'take small bites.' And I do admit there exists much movement. But again, this is due to chasing the response the responder gives, verses addressing prior points. I'm just as culpable...

Sometimes, there appears to be a need to mash too much into one response... I am not trying to move the goal posts. I am simply reacting to the responses provided, which 'change' the direction.

So if you would not mind, let's start simple....

So let's start with the definition of 'slavery', as it pertains to the Bible. What is it, and why am I not interpreting it in the correct way? How is 'biblical slavery' different than other slavery?

 

[Moral Orel]

To answer your question though... yes, she was petitioning to be a slave knowing full well all of those things could happen to her.

So if someone states, being of sound mind, and fully knowing what they're stating, that they will do something for someone else, there is nothing immoral about forcing them to do it if they change their mind?

 

[Ana the Ist]

So if someone states, being of sound mind, and fully knowing what they're stating, that they will do something for someone else, there is nothing immoral about forcing them to do it if they change their mind?

No...not if the agreement/contract doesn't allow them to.

A similar situation happens when you join the military. There's a fairly short period at the beginning where you can change your mind...but after that, they basically own you for the duration of your contract. It's not slavery of course...you have rights, you get paid, you can make requests about what kind of assignments you'd like for the most part they get to use you as they see fit.

If you decide you don't want to do it anymore...tough. You will face punishment....you can't just leave.

Do you think the military is morally wrong for not letting people just leave if they feel like it?

 

[Moral Orel]

Then after trying to come to an agreement on the definition of property and not really succeeding, we agreed to just proceed with the understanding that we'd go with what is meant as property during the time of American slavery.

I agreed to no such thing, that's why the rest of your post and it's calls of fallacies isn't worth responding to.

 

[Moral Orel]

No...not if the agreement/contract doesn't allow them to.

A similar situation happens when you join the military. There's a fairly short period at the beginning where you can change your mind...but after that, they basically own you for the duration of your contract. It's not slavery of course...you have rights, you get paid, you can make requests about what kind of assignments you'd like for the most part they get to use you as they see fit.

If you decide you don't want to do it anymore...tough. You will face punishment....you can't just leave.

Do you think the military is morally wrong for not letting people just leave if they feel like it?

I've stated more than once that I'm not saying there shouldn't necessarily be consequences if someone breaks an agreement. Heck, if someone says they want to be owned by someone else and then changes their mind, they lied. Lying isn't bad enough to be worth a lifetime of servitude, though.

You can get out of the military, though, they don't just punish you until you comply. You get punished, then you go.

In terms of human ownership, though, if a person chooses to give up all their rights at some point, then it isn't immoral to force them do whatever you want them to do even if they change their mind later, right? I'm trying to get a handle on what you find morally permissible.

 

[Sanoy]

Honestly Sanoy,

This response seems to make very little sense? I would love to address any direct questions you have for me. However, this response is vague. My OP asks if slavery is moral? Since then, we have ~800 posts; going in many directions. In my last response, I posed many very specific questions.

Since I honestly don't know which burden to bear, I will start with the core of 'my' assertion again, which is...

Any and all text written to paper, is written by humans. Any and all text, which claims to be inspired by anything other than humans bears a severe burden of proof. I assert, that Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46 were written by humans, and did not receive any divine inspiration. This is why I also assert that the passages are 'immoral.' I state these verses are immoral for the following reasons.

1. Most humans do not agree. Meaning, if humans are built in God's likeness, would then intrinsically agree with such passages; like murder, theft, cheating, trespassing, etc...

2. (Rhetorical question, due to my own observation)... If a leader, in any Christian based country, had ultimate power to impose slavery as law again, please demonstrate a Biblical verse which would tell this leader they are mistaken. And if you were able to find some Bible verse, please tell me why this specific verse takes precedence over Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46?

3. Slavery was more common place at the time it was advocated. However, God would place provisions in the book, stating very specific circumstances, with no ambiguity, as to the correct and incorrect ways to allow people to 'pay off debts.' Furthermore, would use verbiage, which would not so easily be placed out of context, due to time.

4. If morality is dictated via divine command, then humans are following commands, and not a moral agent. Meaning, we are not evaluating whether something is 'right' or 'wrong'. We are instead being told what to do, an do not assess it's moral value.

5. Say an individual receives a message from God to kill their child. How would this moral agent know the message did not come from God? Well, most likely the same reason most would know Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46 did not come from God

In such a conclusion, are you honestly going to tell me the burden of proof sets on my side?

And in regards to 'hermeneutics'... Again, my observation stems from the fact that all English translations use 'slavery', 'property', 'beat', etc... If I'm reading it wrong, and the Biblical authors choose such words, you are saying I'm not translating correctly, because these words actually mean something else? If so, then wouldn't the Bible (claimed source of inerrancy) be using 'better and more accurate' terms, as to not cause such misinterpretation and confusion for many?

This will be a good start...

I saw absolutely nothing in your response to substantiate the original claim of slavery in your OP.

Please prove that the verse is talking about the modern form of slavery.
Thanks.

 

[cvanwey]

I saw absolutely nothing in your response to substantiate the original claim of slavery in your OP.

Please prove that the verse is talking about the modern form of slavery.
Thanks.

Prior to proceeding, as asked elsewhere, please provide (your) specific definition of the word slave, as it pertains to the Bible?

Please then also provide (your) definitions for the following, if they differ, or are out of context to how any lay person may view such verses?

I'll make it easy for you. Just fill in your definition to where the question marks are (if my translation, or perception is askew):

slave - ?
property - ?
beat - ?
but - ?
not - ?
punish - ?
buy - ?
bequeath - ?
inherit - ?
for life - ?
ruthlessly - ?

And then, any other words, which may need special clarification for the following verses?

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

P.S. My definition of 'condone':

con·done
kənˈdōn/
verb
verb: condone; 3rd person present: condones; past tense: condoned; past participle: condoned; gerund or present participle: condoning
accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.
"the college cannot condone any behavior that involves illicit drugs"
synonyms: disregard, accept, allow, let pass, turn a blind eye to, overlook, forget; More
forgive, pardon, excuse, let go
"we cannot condone such dreadful behavior"
antonyms: condemn
approve or sanction (something), especially with reluctance.