Morality of slavery

[ddoubleez]

When I speak of slavery, for the sake of simplicity, we will refer to the ownership of another.

I am asking for an argument for whether or not slavery is moral.

[Juan.Camaney]

Owning another person is immoral.

[joerockhead]

So what is this really about?

[ddoubleez]

Owning another person is immoral.

How did you decide this?

I agree, but a big part of this thread is your explanation...

Thanks!

[Juan.Camaney]

I decided this because I believe all people are equal. No one should be forced to do something they are not willing to do and no person should be the property of anyone because that means they can use you however they want and even have you killed without repercusions (sp?).

[fmb]

You shouldn't be able to own anything that doesn't have a title; a bill of sale is also unacceptable. Titles and bills of sale are for things, inanimate objects. Owning a person is just flat out wrong. I believe there's a special place in hell for slave owners and human traffickers (sp?).

[Hawk82785]

If a person was condemned to death, slavery under the right circumstances may or may not be a blessing.

To say that there are certain standards of living which are immoral to impress on others neglects the fact that an extremely large percentage of the world is living an impoverished life littered with hardship. While the rest of us live it up at their expense. Like slaveholders.

As globalization strives to spread the wealth to the less fortunate countries, the richest people in the world are presented with more oppurtunities to line their pockets with the hard labor of others.

This will roll off you like water because we're all slaves to the life 6 inches in front of our faces.

In some ways we're all slaves to the basic human impulses that course through are system, but mostly we're free to explore the rich landscape of our possible fates, when we believe in ourselves enough to chase the adventure.

The real point I think, is that the word slavery sounds wrong, and most people won't think deeper than that.

[Juan.Camaney]

Hawk, you can't blame the hand life dealt you on the rich. Its perfectly possible to live a long rich life free of anything that has to do with money. Just hang out public parks where hippies play the guitar for hand outs...they have the freedom to live like that and do so and a lot of them are happier than pigs in shit.

[michaeljohn]

I don't understand this topic, or why it was even made. Ok, let's look at facts. Slavery has been around since the dawn of time. One army beat another and the survivors from the losing side became slaves to the victors. Slavery reached it's pinnacle in America with the colonization of the new world. On one side, you had the abolitionsists, on the other pro-slavery. It had already been outlawed in Great Britain and much of Europe. The Civil War in America ended it here in our country. Technically, the Nazis enslaved the Jews, Gypsies, etc. in concentration camps in WW II. They didn't just herd them in and kill them, they put them to work to sustain the German war effort. Supposedly slavery still exists in some forms, woman from third world countries are sold as sex slaves.

Great nations of the world decided slavery was wrong and immoral ages ago. Why is this even being discussed? History already gave us the answer.

[skept]

Slavery is wrong - the concept of one person owning another is always morally wrong. Why - well we are all born free thinking, living human beings. I believe that all people are born equal.

Does a rich person have the right to own a poor person because they have money - absolutely not. People define happiness and quality of life in different ways. Would millions make me happy? Absolutely not. I define the quality and happiness in my life by my family and friends. If I was dirt poor and had the friends and family I have now I would be more happier then if I was stinking rich and had friends that weren't the real friends I have now.

[Juan.Camaney]

Also remember, some poor people choose to be owned by rich people. Like when some gold digger has to funnel some old hog just to live a certain lifestyle.

[Anibal]

I don't understand this topic, or why it was even made. Ok, let's look at facts. Slavery has been around since the dawn of time. One army beat another and the survivors from the losing side became slaves to the victors. Slavery reached it's pinnacle in America with the colonization of the new world. On one side, you had the abolitionsists, on the other pro-slavery. It had already been outlawed in Great Britain and much of Europe. The Civil War in America ended it here in our country. Technically, the Nazis enslaved the Jews, Gypsies, etc. in concentration camps in WW II. They didn't just herd them in and kill them, they put them to work to sustain the German war effort. Supposedly slavery still exists in some forms, woman from third world countries are sold as sex slaves.

Great nations of the world decided slavery was wrong and immoral ages ago. Why is this even being discussed? History already gave us the answer.

In ancient Greece there where some cities with 80% of the total population being slaves.

OT: I too dont really understand this topic, the reason for having slaves changed through time. From being people who had been conquered to having the lack of intelligence to think that because of different skin colour they had no soul and hence no right to have any rights.

It would interesting having the opinion of someone who lived when the whole thin began. Now a days i think everyones opinion on the subject cant be too different, we where taugh in school about this.

Owning another human being is immoral because it would be like reducing that person to something like a farm animal or a pet and no human being should be treated like that.

[ddoubleez]

I don't understand this topic, or why it was even made. Ok, let's look at facts. Slavery has been around since the dawn of time. One army beat another and the survivors from the losing side became slaves to the victors. Slavery reached it's pinnacle in America with the colonization of the new world. On one side, you had the abolitionsists, on the other pro-slavery. It had already been outlawed in Great Britain and much of Europe. The Civil War in America ended it here in our country. Technically, the Nazis enslaved the Jews, Gypsies, etc. in concentration camps in WW II. They didn't just herd them in and kill them, they put them to work to sustain the German war effort. Supposedly slavery still exists in some forms, woman from third world countries are sold as sex slaves.

Great nations of the world decided slavery was wrong and immoral ages ago. Why is this even being discussed? History already gave us the answer.

First, your post is beautiful, and thank you.

Why is it being discussed? As you have said in your post, slavery has been around constantly after the agricultural revolution. Civilization could not exist, in its present form, without it. It would have never made it into existence, if we had not justified slavery.

So a question could be asked, if modern society could not exist without slavery, and slavery is wrong, does this not lead us to the understanding that the current arrangement is immoral?


The only thing I would point out is that slavery does exist in the US, still, and that there are more people enslaved on the planet now than ever before. As the economy gets worse, the ratio of slaves will increase.

Slavery 'worse now than under Roman Empire'Slaves are cheaper and more plentiful than ever - Crime, UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/slavery-worse-now-than-under-roman-empireslaves-are-cheaper-and-more-plentiful-than-ever-626493.html)

[fmb]

Some good points in your reply to Michaeljohn, Deez. Maybe folks don't understand that slavery is still alive and very well in today's society. Many people today don't understand the struggle with slavery that continues in Africa. A majority of the continent remains in a state of war with itself. Occasionally, we may see a short news clip concerning Darfur, Somalia, Kenya, Ehtiopia, or Nigeria and think of these as very separate, seemingly unrelated events.

Anyone with a remote understanding of history remembers the "Triangular Trade" route. Connecting the points of the African west coast, the Caribbean, and various ports of entry on the US east coast outlines a triangular shape. Slavery was intergral in the production of whiskey and rum. Slaves were traded and sold for sugar, sugar was sold to whiskey manufacturers, and the process continued. Today, the process and costs have changed, but humans are still used as a commodity.

By the way, did you ever try to figure out where the black slaves on Africa's west coast came from? The slaves were from Africa's interior and east coast. These areas were controlled by Muslims. Muslim slave brokers sold slaves to white, Chrisitian slave traders for money and whiskey. Did you know the arabic word for "slave" and "negro" is the same? The word is abed. In arabic, there is no differentiation between a black man and a slave. They're the same thing.

It doesn't matter what your color is, which god your worship, or where you live. At some point or other, your ancestors have been involved with, or were integral to, the slave trade.

[The Blue]

You shouldn't be able to own anything that doesn't have a title; a bill of sale is also unacceptable. Titles and bills of sale are for things, inanimate objects. Owning a person is just flat out wrong. I believe there's a special place in hell for slave owners and human traffickers (sp?).

Last I read the Old Testament, God allowed slavery. The father of God's chosen people had slaves, so you might want to reconsider your belief.

[fmb]

Last I read the Old Testament, God allowed slavery. The father of God's chosen people had slaves, so you might want to reconsider your belief.

I considered your post and came to this conclusion: the Old Testament God did allow slavery; however, the New Testament and Jesus wouldn't allow slavery. If I had to pick a Testament to live under, the equal treatment and free will/choice New Testament is my pick.

Good point, though.

[The Blue]

I considered your post and came to this conclusion: the Old Testament God did allow slavery; however, the New Testament and Jesus wouldn't allow slavery. If I had to pick a Testament to live under, the equal treatment and free will/choice New Testament is my pick.

Good point, though.

When one mentions "hell", I assume them to be (at least) familiar with the Bible...and given the Bible, I'm just not sure it would be fair to say one would be sent to hell (or a "special" place in hell).

America, the South in particular, "seems" to carry the burden of slavery for all humanity. Often conveniently forgotten, a lot of the wealthy slave traders were Northern, bringing a large majority of slaves through Northern ports. I digressing slightly, however as stated above by others, slavery has been around since the dawn of civilization...from the Egyptians, to feudal Europe, to the modern day. So, it is actually the NORM, as opposed to some rare hell-bound practice. Would society be where it is today sans slaves? Are we not all slaves in some capacity?

That said, I can't in all fairness compare my current bondage to that of African Americans in the 17th Century (or an Egyptian slave, etc. for that matter), but I think it is fair to define what constitutes "slavery". Another question, since we're discussing God, morality, etc...is there a flip-side to the evil (or seemingly evil) aspects of slavery. Modern day African-Americans will proclaim the evil of it all (as they they should in my opinion), however there is some irony in that they are largely outspoken Christians. Their passion for Christ would not even exist had they remained in Africa...and I would bet you a million to one, had they remained in Africa, they still would have been slaves in some capacity.

I offer that the World is a bad place, period. Morality has become subjective, so it's really hard to answer the question objectively. Overall, I guess I'm asking, if the horror and immorality of slavery served a larger purpose in the context of time and human existence, what then?

[ddoubleez]

Last I read the Old Testament, God allowed slavery. The father of God's chosen people had slaves, so you might want to reconsider your belief.

Read the new testimate, God allowed it there, too.

1 peter chapter two:

Submission to Rulers and Masters

13Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. 20But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

22“He committed no sin,

and no deceit was found in his mouth.”e

23When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

Apostle peter had slaves, many believed he is who jesus favored most.

As far a the old testimate goes, God cursed blacks to serve.... Look at ham and noah...

[Juan.Camaney]

Who's to say we don't have slaves now? Not like we had them before, but assistants? Every time I travel to mexico, I have a few guys hang around me. They aren't my slaves, they are friends, but it is obvious they stick around me because I pay their booze and other chemicals. If we're partying, I can send them to buy me anything from cigarettes and beer to blow and women. I'm not even rich, so imagine what other people with more money and influence can do.

Is it imoral that I do what I do? No. Well, me partying the way I do/did is pretty imoral in itself, but you get what I mean?

The world needs assistants too.

[Dr. Weezil]

Libertarians see this issue differently and extend it as a very good argument against forced conscription aka a draft, the illegality of certain behaviors i.e. narcotics, and other things which I'll touch upon later.

It all comes down to property rights; only you and you alone are the sole owner of your own body and no one has the right to possess you or own you like a thing, tell you how to conduct your own person, regulate your thoughts or speech, or dictate what you can or cannot consume.

Perceived or implied "equality" has nothing to do with it and is frankly a weak argument and is actually the collectivist position. Whereas, we recognize the inherent rights of the individual to be secure in his life and property, we also see the basic differences in people may they be in gender, physical or mental ability and capacity, or social and ethnic persuasion. In fact, the equal treatment of all people infringes on an individual's inherent rights as a human being because it forces society to adopt a status quo based on the lowest common denominator. Please reference gender feminism, "No Child Left Behind," and "Affirmative Action." Differences in people motivates the engine of civilization and without it we are left with a stagnant society.

Now, do not get me wrong, I am not arguing for slavery; what I am arguing for is the classic merit-based system. But that's going slightly off topic.

Applying the libertarian principle of sole self-ownership, one can argue that involuntary conscription is a form of slavery and is immoral. Why? Because the state does not own you, only you own you. One of the other primary axioms of libertarianism is that physical action, typically violent, against another is strictly forbidden, unless such an act is done upon you first. In this case, defense is not only allowed but it is encouraged because the act done to you infringes on the right to be secure in your own property, yourself, and hence you also have the inherent right to protect said property, violently if necessary. Well, if a country is attacked by an enemy then isn't it right for people to join an army and go and defend their county? Yes, however only if they chose to do voluntarily; the state does not have the right to demand you serve, because, you guessed it, you own your body, your mind, and your thoughts even and especially if they be pacifistic or dissident in nature. Further, wars are often started on dubious circumstances that are never as governments make them out to be and are simply used as pretexts to further geo-political agendas. But I digress again...

Illegal drugs, same argument; you own you and you are the sole arbiter of what's good for you and what's not. Further, prohibition and regulation always, always has the adverse affect to how it's advertised.

Taxation via devaluation of the currency via inflation, debt-based fiat currencies, and all other non-commodities backed economic systems are also a form of slavery and are immoral. Why? Because they confiscate wealth, property again, from the people AND shackle the people to the wastes that governments and businesses incur because THEY are expected to pay everything back. That "Faith and Credit of the United States" you may hear about is code for "the plebs are good for it and we'll make them work till they drop to get there." As long as people are on the hook for government deficits, bail-outs, stimulus scams, etc. there will still be slavery, still IS slavery, not classic in chains slavery, but slavery nonetheless.

[ddoubleez]

Who's to say we don't have slaves now? Not like we had them before, but assistants? Every time I travel to mexico, I have a few guys hang around me. They aren't my slaves, they are friends, but it is obvious they stick around me because I pay their booze and other chemicals. If we're partying, I can send them to buy me anything from cigarettes and beer to blow and women. I'm not even rich, so imagine what other people with more money and influence can do.

Is it imoral that I do what I do? No. Well, me partying the way I do/did is pretty imoral in itself, but you get what I mean?

The world needs assistants too.

The slavery we are speaking of is not what this arrangment is about. If they are friends and have the option of not hanging around with you, it is a 'free' arrangment for them.....

Biblical and modern slaves do not have the freedom you allow your friends. They are your friends, the victoms we are refering to slaves are more like objects or livestock...

[ddoubleez]

.

1) When one mentions "hell", I assume them to be (at least) familiar with the Bible...and given the Bible, I'm just not sure it would be fair to say one would be sent to hell (or a "special" place in hell).

2) America, the South in particular, "seems" to carry the burden of slavery for all humanity. Often conveniently forgotten, a lot of the wealthy slave traders were Northern, bringing a large majority of slaves through Northern ports. 2.1 I digressing slightly, however as stated above by others, slavery has been around since the dawn of civilization...from the Egyptians, to feudal Europe, to the modern day. So, it is actually the NORM, as opposed to some rare hell-bound practice. Would society be where it is today sans slaves? Are we not all slaves in some capacity?

3) With that said, I can't in all fairness compare my current bondage to that of African Americans in the 17th Century (or an Egyptian slave, etc. for that matter), but I think it is fair to define what constitutes "slavery". 4) Another question, since we're discussing God, morality, etc...is there a flip-side to the evil (or seemingly evil) aspects of slavery. Modern day African-Americans will proclaim the evil of it all (as they they should in my opinion), however there is some irony in that they are largely outspoken Christians. Their passion for Christ would not even exist had they remained in Africa...5) and I would bet you a million to one, had they remained in Africa, they still would have been slaves in some capacity.

6) I offer that the World is a bad place, period. 7) Morality has become subjective, so it's really hard to answer the question objectively. 8) Overall, I guess I'm asking, if the horror and immorality of slavery served a larger purpose in the context of time and human existence, what then?

1) You are correct, the bible does not condemn the ownership of slaves. Many people here in texas point that out. John Ashcroft did the same.

2) You may feel this way because you live there. The UK has been living down the same reputation. When the brits went into africa, the biggest challange they had was to convience that possessions were greater than presents or family. You could not pay the indigenous people to go into a mine, because there was no amount of money that would convience them to do so, thus forced labor at the end of a weapon was instituted.

2.1) YES AND REP UP!!!!!!!!!... It has been around sence the dawn of civilization, and I will revisit the question I asked previously, if civilization needs an immoral act to exist, is civilization itself moral??? Hunter gathers did not have slaves, they also had equal rights for men and women... They did not have wars.... They did not try to control..

3) You are correct, this would not be fair, because you are not being breed, you do not have your spouse picked for you, you do not have your children torn from you, you do not have to pick death for your liberation...

4) The point of first contact of whites in africa changed slavery there forever. Most were hunter-gatherers, and had their own religion... The roots of christianity started in north africa, however... That is where the rastifari religion started and where jesus spent most his life. But you are right, most were not christian, until whites gave them a choice, die horribly, or worship my god.

5) Closer to the capasity you and I are now.... Yes, I consider myself a slave.

6) Because of some humans tendancy to own or dominate, which has not existed for most of human history.

7) Morality never changes, only the tolerance and arguments about it.

8) If I understand this, you are asking if the ends can justify the means..... I am too...:)