Slavery

[Malleus]

Hi there, Malleus here, long time reader, first time complainer. I am wondering, is the so called moral high ground that various religious groups seem to take warranted, having just read a section of the ten commandments, I came upon a passage thus:

(1) Then God spoke all these words: (2) I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; (3) you shall have no other gods before me. (4) You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (5) You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, (6) but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. (7) You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. (8) Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. (9) Six days you shall labor and do all your work. (10) But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. (11) For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it. (12) Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. (13) You shall not murder. (14) You shall not commit adultery. (15) You shall not steal. (16) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. (17) You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Exodus 20:1-17

As you can see, it first talks of how god has removed the followers from the house of slavery, yet seems to make it clear in the bolded sections that it is fine and dandy to own slaves. Opinions???

Question: Is the Bible a piece of Hate literature proposing double standards and endorsing slavery?

[MagusYanam]

First, I think we can all agree that we are rational agents and that we should treat one another as such. That's one of the main tenets of this forum and I think it is one we can all agree with. That said, we have to acknowledge that we all have certain rights, privileges, needs, wants, demands (whatever you want to call it) of our fellows that they acknowledge us as beings capable of reasoning and making ethical decisions.

Okay, what I just wrote there was pure Kant, but I'm cool with that.

I would like to know if and why this would be the case. You're arguing that slavery is associated with ill harm and fair enough, but what if it wasn't? Would you still be against it? Is that really why people are against slavery? If it's because of the lack of freedom, like the well-fed dog above, how is the lack of freedom harmful?

I feel like I would be repeating Righteous Indignation's argument here, but I want to add my own take on it.

I am assuming what you mean by 'freedom' is the freedom to make ethical choices. What makes slavery so evil and insidious is that it robs a being capable of ethical reasoning of his or her freedom to make ethical decisions. When a master says 'do x, y, z and t,' the slave doesn't get to consider 'Okay, should I do x, y, z and t? Are these moral actions?' The slave simply has to do what the master tells them to, often under threat of force or abuse. It degrades them in a way that robs them of that which defines their humanity. It's not applicable to cats or dogs; we don't know whether cats or dogs have the capacity for moral decision-making, but instead act on their instincts, on self-preservation and on training. If a dog were capable of making moral decisions, and being kept as a pet prevented the dog from making those decisions, I would say that keeping a pet would be just as bad as slavery.

[Ami]

Good response R.I.......

The concept of fairness is one of the most basic principles we use to judge right from wrong. Even monkeys understand this concept (Link). Reward a monkey with a cucumber while giving the other chimps a better reward of fruit and he’ll go ape. He understands it’s not fair. I have thought about why slavery is wrong and one reason that really stands out is; It’s simply not fair! Any interaction between people which benefits one at the expense of another is unfair. A slave works without benefiting from his labor while the master benefits without working. It's not right.

Point. Yet one does not have to a slave to be in such a position. Someone, might, for example, work but get paid pittance for it, while another gets rich. It is also unfair, yet it happens all the time. It isn't the lack of pay that would put one off slavery more than anything. And besides, like I said before, the slave at least gets lodgings and food, the money that is in between the work and the food is all that is missing, making it more like a barter system. While the lack of value is another factor, it isn't the factor. Again, what if the slave was treated well? What makes a slave a slave?

Not only that, while I would agree monkeys would have a concept of fairness, there are times when even they would happily give away their food and starve. Food isn't everything, and it's the same with humans. Money isn't everything.

It is selfish in that the master claims rights and freedoms for himself that he is unwilling to grant to his slaves.

It is dishonest in that the master tells himself he is better than the slave which is a lie.

And there we have it.

But then, like I said before, some people will give away their freedom and rights, as valuable as they are. I have to ask, is freedom everything?

They also know themselves and what they are capable of better than any master could. Imagine if Shakespeare had been forced into slavery. We may never have heard "To be or not to be". Suppose Jefferson had been the slave and not the master. How much of what makes America great would have been lost? Suppose Jesus had been a slave in the mines. No Christianity! People are a better judge of their own assets and potential than anyone else. They know more about how they can best benefit society and themselves.

This I disagree with somewhat. It is my experience that many people are not fully aware what they rae capable of, and other people can see their abilities more than teh person in question might. That may be just me, but it may be true in some cases all the same.

I am assuming what you mean by 'freedom' is the freedom to make ethical choices. What makes slavery so evil and insidious is that it robs a being capable of ethical reasoning of his or her freedom to make ethical decisions. When a master says 'do x, y, z and t,' the slave doesn't get to consider 'Okay, should I do x, y, z and t? Are these moral actions?' The slave simply has to do what the master tells them to, often under threat of force or abuse. It degrades them in a way that robs them of that which defines their humanity. It's not applicable to cats or dogs; we don't know whether cats or dogs have the capacity for moral decision-making, but instead act on their instincts, on self-preservation and on training. If a dog were capable of making moral decisions

Not quite. Considering this, though, what if the case were that a person was immoral and the ability to make immoral choices was taken from him? Would that be a good or bad thing?

[Curious]

As you can see, it first talks of how god has removed the followers from the house of slavery, yet seems to make it clear in the bolded sections that it is fine and dandy to own slaves. Opinions???

Question: Is the Bible a piece of Hate literature proposing double standards and endorsing slavery?

I think many people are missing the point of the question here. The question is not whether slavery is acceptable but whether treatment of slaves should be regulated.

[Righteous Indignation]

As you can see, it first talks of how god has removed the followers from the house of slavery, yet seems to make it clear in the bolded sections that it is fine and dandy to own slaves. Opinions???

Question: Is the Bible a piece of Hate literature proposing double standards and endorsing slavery?

I think many people are missing the point of the question here. The question is not whether slavery is acceptable but whether treatment of slaves should be regulated.

I'm sorry Curious, but you lost me. Could you clarify?

[Righteous Indignation]

Good response R.I.......

Thanks Ami, but you’re the one asking the hard questions that lead me to the answers.

The concept of fairness is one of the most basic principles we use to judge right from wrong. Even monkeys understand this concept (Link). Reward a monkey with a cucumber while giving the other chimps a better reward of fruit and he’ll go ape. He understands it’s not fair. I have thought about why slavery is wrong and one reason that really stands out is; It’s simply not fair! Any interaction between people which benefits one at the expense of another is unfair. A slave works without benefiting from his labor while the master benefits without working. It's not right.

Point. Yet one does not have to a slave to be in such a position. Someone, might, for example, work but get paid pittance for it, while another gets rich. It is also unfair, yet it happens all the time. It isn't the lack of pay that would put one off slavery more than anything. And besides, like I said before, the slave at least gets lodgings and food, the money that is in between the work and the food is all that is missing, making it more like a barter system. While the lack of value is another factor, it isn't the factor. Again, what if the slave was treated well? What makes a slave a slave?

My statement above was answering the question: Why is slavery wrong? The new question is, "What makes a slave a slave?" I’d like to expand on your comparison of a worker "paid pittance" as being no better off than a slave. Suppose a free man goes to a slave owner and says, "I need work can you help me?" The slave owner says, "Sure you can work alongside my slaves. I will give you food, shelter, and treat you exactly like my other slaves." The man may decide this is a fair offer and accept. If the free man and the slaves both freely choose to work for the slave owner, I would say there is no difference between the two. Yet, something is wrong with this scenario. Why would a slave owner pay money up front to buy slaves when he could get free men for free? It just doesn’t make sense.

On the other hand, if both the free man and the slaves feel the slave owner’s offer is unacceptable there is a significant difference between the two. The free man can choose not to work for the slave owner and walk away. If the slave tries to walk away, he’ll feel the whip on his back. Slaves do not have the right to negotiate the use of their body nor their labor. Evil men take away their rights. They force men and women to labor and prostitute themselves by threat of torture and death.

I disagree with those who say that slaves do not have a choice. We always have the choice to resist evil. Disobeying the master will surely lead to being tortured, so it’s not a fair choice. But given the choice between death and a life of regret, death might be preferable.

Back to your question of, "What makes a slave a slave? A slave is one half of a relationship between a slave and a master. The master is a person willing to force another into servitude through the threat of torture and death. The slave is a person who obeys another because of the threat of torture and death. If a master could not create fear in his slaves there would be no slavery. So, what really makes a slave a slave? I think it’s fear. In a sense, we are all servants of fear.

Not only that, while I would agree monkeys would have a concept of fairness, there are times when even they would happily give away their food and starve. Food isn't everything, and it's the same with humans. Money isn't everything.

It is selfish in that the master claims rights and freedoms for himself that he is unwilling to grant to his slaves.

It is dishonest in that the master tells himself he is better than the slave which is a lie.

And there we have it.

But then, like I said before, some people will give away their freedom and rights, as valuable as they are. I have to ask, is freedom everything?

OK, "Money isn’t everything." Freedom isn’t everything. We could go on: family, love, religion, life, etc. aren’t everything. What besides everything is everything? What’s the point?

They also know themselves and what they are capable of better than any master could. Imagine if Shakespeare had been forced into slavery. We may never have heard "To be or not to be". Suppose Jefferson had been the slave and not the master. How much of what makes America great would have been lost? Suppose Jesus had been a slave in the mines. No Christianity! People are a better judge of their own assets and potential than anyone else. They know more about how they can best benefit society and themselves.

This I disagree with somewhat. It is my experience that many people are not fully aware what they rae capable of, and other people can see their abilities more than teh person in question might. That may be just me, but it may be true in some cases all the same.

How many famous slaves can you name compared to famous free men?

I am assuming what you mean by 'freedom' is the freedom to make ethical choices. What makes slavery so evil and insidious is that it robs a being capable of ethical reasoning of his or her freedom to make ethical decisions. When a master says 'do x, y, z and t,' the slave doesn't get to consider 'Okay, should I do x, y, z and t? Are these moral actions?' The slave simply has to do what the master tells them to, often under threat of force or abuse. It degrades them in a way that robs them of that which defines their humanity. It's not applicable to cats or dogs; we don't know whether cats or dogs have the capacity for moral decision-making, but instead act on their instincts, on self-preservation and on training. If a dog were capable of making moral decisions

Not quite. Considering this, though, what if the case were that a person was immoral and the ability to make immoral choices was taken from him? Would that be a good or bad thing?

What is moral and immoral is not yet decided. All we have is beliefs, so whose definition of immoral are we using. Some might consider wine, women, and dance in moderation immoral. Losing my choice to partake of such pleasures would be bad.

[Curious]

As you can see, it first talks of how god has removed the followers from the house of slavery, yet seems to make it clear in the bolded sections that it is fine and dandy to own slaves. Opinions???

Question: Is the Bible a piece of Hate literature proposing double standards and endorsing slavery?

I think many people are missing the point of the question here. The question is not whether slavery is acceptable but whether treatment of slaves should be regulated.

I'm sorry Curious, but you lost me. Could you clarify?

Ok, sorry if I wasn't particularly clear. Slavery, on the whole, is a bad thing. There are forms of mutually agreed slavery though that are consistent with the free will of all parties (certain examples of which I have mentioned previously). The question is not whether slavery is right or wrong, but whether the slave should have some protection.

[Righteous Indignation]

As you can see, it first talks of how god has removed the followers from the house of slavery, yet seems to make it clear in the bolded sections that it is fine and dandy to own slaves. Opinions???

Question: Is the Bible a piece of Hate literature proposing double standards and endorsing slavery?

I think many people are missing the point of the question here. The question is not whether slavery is acceptable but whether treatment of slaves should be regulated.

I'm sorry Curious, but you lost me. Could you clarify?

Ok, sorry if I wasn't particularly clear. Slavery, on the whole, is a bad thing. There are forms of mutually agreed slavery though that are consistent with the free will of all parties (certain examples of which I have mentioned previously). The question is not whether slavery is right or wrong, but whether the slave should have some protection.

While some forms of voluntary servitude may be acceptable, for example military service. Involuntary slavery is unacceptable to nearly all civilized people everywhere.

[Curious]

While some forms of voluntary servitude may be acceptable, for example military service. Involuntary slavery is unacceptable to nearly all civilized people everywhere.

Well, you have no argument from me with that argument. But if slavery is present, should slaves be exempt from protection just because some people don't agree with it? Are certain rights inviolate? If someone says you own someone, is it that wrong to say you must give them a day off now and again?

[Righteous Indignation]

While some forms of voluntary servitude may be acceptable, for example military service. Involuntary slavery is unacceptable to nearly all civilized people everywhere.

Well, you have no argument from me with that argument. But if slavery is present, should slaves be exempt from protection just because some people don't agree with it? Are certain rights inviolate? If someone says you own someone, is it that wrong to say you must give them a day off now and again?

Involuntary slavery is not a victimless crime. We might regulate drug use, prostitution, and gambling, to save people from themselves; but, we would never regulate rape, murder, and burglary. We never regulate crimes against an unwilling victim. They are simply unacceptable transgressions which can not be tolerated.

[Curious]

While some forms of voluntary servitude may be acceptable, for example military service. Involuntary slavery is unacceptable to nearly all civilized people everywhere.

Well, you have no argument from me with that argument. But if slavery is present, should slaves be exempt from protection just because some people don't agree with it? Are certain rights inviolate? If someone says you own someone, is it that wrong to say you must give them a day off now and again?

Involuntary slavery is not a victimless crime. We might regulate drug use, prostitution, and gambling, to save people from themselves; but, we would never regulate rape, murder, and burglary. We never regulate crimes against an unwilling victim. They are simply unacceptable transgressions which can not be tolerated.

I am not saying that slavery should be condoned. I do think though that even willing slavery should have some form of protection for the slave ( even if it is to save them from themselves as much as from their master ). Even in the context that it was written, it does not condone slavery. In the time that this was written, slaves were completely without rights or need for consideration. This statement actually states that a slave cannot be used for any purpose at any time. It actually humanises slaves in a way that was seldom seen before. There are other passages though that are completely appalling that I would not even attempt to defend.