Why is slavery wrong?

[Immanuel Can]

That's my question to you.

Have you yet got an answer to the central question? Is enslavement of another human wrong (wrong, evil, sinful)? and if so Why?

I have not seen one so far.

True enough. I haven't. I wonder if I ever will...

[Alexis Jacobi]

. . . if you play, you pay: your take?

Well, if I reveal my hand it will spoil the fun.

[henry quirk]

That's my question to you.

Have you yet got an answer to the central question? Is enslavement of another human wrong (wrong, evil, sinful)? and if so Why?

I have not seen one so far.

True enough. I haven't. I wonder if I ever will...

well, that's a surprise

[henry quirk]

. . . if you play, you pay: your take?

Well, if I reveal my hand it will spoil the fun.

[Alexis Jacobi]

True enough. I haven't. I wonder if I ever will...

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.

[Gary Childress]

The question comes down to, "Why is involuntary, chattel-type slavery wrong (for the enslaver to do)?"

And I wonder what everybody will say to that...

Because the enslaver wouldn't want someone else to do it to him.

[Immanuel Can]

Was the somewhat-slavery of the Hebrews indeed tolerated?

The term "indentured servitude" fits the Hebrew context. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/in ... vitude.asp

The deal was a person could "sell" himself into service to offset a debt. But it was only for a limited term: all Hebrews had to be released no later than every seven years, on the famed "Year of Jubilee". Moreover, the Hebrews had strict prohibitions against the cheating, beating or abusing of a person in that role. It was a mutual, contractual arrangment, not one performed by kidnapping or brutalization.

It was not anything like the slavery in the trans-Saharan trade, the Caribbean trade, or the trade in the American South or South America. It was even vastly different from the Greek and Roman practice of taking slaves by conquest. One cannot make any case for any the latter from the case of Hebrew indentured servitude.

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).

Well, there is a mention of that kind of servitude...they're few and far between, but there are a few.

People in Modern times have thought that the Bible doesn't take a hard enough line against slavery. In fact, it does take a line against it: for example, a person who could buy his/her freedom was to do so, and people were not to threaten, tyrannize or abuse people who were their servants. However, the fact remained that, in a sinful world, there were going to be people who became enslaved. And instead of inveighing pointlessly against the heathen or secular powers, and against the procedures of all societies in the ancient world plus many more recent ones, the Bible focuses on what is to be done in the case of a person who becomes a victim of forced service of some kind.

Of particular concern is this: how can somebody who is in a condition of forced servitude of some kind still please God? He/she has no freedom, no options, and maybe no property, even...does that mean the life of such a person becomes worthless? Does that mean that a Christian trapped in a slave relationship is therefore kept from being a Christian? Has he/she no longer any dignity or value?

But uniquely in ancient documents, the Bible takes special thought for the spiritual and moral welfare of the enslaved person. And if he/she cannot become freed, then he or she is given the dignity that his or her service will be accepted by God as faithful service to Him.

"Were you called as a slave? Do not let it concern you. But if you are also able to become free, take advantage of that. For the one who was called in the Lord as a slave, is the Lord’s freed person; likewise the one who was called as free, is Christ’s slave." (1 Cor. 7:21-22)

In all, it's very clear that the Bible regards the natural and proper condition of men as free to serve God, not bound to service to other men. However, evil men would continue to do what evil men would do, and so slavery as a fact would continue. No person, however, is ever cut off from being "God's freed person; that dignity is guaranteed.

So all that speaks to the Hebrew and Christian cases. But it doesn't do a thing for any secular case against slavery. And that's the real question here: is there anything one can offer from a non-Theistic perspective as to why slavery would be "wrong'?

[Immanuel Can]

The question comes down to, "Why is involuntary, chattel-type slavery wrong (for the enslaver to do)?"

And I wonder what everybody will say to that...

Because the enslaver wouldn't want someone else to do it to him.

But that's hardly going to impress an enslaver, Gary. He doesn't really care that he's doing something he wouldn't want done to him. It's not going to be done to him, in fact; he's going to do it to somebody else, instead. And he's going to benefit thereby. So he's not too likely to care, nor is he likely to fear that the tables will ever be turned on him. He's got the upper hand, and doesn't plan to give it up.

So we need something more.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...you are the one who implied all forms of slavery are the same.

I said the opposite, actually. But all the forms of slavery in the statistics I sent you...you cannot possibly call "not slavery." Not if you're a reasonable person. Forced labour is slavery. So is sex slavery. The thing that makes a slave a slave is not the disposition of the government nor the existence of a "contract" as you imply, but rather the use of force to compel his/her servitude.

But you know that. You're just dogding the obvious facts again.

I did not state the forms of slavery in the stats you linked are "not slavery" but they do not refer to the specific form of slavery i.e. 'chattel slavery'.
I kept telling you 'chattel slavery' is a different form of slavery from 'forced-labor-slavery'.

Note this WIKI link that listed the different types of slavery;

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
  1 Terminology
  1.1 Chattel slavery
  1.2 Bonded labour
  1.3 Dependents
  1.4 Forced labour
  1.5 Forced marriage
  1.6 Other uses of the term
  2 Characteristics
  2.1 Private versus state-owned slaves

I have not stated the chattel slaves signed a contract with their enslavers.
However the chattel-slaves owner would have to enter into a contract with the buyers of the slaves when he sells the chattel slaves to a customer.

Read the section on chattel slaves again;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Chattel_slavery

...in the future, slavery must be spontaneously taken as morally wrong by each individual...

Why "must" it? That's the question you just don't want to answer.
[/quote]
I have already explained that, re pains, sufferings, mirror-neurons, etc.
It not that I don't want to answer, I don't want to waste my time giving tuition to you with your thick-skull on this subject.

Personally you would have accepted slavery is morally wrong. You deny this??
"Must" in the sense that everyone [in the future] must be influenced to be in your [& and the likes] moral stance re slavery so that there will be no sufferings related to chattel slavery [plus other forms of slavery].

[reasonvemotion]

I think HQ's sentiments regarding "Why is slavery wrong?" are parallel to

"But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature? There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule."

[henry quirk]

I think HQ's sentiments regarding "Why is slavery wrong?" are parallel to

"But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature? There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule."

pardon my french, but: what in the high holy f*** are you talkin' about?

I did not, do not endorse, slavery

even a casual review of the thread -- or of anything I've posted over the years -- would show the opposite

a man, like every other, any other man, knows he belongs to himself...he doesn't reason it, never has to be taught it, it's an intuition livin' in his bones

he surmises from this intuition that he ought not own another and another ought not own him

as I say: even the slaver, as he buys and sells men, understands this about himself and those he trades in...simply, the slaver is evil in his hypocrisy and in choosin' to ignore that which he knows (the property he sells and buys is not his, can never be his)

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).


Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).


Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

[Age]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

The reality of African American struggle is not and I suggest could never be intelligible to Whites at the most basic level. It is something those Whites can *gaze on* and muse about. But only the one who has lived it can be said to understand it.

That is the most palpable description of the African American struggle.

I commend you Veritas Aequitas.

LOL As if the color of the skin of the body has absolutely ANY thing AT ALL to do with ANY of this.

WHY can some of 'you', people, NOT SEE past the skin?

Some of 'you' are SO SHALLOW FOCUSED and SO NARROWED LOOKING that 'you' are just making a FOOL of "yourselves" here.

[Age]

...you are the one who implied all forms of slavery are the same.

I said the opposite, actually. But all the forms of slavery in the statistics I sent you...you cannot possibly call "not slavery." Not if you're a reasonable person. Forced labour is slavery. So is sex slavery. The thing that makes a slave a slave is not the disposition of the government nor the existence of a "contract" as you imply, but rather the use of force to compel his/her servitude.

Just like EVERY one of 'you', human beings, is A SLAVE, in the days when this was being written, to your OWNER.

But you know that. You're just dogding the obvious facts again.

...in the future, slavery must be spontaneously taken as morally wrong by each individual...

Why "must" it? That's the question you just don't want to answer.

[Alexis Jacobi]

People in Modern times have thought that the Bible doesn't take a hard enough line against slavery. In fact, it does take a line against it: for example, a person who could buy his/her freedom was to do so, and people were not to threaten, tyrannize or abuse people who were their servants. However, the fact remained that, in a sinful world, there were going to be people who became enslaved. And instead of inveighing pointlessly against the heathen or secular powers, and against the procedures of all societies in the ancient world plus many more recent ones, the Bible focuses on what is to be done in the case of a person who becomes a victim of forced service of some kind.

If we are to begin to talk about "people in modern times", and if we are going to talk about colonialism and slavery, those being the core concerns that we are all dealing with in one way or another in our Present, then we will have to talk about Black Liberation Theology. If we talk about Black Liberation Theology we will then have to talk about a ideological movement which -- this must be stated and understood -- takes an attacking stance, or at least a strongly critical stance, against the historical Christian form which is exclusively European and 'white'.

When those who have been oppressed by European culture, or put another way when those without any connection at all to European Will and European Projects (I refer to this as 'the Empire of the white man's will' and to that European *world* as the European Plantation) who were rounded up and forced to labor in those 'fields' and 'domains' pertaining to the European Project, when they gain enough understanding of what happened to them and who, and what, did that to them, they necessarily turn their attention to the ideological and anthropological structures that interweave all Christian forms.

To understand that, all that, we have to back up a bit. In fact we have to consider the world-picture of Europe in the diagram of The Great Chain of Being. This picture describes our reality, our cosmos, as a series of levels. At the top is 'God' and the angelical beings. Then, down at the bottom, down in the dregs and in the most dense manifestations (that is to say in a level a bit below ours) exist the demonic beings, the underworld beings, the devilish beings. In the middle of course is where we are, thus the notion of The Middle World, a world strung between two mutually opposed 'realities'. I submit that if one does not understand this diagram of The Great Chain of Being (a view pertaining to the middle historical period of Europe) you cannot understand Christianity. Christianity is deeply involved in this world-view and, obviously, is founded upon it.

The reason why every aspect of the on-going Christian conversation we have here (and on the adjacent thread with the title Christianity) results in an exposure of the core absurdities most everyone sees and notes, is because of the clash and contrast between the Olden System of description of 'what the world is' and the New Description which cannot be but radically opposed to the old one. It takes a mind-bending effort -- really it is a form of artistry -- to reconcile these two diametrically-opposed Visions of what *reality* is, indeed what its purpose is.

The Age of Exploration began in a later phase of the European middle-period. But it began when the metaphysical view of heaven and earth -- above and below, the angelical and the demoniac, the world of light & essence in contrast to and in battle against the world of density and restrictive structure -- was definitely operative. Put in the most direct way, the European saw himself as having in his possession, as having had infused into his soul, the liberating and enlightening Spirit of the angelical Jesus Christ. Salvation was to have received Jesus Christ, to have 'knowledge' of this liberating Spirit, and to have assented to it as to a 'project'. And when that illuminated European set his eyes on those Tribes of the Earth which he encountered, always dark men with body paint and unreally strange costumes, what he saw in essence were beings of a lower order, chained by Devils & Demons, who lived ignorantly within the folds of earthly life as prisoners of the lower regions, who required conquest & liberation.

So, here we can clearly see the metaphysics of Christianity -- which still operate, and beyond any doubt, today and in our present.

So it should be clear that when those demon-infested African Blacks were encountered, that any life but the life they led must be a step up. They were slaves to demons (I do not mean this as an allegory but as a real description of the anthropology of 15th and 16th century European man) so better to be slaves within the European Project and thus chained to productive enterprise within The Empire of the White Man's Will than to remain in their previous condition. You will find the same basic assertions in the writings of Southern intellectuals in the late 1700s and early 1800s.

If you (a general 'you' of course) do not understand these aspects and elements you will, literally, not be able to understand the Age of Colonization and the reasoning behind the Institution of Slavery, and especially the enslavement of the Black Race qua benighted race. And you will not be able to understand the on-going project of extending European civilization to a benighted world. These ideas still operate. A mere scratch of the surface will reveal this to anyone with the scratching tendency . . .

Now, and as I referenced previously -- and I say that when examined with a sharp lens without any fuzziness or sentimental coloring the entire picture is bizarrely horrifying when seen for what it really is -- when the African American who was also raised up in 'the white man's religion' wakes to an awareness of the reality of what his historical trajectory had been, that man has no other option but to attack the entire form. Think it through and you will only be able to agree. It was not only European culture and the European Project and will that did this to him, but the underpinning of it all was in the Christian form. That is to say the decoupling of the demon-enslaved from his hell-bound Fate and the re-harnessing to the mill-wheel of the European project. What could be more natural to 15th and 16th and 17th century European man?

[Immanuel Can]

I did not state the forms of slavery in the stats you linked are "not slavery"

Great.

Then answer the question: "why is slavery wrong?"

Personally you would have accepted slavery is morally wrong. You deny this??

Are you trying to make me the moral touchstone for others? Are you actually going to argue that what I "accept" must therefore be right, and needs no proof?

You are giving me much more credit than I ever asked for. You've made me the "pope" of morality.

But I would prefer that people operate on evidence, not my say-so.

What's your evidence?