Is slavery morally wrong?

[truthnluv]

? I agree in that the bible is actually kind of silent on this, but that doesn't mean we should condone slavery (mostly because most of the world sees it as not morally good either). ... we shouldn't go around advocating it, but should discourage it to avoid looking evil in any way (as Paul tells us to do).
(and save a life. duh )

I addressed this issue because I think it is important to understand it. The relationships that God gives us in scripture reveal more about Him.

He is the Father we are the Son
He is the King we are the subject
He is the government we are the citizen
He is the master we are the servant
He is the husband we are the bride
He is the parent we are the child

They are all pictures of who God is in relation to us. On the part of the one in authority there is care, protection, and provision. On the part of the one under authority their is obedience and reverence. This is the ideal.

Of course, all of these relationships can be abused. But it is neccessary to understand the relationships as they are meant to be. You must be able to understand God as your Father, King, Master, Husband, and loving Parent. He is the One who created these relationships and then chose to compare them to Himself.

truthnluv

 

[joshua_cheung]

Is slavery morally wrong? Yes.

But it is morally right too. In china, a hundred years ago, some people sold themselves as slaves in order to get food and shelter.

 

[truthnluv]

Is slavery morally wrong? Yes.

But it is morally right too. In china, a hundred years ago, some people sold themselves as slaves in order to get food and shelter.

The Bible is an ancient eastern book. So, its nice to get an eastern opinion... I'm assuming because of your last name.

truthnluv

 

[joshua_cheung]

The Bible is an ancient eastern book. So, its nice to get an eastern opinion... I'm assuming because of your last name.

truthnluv

In ancient time, if a country was invaded and destroyed by another country, the people of the lost country either being killed or became slaves. They lost their properties and freedom in the battles.

 

[CSMR]

I'm not a historian, but I think a further comment on Rome is needed.
In discussing the morality as an institution, we can consider the situation of the slave-owner and the social structure in which there is slavery.
In Rome the aristocracy had to have slaves; otherwise they could not keep their household, accomplish any projects they wanted to, or have any status. So the individual had the choice - keep slaves, or lose all influence in society. Since it was possible to treat slaves relatively well - not well, but eg maintain discipline without being harsh, free them (as happened) after long service - I wouldn't condemn such slave-owners.
As for the formation of the society as a whole, slaves were part of the order of Roman society. There was a command structure from the top to the bottom, and this allowed the society to function. womendontbesilent argues that it allowed there to be a leasured class which contributed to culture. I rather see slavery as one of the institutions that upheld the roman order throughout the empire.

So in neither respect can I consider slavery to be morally wrong in all situations.

 

[mpshiel]

I'm not a historian, but I think a further comment on Rome is needed.
In discussing the morality as an institution, we can consider the situation of the slave-owner and the social structure in which there is slavery.
In Rome the aristocracy had to have slaves; otherwise they could not keep their household, accomplish any projects they wanted to, or have any status. So the individual had the choice - keep slaves, or lose all influence in society. Since it was possible to treat slaves relatively well - not well, but eg maintain discipline without being harsh, free them (as happened) after long service - I wouldn't condemn such slave-owners.
As for the formation of the society as a whole, slaves were part of the order of Roman society. There was a command structure from the top to the bottom, and this allowed the society to function. womendontbesilent argues that it allowed there to be a leasured class which contributed to culture. I rather see slavery as one of the institutions that upheld the roman order throughout the empire.

So in neither respect can I consider slavery to be morally wrong in all situations.

um, aren't you basically saying that people had to have slaves because of....peer pressure? This is your moral justification.

I'm sorry, but when I see over and over the "Well, we have democracy and roads so slavery isn't always bad" arguement I am sort of reminded of the human medical experiments done on Koreans and Jews during WWII (the British just did them on thier own soldiers) - which taught us a lot about exposure, lack of oxygen and different things about the human body. Has that information helped us save thousands of lives - yes. Does that make medical experiments on humans without thier consent moral - NO!!! - The end does not justify the means for most moral outlooks except perhaps the will to power ideal. Is Christianity somehow different?

Slaves in China good? Have you looked at what happened to slaves in China. This is like saying it is good for poor people to be put in prison becuase then they get to eat. When you are a slave you are property, not a human being anymore under the law, but the property of another person. Why is that so hard to understand. Go look at the person passing your window - would you like them to determine what you do, when you do it, where you sleep, what you wear and when you get a change of clothing, what you eat, when and how much you get to eat for as long as either you live or they decide to sell you to someone else. A child of 8 has more freedom than a slave.

Please wake up.

 

[praying]

Slaves in China good? Have you looked at what happened to slaves in China. This is like saying it is good for poor people to be put in prison becuase then they get to eat. When you are a slave you are property, not a human being anymore under the law, but the property of another person. Why is that so hard to understand. Go look at the person passing your window - would you like them to determine what you do, when you do it, where you sleep, what you wear and when you get a change of clothing, what you eat, when and how much you get to eat for as long as either you live or they decide to sell you to someone else. A child of 8 has more freedom than a slave.

Please wake up.

Thank you mpshiel!!!

If I can't control my own destiny than even if I am given silver, gold, diamonds what good is it? None. For a person to own another as property is never moral no matter what the circumstances.

 

[repentandbelieve]

I have heard some people try to say that slavery is immoral. Let's hear what you all have to say.

I think it depends on how broadly we define the word "slave". Someone who is bound and subject to the will of his Lord could be considered a slave. In that case we as christians are slaves.

Another definition is "one that is subservient to a dominating influence". In that case we are all slaves to sin.

And on a different note, I think whether or not slavery is immoral depends on how well a slave is cared for.

It's been my experience that there are a certain class of people who, because they are unable to manage their own lives properly, are actually happier and healthier when they are under the dominating influence of someone else, because they are better cared for.

 

[repentandbelieve]

Slavery helped to build America.

Slavery is a horrible, terrible, no-good, very bad thing. I don't see how anyone could morally justify slavery, but the bible on the other hand...

Your right slavery helped to build America.

About the time I think that I have God figured out, He shows just how much I still have to learn about how his providence is brought about. Im amazed at how God uses " bad" things, like war and slavery, to bring about his purpose.

Imagine how many black people, living in America today, would not even be here if it wasn't for their forefathers being brought to America as slaves.

Are they better off today because of it?? I think in most cases they are happier, healthier and better educated than they would be starving and dying of disease in Uganda.

Just think about it for a minute. Most black people would not have the opportunities America has to offer them had slavery never come to this country AND the Civil War had not been fought.

 

[CSMR]

um, aren't you basically saying that people had to have slaves because of....peer pressure? This is your moral justification.

Sorry, my argument was much more incomplete than I thought is was when I said the aristocrats needed slaves for their status and influence. Of course to want these things for their own sakes is wrong. However in order to accomplish anything good either in society (domestic public policy, preserving social order, setting a good example a good example) or in empire they needed status and influence. I thought I had said this when I hadn't. My last sentence should read: I woudn't criticize people who used slaves relatively unharshly in order to achieve good things in Roman society and empire.

(Of course, it's not a complete argument. It's not right for me to murder even if it has good effects and intentions, I don't think. The argument is based on God not having set an absolute command against owning people, so that we should use other principles - order, functioning of society - in addition to the condition of the slaves.)

 

[repentandbelieve]

Thank you mpshiel!!!

If I can't control my own destiny than even if I am given silver, gold, diamonds what good is it? None. For a person to own another as property is never moral no matter what the circumstances.

I never use the word never (oops).
When a soldier is drafted into the Army, trained to kill, and sent to a foreign country to fight in the name of freedom, they are GI property and basically a slave to the government. Even though they may recieve pay, they are no longer free to do as they please and control of their own destiny is taken away.

In times of war, circumstances justify this sort of unvoluntary action. There is an urgent job needing to be done and who is going to do it.

 

[Avoid04]

What's wrong is for racist blacks to harp on white people because they're still upset about slavery. Now-a-days you see blacks calling whites racist when they aren't. I think there needs to be laws against that.

 

[repentandbelieve]

What's wrong is for racist blacks to harp on white people because they're still upset about slavery. Now-a-days you see blacks calling whites racist when they aren't. I think there needs to be laws against that.

I know what your saying. I tell em "Hey, I have ancestors who fought in the Union Army for your freedom, so how dare you call me a racist."

 

[praying]

I never use the word never (oops).
When a soldier is drafted into the Army, trained to kill, and sent to a foreign country to fight in the name of freedom, they are GI property and basically a slave to the government. Even though they may recieve pay, they are no longer free to do as they please and control of their own destiny is taken away.

In times of war, circumstances justify this sort of unvoluntary action. There is an urgent job needing to be done and who is going to do it.

Okay not that has anything at all to do with chattel slavery.

 

[repentandbelieve]

Okay not that has anything at all to do with chattel slavery.

OK, now we are getting somewhere. A narrower definition of the word "slavery" is needed.

Chattel is defined as "an item of tangable property other than real estate, or things connected to real property." Perhaps the word cattle is derived from the root word chattle.

Actually a soldier fits within the scope of this definition. When it comes down to it he is a piece of tangable property that is other than real estate. A piece of meat, a valuable piece of meat, but none the less he is expendable when it comes to achieving a military objective..

 

[praying]

No becasue even a soldier can object (conscientious objection) or refuse to execute an order because he/she deems it immoral or wrong.

 

[repentandbelieve]

No becasue even a soldier can object (conscientious objection) or refuse to execute an order because he/she deems it immoral or wrong.

Sure he can. But not without reprocusion. It's really not a viable option. Negro slaves could object too. They could refuse an order or make a run for the north.

The point is that they are not really free to do these things without paying the consequences.

During the draft conscientous objecters were not excused from serving. They just were not sent to the front lines. They were still obligated to serve the military and were considered GI or government issue.

 

[dlamberth]

I have heard some people try to say that slavery is immoral. Let's hear what you all have to say.

I don't get the purpose of the OP. It seems to me that it is totally obvious that it is morally wrong for one human being to own another.



.

 

[repentandbelieve]

I don't get the purpose of the OP. It seems to me that it is totally obvious that it is morally wrong for one human being to own another.



.

On the surface, at first glance, that seems to be the obvious answer.

But a look from a different perspective reveals that "slavery" exist in society today. It's not as easily recognized as some people think.

Have you ever known anyone who is truly not capable of managing thier own life properly?. These people are made wards of the state. Could it be that this type of person is happier, healthier and lives more comfortably by someone else ruling over them?

Just food for thought.

 

[Lionheart_03]

there is some people who take the risk of being a slave just to live their life...

are maids can be also identified as a slave?