Why is slavery wrong?

[Lacewing]

What did Christianity do?
'Overturned what they defined as 'old orders' and 'established hierarchies' -- which is what you are selectively applying only to those you want to invalidate. Overturning 'old orders' is what humankind does as it evolves and creates anew. Do you really deny that Christianity has done this? Do you have to make a big argument of 25 paragraphs to answer or evade a simple and obvious question?

Christianity did not overthrow any old orders. far from it. It simply insinuated its way into the existing heirarchies.
And the Old Order continued.
The only visible difference is that instead of throwing christians to the lions they did so to pagans.

I see the truth of what you say. At the same time, Christianity sought to replace all other gods and goddesses with their god, and that is essentially overturning old 'orders'... even if it was done gradually. Christianity's decline and evolution has been gradual as well. It is not a sudden and major crisis/undoing as some people might suggest.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Questioning absurdity? Do you see absurdities in what people believe? Do you always need to write an essay about it, citing supposed authorities, to call it what it is? You're wasting time and energy... and much of it is focused on proving yourself right.

Where I notice 'absurdities' (your word and sense here) is related to a different problem. It is the loss of capability to define *what is real* in the metaphysical sense (see the René Guénon quotes I put up for IC). My thesis, and the core idea I work with, has to do with what happens to a person and to a people when they lose the capability of defining that. But that that is non-intelligible to you. The mention of it makes no sense. And in my view that is part of the larger problem. So while I cannot be absolutely sure about you, nor about anyone, I can discern evidence in what you write that clues me in to what I call a 'general condition'. I see that general condition as a state of loss, of lack, of non-relationship to both the metaphysic and also to *our paideia*. You present me with a case of postmodern quagmire (perhaps for want of a better word).

That you ridicule authority is a sign that you are associated with modern trends (I referred often to Robert Bork's book Slouching Toward Gomorrah) and to irresponsible and impetuous tendencies to break off relationship with the higher orders of ideas. People have worked their whole life in gaining entrance to these understandings. That is what *authority* is about, defining and defending (and explaining) that territory.

All of this flies over your head. So the 'absurdity' is a different one than the one you wish to identify. To me you render yourself absurd to the degree that you cannot see and show no real interest in gaining sight. What is absurd, in a way, is that you keep vocalizing an empty platform.

If you could quack . . . and play a penny whistle ... and ride a unicycle -- then you might have something. A YouTube phenomenon! I'll finance you. (Just taking a shot and having a bit of fun, don't take that too seriously).

Of course, I care. But I don't take it all as seriously as you seem to, and I'm having fun.

Oh having fun is a good way to pass the time. But not taking seriously those things that really must be taken seriously -- that is a mistake. Now that has been proven historically. It is part of all wisdom-traditions. Children are often incapable of taking seriously what must be taken seriously. And the same is true for children who will not grow up when they become adults.

In all of your volumes, what do you imagine you have resolved?

Do you mean what I believe myself to be resolving for myself? If that, well, a great deal. And here is why: I am paying attention to what is going on all around us in our present. And the degree to which we lose a capacity to see and understand what is going on, and the dangers presented, is the degree that we remain in ignorance and also nescience.

If one is not working through ideas and gaining better understanding and greater clarity, what is the use? Ideas are communicated between people who feel a vital need for clarity. There must be a hearer though. And a seer.

I have to resolve ideas when I am face-to-face with you. You set me to work in that sense. Because you are in a really strange place (and you do not seem to grasp this nor to care).

[RCSaunders]

How do you justify your claim that slavery is wrong?

Justify to whom?

If slavery is not wrong for you, fine. It's wrong for the kind of human being I am. What kind are your?

[Lacewing]

...

Thanks. I'll respond later.

[Immanuel Can]

How do you justify your claim that slavery is wrong?

Justify to whom?

First of all, to yourself...so that you know why you believe it, and don't just believe things for no reason.

Secondly, to any rational questioner: for you are on a philosophy site, and can be questioned legitimately.

But if you're not capable, just say so. There are people like that. But you have no need to use insults in order to avoid a serious philosophical question that you have been asked in good faith.

And if you have nothing pertinent to say, what are you doing on this thread?

[RCSaunders]

... what are you doing on this thread?

Answering the question the OP asked. I don't expect you to understand it. Don't worry about it.

[attofishpi]

Questioning absurdity? Do you see absurdities in what people believe? Do you always need to write an essay about it, citing supposed authorities, to call it what it is? You're wasting time and energy... and much of it is focused on proving yourself right.

You present me with a case of postmodern quagmire (perhaps for want of a better word).

That you ridicule authority is a sign that you are associated with modern trends (I referred often to Robert Bork's book Slouching Toward Gomorrah) and to irresponsible and impetuous tendencies to break off relationship with the higher orders of ideas. People have worked their whole life in gaining entrance to these understandings. That is what *authority* is about, defining and defending (and explaining) that territory.

All of this flies over your head. So the 'absurdity' is a different one than the one you wish to identify. To me you render yourself absurd to the degree that you cannot see and show no real interest in gaining sight. What is absurd, in a way, is that you keep vocalizing an empty platform.

If you could quack . . . and play a penny whistle ... and ride a unicycle -- then you might have something. A YouTube phenomenon! I'll finance you. (Just taking a shot and having a bit of fun, don't take that too seriously).

Most concepts fly over Lacewings head, but she's always ready and willing to misquote so that whatever you have to say is completely out of context, and is one of those atheists that think they have the right to go around spouting everyone that has a degree of faith are delusional.

Of course, I care. But I don't take it all as seriously as you seem to, and I'm having fun.

Oh having fun is a good way to pass the time. But not taking seriously those things that really must be taken seriously -- that is a mistake. Now that has been proven historically. It is part of all wisdom-traditions. Children are often incapable of taking seriously what must be taken seriously. And the same is true for children who will not grow up when they become adults.

From my experience Lacewing attempts to be a militant style atheist (especially with respect to Christianity, but simply doesn't have the intellectual capacity to even comprehend what having a rational debate on a philosophy forum entails).

..and it's all rather strange since she considers herself an atheist, yet speaks of her spiritualism, indeed, once mentioning something that happened as synchronicity and explaining that the 'universe' was indicating something to her. To consider such a thing, and then attack other people that consider such things as being from the divine as delusional fantasists is rather disgusting in my opinion.

[Alexis Jacobi]

From my experience Lacewing attempts to be a militant style atheist (especially with respect to Christianity, but simply doesn't have the intellectual capacity to even comprehend what having a rational debate on a philosophy forum entails).

Now, now . . . No need to be so rash . . .

[reasonvemotion]

Alexis Jacobi wrote:

Allow me to engage you here. It has been said, with some good reasoning, that slavery (of the sort practiced in Judea) was tolerated by Judeans (Hebrews). It is also true that St Paul seems to tolerate it. But I do not think it was quite *chattel slavery* as chattel slavery has been defined here. 

In your view is this so? Was the somewhat-slavery of the Hebrews indeed tolerated?

Do you think they would have, or did they in fact, oppose 'hard slavery' of the sort practiced in the American South? (I am uncertain).

And then did Jesus, in the Gospels, directly and openly condemn any form of slavery? (Again I am uncertain. My understanding is that it was never touched on).

Opposition to slavery (defining it as a sin) must be inferred.

In the highly divided society of the Roman Empire, slaves were considered a legal possession under the absolute control of their master and slaves came from a number of sources, defeated armies, children of slaves, or those “sold” to pay off their debts. A careful reading of 1 Peter 2:18-23 reveals that rather than an endorsement of slavery, the texts give spiritual counsel on how to think about difficult circumstances that, at the time, could not be changed.  Peter’s instructions to all Christians who were slaves are consistent with other statements in the New Testament.

The condition of the African American people is no more helpless than was the condition of the Hebrew slaves.

Now therefore, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto me and I have also seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them. Exodus 3:9 

All through the Old Testament, the Lord constantly brought the minds of the people back to the Exodus, their miraculous deliverance, by God, from Egypt.

"and remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm, therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day." 

To this day, thousands of years later, practicing Jews keep the Passover celebration, as a reminder.

[reasonvemotion]

Immanuel Can wrote:

It's Catholic -- and as I've said before, Catholic is its own thing, distinct from Christian.

Can you please elaborate in further detail?
Alexis and I have been discussing this on the "Christianity" thread. You might find that discussion much more comprehensive than what I can give you on this thread.

Just a basic outline would suffice. (as there are 166 pages on the "Christianity" thread )

[attofishpi]

From my experience Lacewing attempts to be a militant style atheist (especially with respect to Christianity, but simply doesn't have the intellectual capacity to even comprehend what having a rational debate on a philosophy forum entails).

Now, now . . . No need to be so rash . . .

I'd rather have a rash than to ever have to bother with LW again.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Alexis Jacobi wrote:

Allow me to engage you here. It has been said, with some good reasoning, that slavery (of the sort practiced in Judea) was tolerated by Judeans (Hebrews). It is also true that St Paul seems to tolerate it. But I do not think it was quite *chattel slavery* as chattel slavery has been defined here. 

In your view is this so? Was the somewhat-slavery of the Hebrews indeed tolerated?

Do you think they would have, or did they in fact, oppose 'hard slavery' of the sort practiced in the American South? (I am uncertain).

And then did Jesus, in the Gospels, directly and openly condemn any form of slavery? (Again I am uncertain. My understanding is that it was never touched on).

Opposition to slavery (defining it as a sin) must be inferred.

In the highly divided society of the Roman Empire, slaves were considered a legal possession under the absolute control of their master and slaves came from a number of sources, defeated armies, children of slaves, or those “sold” to pay off their debts. A careful reading of 1 Peter 2:18-23 reveals that rather than an endorsement of slavery, the texts give spiritual counsel on how to think about difficult circumstances that, at the time, could not be changed.  Peter’s instructions to all Christians who were slaves are consistent with other statements in the New Testament.

Now therefore, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto me and I have also seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them. Exodus 3:9 

All through the Old Testament, the Lord constantly brought the minds of the people back to the Exodus, their miraculous deliverance, by God, from Egypt.

"and remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm, therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day." 

To this day, thousands of years later, practicing Jews keep the Passover celebration, as a reminder.

Slavery & Christian Theologians

St Augustine

• The prime cause, then, of slavery is sin, which brings man under the dominion of his fellow -- that which does not happen save by the judgment of God, with whom is no unrighteousness, and who knows how to award fit punishments to every variety of offence.
  St Augustine, The City of God, 19:15

St Augustine thought that slavery was inevitable. He didn't think that it was the result of the natural laws of the universe - indeed he thought that in a pure world slavery would be quite unnatural, but in our world it was the consequence of sin and the Fall of Man.

Slavery was unknown, Augustine said, until "righteous" Noah "branded the sin of his son" with that name, and established the principle that the good were entitled to use the sinful.

• It is with justice, we believe, that the condition of slavery is the result of sin. And this is why we do not find the word 'slave' in any part of Scripture until righteous Noah branded the sin of his son with this name. It is a name, therefore, introduced by sin and not by nature.
  St Augustine, The City of God, 19: 15

Aquinas

• for men of outstanding intelligence naturally take command, while those who are less intelligent but of more robust physique, seem intended by nature to act as servants;
  Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles

Aquinas largely agreed with Augustine that slavery was the result of the Fall, but he also thought that the universe did have a natural structure that gave some men authority over others.

He justified this by pointing out the hierarchical nature of heaven, where some angels were superior to others.

Aquinas had a much higher opinion of slaves than Aristotle. He considered that slaves had some restricted rights.

• A son, as such, belongs to his father, and a slave, as such, belongs to his master; yet each, considered as a man, is something having separate existence and distinct from others. Hence in so far as each of them is a man, there is justice towards them in a way: and for this reason too there are certain laws regulating the relations of father to his son, and of a master to his slave; but in so far as each is something belonging to another, the perfect idea of "right" or "just" is wanting to them.
  Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

And while it was perfectly acceptable for a master to hit a slave, it might be better to be merciful

• since the child is subject to the power of the parent, and the slave to the power of his master, a parent can lawfully strike his child, and a master his slave that instruction may be enforced by correction...
  
  The command that masters should forbear from threatening their slaves may be understood in two ways. First that they should be slow to threaten, and this pertains to the moderation of correction; secondly, that they should not always carry out their threats, that is that they should sometimes by a merciful forgiveness temper the judgment whereby they threatened punishment.
  Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

[Veritas Aequitas]

How do you justify your claim that slavery is wrong?

As stated, I have already provided the basic demonstration why slavery is wrong but that don't seem to get into you.

Here is one quickie on the point, re Attempts of Justify Slaver is Right.
No normal person [the majority] at present in modern times would accept these justifications.
That you are so against those who believe 'slavery is wrong' indicate your are likely agreeable to the justifications for slavery below.

Virtually everyone agrees that slavery is inhumane and degrading and wrong, but since for much of history many people defended it, it's important to demonstrate why it's wrong.

Trying to justify slavery
A number of arguments have been put forward to try and justify slavery.
None of them would find much favour today, but at various times in history many people found some of these arguments entirely reasonable.

Attempts to justify slavery

It's natural that some people are slaves
This argument says that some people are slaves as part of the natural order of the universe, or as part of God's plan, and it is wrong to interfere with this by abolishing slavery - nobody nowadays regards slavery as a natural thing.

But if this argument was to be used then there would have to be some certain way of distinguishing natural slaves from those who should not be enslaved - without such a method injustice is sure to occur. No such test is possible, although past cultures thought there could be such tests.

Slaves are inferior beings
This argument says that even if slavery is cruel and degrading, slaves are not fully human and so their suffering is as ethically important or unimportant as the suffering of domestic animals and they do not have any rights that would justify the abolition of slavery.

Some people take the argument further and say that slaves are beings who are so inferior that they deserve to be enslaved.

This argument has often developed into racism to justify the enslavement of certain population groups - some of the defenders of the Atlantic slave trade argued that slavery was the proper place for people of African descent.

These arguments have been used in very recent times to justify enslaving particular racial groups.

This group of arguments is nowadays regarded as completely misguided.

Slavery is good for slaves
This argument teaches that slaves lack the ability to run their own lives and are therefore better-off and happier in a system where their lives are run by others.

Modern society is unenthusiastic about such 'paternalistic' arguments.

Slavery would be too difficult to abolish
This probably is the reason why some cultures chose to tolerate slavery while trying to eradicate many of the more cruel practices - but it is not a justification for slavery.

Slaves are essential to certain industries
A number of past industries have depended on slave labour, and the employers claimed that abolishing slavery would be economically disastrous.

This argument isn't an ethical one and isn't backed up by examples.

There is also a strong counter-argument that the use of slave labour can force non-slave workers and businesses that don't use slavery out of business or into serious hardship.

Slavery is acceptable in this culture
Slavery was generally accepted by the majority in some societies - if ethics is a matter of public opinion (Cultural Ethical Relativism) then some would say that slavery was ethically OK in those societies where it was the cultural norm.

This sort of argument is a key reason why many people oppose CER.

Slavery is a useful form of punishment
Some cultures have used enslavement as a punishment.

Even if this were an acceptable argument, it would only cover a tiny fraction of cases and would not justify slavery in general.

Slavery is legal
This is no argument at all - things can be legal and unethical at the same time.

Abolishing slavery would threaten the structure of society
This argument was popular at some periods - but it was perhaps an argument that a particular society was ethically flawed and needed reorganisation.

Since no modern society is based on slavery it has no application.

Living in slavery is better than starving to death
In circumstances of extreme poverty, living in slavery may be the least bad available option.

While slavery may be the least bad option for an individual, this doesn't justify slavery, but indicates that action should be taken to provide other better options to individuals.

Free men should be able to become slaves if they want to
It can be argued that this sort of slavery isn't real slavery until some form of coercion is involved.

Since it would only apply to a tiny proportion of cases of 'slavery' it is not a justification for slavery itself.

By and large people aren't concerned about the ethics of voluntary slavery; what concerns them is the situation where people are forced to become slaves, or where people who have chosen to be slaves are prevented from regaining their freedom.

We also need to be alert to cases where people are conditioned to find slavery acceptable, and where it can be argued that their choice is not a free one.

Finally, if free people choose to become slaves they may weaken the general prohibition against slavery, and this would be a bad thing.

[Immanuel Can]

... what are you doing on this thread?

Answering the question the OP asked.

Not yet, you haven't. You've just repeatedly tried to insult anybody who even asked the question. But you've done zippo to answer it.

[Immanuel Can]

No normal person [the majority] at present in modern times would accept these justifications.

Apparently, some do. If nobody did, slavery would not exist. But as it is, it's more widespread than at any time in history.

But even if the majority all thought that was true, that would indicate nothing about the rightness or wrongness of the belief in question. At one time, all the people in the world -- the total majority, therefore -- agreed that the Earth is flat. Did that make it flat?