Go back
God Condoned Chattel Slavery

God Condoned Chattel Slavery

Spirituality

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @philokalia
See, you are looking at it backwards and with this hopeful view that if things were more explicitly elaborated upon they would prevent a greater amount of negativity instead of presenting a greater collection of loopholes.
"Loopholes"?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @philokalia
See, you are looking at it backwards and with this hopeful view that if things were more explicitly elaborated upon they would prevent a greater amount of negativity instead of presenting a greater collection of loopholes.
I am being explicit. Here it is again. Low wages are morally justifiable. No wages, only food, and maybe shelter too, are also justifiable. Long hours, justifiable. Back breaking work, justifiable. These are all take-or-leave-it propositions. But owning another human being as property, as chattel, as a tradable commodity like livestock?. Using the danger that a person may starve in order to turn them into property? That's moral darkness.


Originally posted by @fmf
I am being explicit. Here it is again. Low wages are morally justifiable. No wages, only food, and maybe shelter too, are also justifiable. Long hours, justifiable. Back breaking work, justifiable. These are all take-or-leave-it propositions. But owning another human being as property, as chattel, as a tradable commodity like livestock?. Using the danger that a person may starve in order to turn them into property? That's moral darkness.
What’s moral darkness is learning you post on other Internet forums. Go outside, for the love of Pete!

No wonder you wear Coke bottle glasses - you’re staring at a computer screen 20 hours a day.


Originally posted by @fmf
Oh, OK. But, anyway, the story of the Jews having been slaves in Egypt is a story illustrating dark times in the history of the human condition.
That is true. IT was not a pleasant time, but let's also remember that the Jews multiplied exponentially under their condition of servitude. They had actually been invited to settle all throughotu the lands as they were a particularly skillful group.

Of course, according to the Exodus account, we are not sure when it was exactly decided but there was a backlash which basically made them into slaves... In those days, of course, pretty much everyone existed in such a state, so we do not even really hear of a shifting of their status. The Pharaoh merely decides that enough is enough and he is going to abuse the Hebrews.

You could say that it was a dark time.

This is also quite historically accurate in the sense that we hear about the Egyptians famously settling foreign groups among them, and also very extensively making use of the 'Sea Peoples,' some of whom were probably Philistines, actually, that may have been settled in Canaan to help hold the land as vassals of the Egyptians. Check out Bob Packett's podcast -- he is going through the Sea People's right now.


Originally posted by @fmf
What has which forums I post on - or which forums I have posted on over the last 10+ years - got to do with you?
Nothing...

And....

Everything.

Send me a PM and I'll give you a riddle to help you figure out this mysterious statement.


Originally posted by @fmf
I am being explicit. Here it is again. Low wages are morally justifiable. No wages, only food, and maybe shelter too, are also justifiable. Long hours, justifiable. Back breaking work, justifiable. These are all take-or-leave-it propositions. But owning another human being as property, as chattel, as a tradable commodity like livestock?. Using the danger that a person may starve in order to turn them into property? That's moral darkness.
... But that actually describes the agreement.

If I am only going to pay someone with food and rent, and I have inevested in them a lot of food already and have not gotten my due out of them, they are my possession, and if they decide to run away without having performed the adequate amount of labor, I have been ripped off.


Originally posted by @philokalia
If I am only going to pay someone with food and rent, and I have inevested in them a lot of food already and have not gotten my due out of them, they are my possession, and if they decide to run away without having performed the adequate amount of labor, I have been ripped off.
I don't believe that the morally sound answer to the risk of being 'ripped off' by a low paid employee is to institute a legal system that enables employers to own other human beings as property, as chattel, as tradable commodities like livestock.



Originally posted by @philokalia
If I am only going to pay someone with food and rent, and I have inevested in them a lot of food already and have not gotten my due out of them, they are my possession, and if they decide to run away without having performed the adequate amount of labor, I have been ripped off.
Pay them enough so that they have reason to stay and work for you. Take the compensation for the food and accommodation provided upfront out of their first few weeks' pay. No need to ~ and no credible moral argument for ~ instituting a system in which the principles of property law are applied to people and "owners" are enabled to purchase, own, and sell other human beings as a form of property and from which the slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally.


-Removed-
There you go again, failing to capitalize the “g” in God. Is your shift key broken, tiger?


-Removed-
Let us say that we had a massive catastrophe and reverted to post-apocalyptic conditions, literally living in caves, then re-emerging nearly without technology. The details are unimportant... But theoretically, again, we could reach an occasion in which we would also have an allowance for such an institution as slavery.

So... in a sense, nothing has actually changed, but rather, a circumstance hasn't been met.

Slavery is still moral under those conditions.

Just as such... we can think of all manner of extreme behaviors that are moral, but only in rare circumstances.

For instances, killing a man in self-defense has always been moral. But the likelihood that anyone reading this will have to do that is pretty small. We do not think of God as "changing morality!" when we think about killing in self-defense as justified; it is simply that a circumstance presents itself where it is acceptable.

It is merely that the person reading this is highly unlikely to wake up and find themselves in late bronze age or Iron Age I conditions.


Originally posted by @fmf
Pay them enough so that they have reason to stay and work for you. Take the compensation for the food and accommodation provided upfront out of their first few weeks' pay. No need to ~ and no credible moral argument for ~ instituting a system in which the principles of property law are applied to people and "owners" are enabled to purchase, own, and sell other human beings as a form of property and from which the slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally.
But there is no liquid currency and they are being paid by you giving them food day by day... You're also taking massive risks for this endeavor.

Moreover... I do not fully understand why slavery is so wicked when we are basically talking about the condition which everyone had to their liege at that point in time.


Originally posted by @philokalia
Moreover... I do not fully understand why slavery is so wicked when we are basically talking about the condition which everyone had to their liege at that point in time.
I'm OK with you having a different moral perspective from me on human beings owning other human beings as property like animals. This is what I am discussing when I talk about "slavery", as has been clear.


Originally posted by @philokalia
Let us say that we had a massive catastrophe and reverted to post-apocalyptic conditions, literally living in caves, then re-emerging nearly without technology. The details are unimportant... But theoretically, again, we could reach an occasion in which we would also have an allowance for such an institution as slavery.

So... in a sense, nothing has ...[text shortened]... s is highly unlikely to wake up and find themselves in late bronze age or Iron Age I conditions.
You seem to be under the impression that you have not explained your "moral" justification for slavery. I think you have been clear.

1 edit

Originally posted by @philokalia
But there is no liquid currency and they are being paid by you giving them food day by day... You're also taking massive risks for this endeavor.
So what? Maybe you should be in a different line of business if you economic model relies on slavery. Feed them for a day's work, then. And let them go when they choose. No need for a legal system that allows you to own people like animals.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.