- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 05 2010,17:38) Tim, Slavery is considered involuntary and yet some people choose to be slaves. It certainly can be involuntary.
Do you know why slavery is considered involuntary?
Because it is. Lying about the condition in order to ease your own conscience does not change
the facts. Changing the true definition of slavery to employment does not change what slavery is.Tim
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 05 2010,17:38) Tim, Is your objection that a slave cannot dissolve their contract if they become unhappy with the service? That is not necessary true as God gives humans the powers that enable them to choose whether to rebel or not though rebellion is seldom righteous. In addition some forms of slavery allow the slave to purchase themselves or be freed in other ways.
My objection is that you are delusional in maintaining that the slave had a choice in becoming a slave in the first place.
Oh, and if I don't like being a slave I can always “rebel” or get myself killed. I don't have to stay a slave. I always have the option of dying instead.Something is seriously wrong with the way that your brain functions Kerwin.
There may be medications that could help you but I would highly recommend professional
help before you harm someone in your delusional state.Tim
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 05 2010,17:38) Tim, In any case you need a better argument than to arrogantly and arbitrarily declare slavery is wrong as you are not God.
Kerwin,No, I never claimed to be God.
But thank goodness I have a better grasp on what is right and wrong than do you in trying to defend the institution of slavery.Seriously, get help!
Tim
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Aug. 05 2010,13:59) bodhitharta, I applaud you for at least being consistent. I will address your sentiment with the following quote:
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
You would have made a great slave owner.
so, let me ask you this if some people conquered another group and because of the rivalry decided to KILL them but asked you should we kill these people or put them in servitude what would you do?Note: you can't simply let them go as they would surely seek to kill you.
So yes if this was the situation I would be a good slave owner if for no other reason then to give the person a good life.
bodhitharta wrote:
Quote so, let me ask you this if some people conquered another group and because of the rivalry decided to KILL them but asked you should we kill these people or put them in servitude what would you do? I would not be in the business of conquering people, (i.e. taking your neighbor's life or property), in the first place. If I lived among a people who did such things, I would leave them and find a place to live peaceably with others.
I take it that you would be a happy conqueror as well?
You religious folk sure do make bad neighbors.
kerwin wrote:
Quote I have never meant a good person. I have meant people who seem to behave more ethically than others but all do or have done one form of evil or another even if that evil is trivial seeming. “Evil” and “trivial” do not belong in the same sentence. In my opinion, evil is the practice of something grossly unethical. For example, condoning slavery would fall under the category of grossly unethical. Most of the people I know are good people, (i.e they have never done anything grossly unethical). You may run in different circles.
kerwin wrote:
Quote I would actually say that according to scripture enslaving the innocent is unethical… Are you saying that the children in Deuteronomy 20:10-14 are guilty of some crime that makes it OK to enslave them permanently? If so, then how is that any different than sending an entire family to prison when the head of the household commits a major crime?
francis,
I appreciate your curiosity about my worldview, but this thread is about slavery in the bible. Could you address the issues that I specifically raised with you about slavery before we change the subject?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Aug. 06 2010,00:59) bodhitharta wrote: Quote so, let me ask you this if some people conquered another group and because of the rivalry decided to KILL them but asked you should we kill these people or put them in servitude what would you do? I would not be in the business of conquering people, (i.e. taking your neighbor's life or property), in the first place. If I lived among a people who did such things, I would leave them and find a place to live peaceably with others.
I take it that you would be a happy conqueror as well?
You religious folk sure do make bad neighbors.
There were certain times in history when you didn't have an option either you were doing the conquering or the conquering was being done to you and your people so now with that understood what would you do?By the way especially in older times before mass transportation and easy access to almost everything how safe do you think you as an individual would have been looking for a peaceful place by yourself, you would no doubt have ended up in servitude yourself.
I think you are really appeciative of your current modern living and I completely understand I also could not imagine being a slave nor wanting a slave(especially being a black person in America) However, I also see how slavery does cause a forced intermingling of opposing groups that while initially works against the enslaved group over time seems to assist and reward the descendents of that group.
There is no doubt that today for instance black Americans are some of the most fortunate people on earth.
In the bible Joseph was taken as a slave and became as powerful as the Pharhoa he served and because of his initial slavery he was able to later save his family and the lives of many during the famine.
—————————————————————
Synthesis: The Symmetry of Cooperation
192. It might seem like the master's got it made: the slave does all his or her work, and recognizes the master's power. The problem is, this isn't the kind of recognition that the master wanted. The master wanted to be recognized by somebody that he or she respects as an equal, as a peer. Instead, the master gets recognition only from a slave, and the master knows that the slave doesn't really respect him or her, but resents and hates the master.
193. Indeed, the tables are going to turn on the master. For the master more and more depends on the slave. The master forgets how to hunt, how to cook. The master gets fat and lazy. Meanwhile, the slave grows stronger and more skilled. The slave is gradually being “transformed into a truly independent consciousness.”
194. The life-or-death struggle is what distinguished one self-consciousness as master and the other as slave. It was fear of death that decided the contest. It might seem like the master was able to bear this fear more than the slave, since the slave surrendered in the face of death. But in fact, the master never really confronted death: only the slave confronted death. The master got off without looking death in the face, since the slave did it first. The slave “has experienced the fear of death, the absolute Lord. . . . [this] absolute melting away of everything stable, is the simple, essential nature of self-consciousness, absolute negativity, pure being-for-self, which consequently is implicit in [the consciousness of the slave]. Through his service he rids himself of his attachment to natural existence in every single detail; and gets rid of it by working on it.” The real power of self-consciousness, the “absolute negativity” that is able to transform things, belongs more and more to the slave.
195. Work involves discipline and skill. As the slave becomes more disciplined and skilled, his or her power balances that of the master. Immediately after the life-or-death struggle, the master controls the slave and the master is independent; the slave is controlled by the master and the slave is dependent. But now things are equalized: the master controls the slave, but the master is dependent; the slave is controlled by the master, but the slave is independent. The dialectic has balanced the relations between master and slave. Ironically, this is what the master wanted in the first place: the master didn't really want a slave, but respect from a peer.
196. The slave turns into an independent craftsperson and so gains a mind and will of his or her own. But the craftsperson's skill is limited (e.g. to being a cook, a hunter, a shoemaker, a farmer). So “having a 'mind of one's own' is self-will, a freedom which is still enmeshed in servitude. . . it is a skill which is a master over some things, but not over the universal power and the whole of objective being.” The result of the slave's turning into a craftsperson is that the master also turns into one: the master and slave both realize that they each benefit more from mutual exchange of services rather than from domination. Political domination turns into economic cooperation.
http://ww2.wpunj.edu/cohss/philosophy/COURSES/HEGEL/MASLAVE.HTM
bodhitharta,
Defending one's home from invaders does not involve a choice to enslave the invaders. It is a matter of killing or repelling the attackers. Only people involved in the business of taking other people's stuff have to wrestle with the question of what to do with the dispossessed people. No matter what time period you drop me in, I would not be in the business of taking other people's stuff. I would gladly defend my own stuff though.
I am amused to know that your moral framework is stuck in ancient times (much like your holy book). The rest of us have updated our ethical tenants.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Aug. 06 2010,04:39) bodhitharta, Defending one's home from invaders does not involve a choice to enslave the invaders. It is a matter of killing or repelling the attackers. Only people involved in the business of taking other people's stuff have to wrestle with the question of what to do with the dispossessed people. No matter what time period you drop me in, I would not be in the business of taking other people's stuff. I would gladly defend my own stuff though.
I am amused to know that your moral framework is stuck in ancient times (much like your holy book). The rest of us have updated our ethical tenants.
You have shown what you would do, not what others would do to you.This has nothing to do with my moral framework at all for instance you said you would defend your home by killing or repelling the attackers and therefore you state that Murder by defense is better than mercy through servitude?
bodhitharta wrote:
Quote You have shown what you would do, not what others would do to you. I have no control over what others will try do to me. My morals are independent of yours. While you may be happy to enslave me, I would never try to enslave you.
Quote This has nothing to do with my moral framework at all for instance you said you would defend your home by killing or repelling the attackers and therefore you state that Murder by defense is better than mercy through servitude? This is getting more and more ridiculous.
So, if an armed robber enters your home, are you going to stand there and say, “You have two choices robber-man: I kill you or you become my slave.”?
In self-defense, it is perfectly reasonable to kill someone who is trying to kill you. If it is possible to stop that person without killing him, it would be more merciful, but then for you to subsequently enslave that person would be silly. That person should be punished according to the local legal standards.
Honestly, you are bending yourself into a pretzel trying to justify the use of slavery when, absent your holy book's declarations, you would easily see slavery as an archaic, barbaric practice. It's almost comical, except that I know you represent the the thinking of many religious people. The world would be a better place if you graduated from such 15th century thinking.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Aug. 06 2010,09:15) bodhitharta wrote: Quote You have shown what you would do, not what others would do to you. I have no control over what others will try do to me. My morals are independent of yours. While you may be happy to enslave me, I would never try to enslave you.
Quote This has nothing to do with my moral framework at all for instance you said you would defend your home by killing or repelling the attackers and therefore you state that Murder by defense is better than mercy through servitude? This is getting more and more ridiculous.
So, if an armed robber enters your home, are you going to stand there and say, “You have two choices robber-man: I kill you or you become my slave.”?
In self-defense, it is perfectly reasonable to kill someone who is trying to kill you. If it is possible to stop that person without killing him, it would be more merciful, but then for you to subsequently enslave that person would be silly. That person should be punished according to the local legal standards.
Honestly, you are bending yourself into a pretzel trying to justify the use of slavery when, absent your holy book's declarations, you would easily see slavery as an archaic, barbaric practice. It's almost comical, except that I know you represent the the thinking of many religious people. The world would be a better place if you graduated from such 15th century thinking.
Would you then condone that the person that attacked you spend time in prison as a ward of the state which is a state sanctioned form of slavery? Would you say let the criminal go free?Look I don't pretend to know the mysteries of God but since you do believe in God do you not believe that if God wished their would be no evil upon the face of the earth?
Just because you detest something doesn't mean it lacks purpose
Tim,
You are losing the argument because you choose to give into emotion instead of remaining objective and letting reason guide you. This does not benefit you or your readers including myself.
I choose to call slavery an employment contract because that is literally what it is. It is not even a point of debate nor is it relevant to whether slavery is ethical or not. We have rules of contact in our society and to some degree those rules are based on what is right or wrong so one can be wronged into entering a contract. The idea is not originally mine but comes from John Locke’s Two Treatises on Government Book II Chapter 4 of slavery. His definition of slavery is when the person is under the arbitrary, absolute, despotic power of another. The slaves spoken of under the Law of Mosses would not qualify though perhaps Roman law was different.
I can only judge humans by myself and I know that I am free no matter who tries to control me. The only way short of mind or spirit control that I can be controlled is if I choose to be controlled. I can be compelled but it is still my choice to give into that compulsion or not. In the case where it is my life or my liberty I would probably choose life and consider it worth the value of the labor demanded of me. I would also realize that it was my choice even though it is a choice I made under duress.
Slavery does violate the right of liberty. To be unethical though it is required to not only violate a God given, inalienable, right but also that there is not a noble cause for doing so.
I am actually studying the issue as I discuss it as discussion is part of the learning process for me.
So strive to calm down and discuss your beliefs on this matter rationally. Not all people will agree with you as people are free to choose as they will. But if you make your point clear then at least they get to hear it in order to consider the merits of it. I have certainly been where you are and I found the advice to listen to the others full point, briefly but thoroughly voice your own, and be slow to get angry is sound and valid. I therefore strive to adhere to it.
WhatIsTrue,
Thank you for giving me your definition of evil. I will state that we have different definitions that we go by. I consider mine accurate to describe human behavior because those immoral but less than grossly unethical actions sometimes snowball to have a great effect. Since the potential for harm is there it is benevolent to strive to change so as to quit behaving unethical at all.
That is a good question about the children mentioned in Deuteronomy 20:10-14. There wrongdoing is to be an “enemy” of the children of Israel. I believe their standards for determining who is an enemy and who is not were definitely different than the ones we that the United Nations uses. They may have even been in a constant and complicated war/peace state with their neighbors similar to how certain American Indian tribes. I believe things changed when Israel-Judah chose to be ruled by a king though the practices associated with that type of culture probably changed over time. The people would have probably interpreted that passage as the culture changed but the guide to correctly interpreting scripture is “love your neighbor as yourself”. Whether that guide was used or not, I do not know.
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 06 2010,18:15) Tim, You are losing the argument because you choose to give into emotion instead of remaining objective and letting reason guide you. This does not benefit you or your readers including myself.
I choose to call slavery an employment contract because that is literally what it is. It is not even a point of debate nor is it relevant to whether slavery is ethical or not. We have rules of contact in our society and to some degree those rules are based on what is right or wrong so one can be wronged into entering a contract. The idea is not originally mine but comes from John Locke’s Two Treatises on Government Book II Chapter 4 of slavery. His definition of slavery is when the person is under the arbitrary, absolute, despotic power of another. The slaves spoken of under the Law of Mosses would not qualify though perhaps Roman law was different.
I can only judge humans by myself and I know that I am free no matter who tries to control me. The only way short of mind or spirit control that I can be controlled is if I choose to be controlled. I can be compelled but it is still my choice to give into that compulsion or not. In the case where it is my life or my liberty I would probably choose life and consider it worth the value of the labor demanded of me. I would also realize that it was my choice even though it is a choice I made under duress.
Slavery does violate the right of liberty. To be unethical though it is required to not only violate a God given, inalienable, right but also that there is not a noble cause for doing so.
I am actually studying the issue as I discuss it as discussion is part of the learning process for me.
So strive to calm down and discuss your beliefs on this matter rationally. Not all people will agree with you as people are free to choose as they will. But if you make your point clear then at least they get to hear it in order to consider the merits of it. I have certainly been where you are and I found the advice to listen to the others full point, briefly but thoroughly voice your own, and be slow to get angry is sound and valid. I therefore strive to adhere to it.
Kerwin,wiki definition of slavery “Slavery is a system in which people are the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand wages. In some societies it was legal for an owner to kill a slave; in others it was a crime to kill a slave.”
Employment is a contract between two parties. In the case of slavery the slave had no say in the contract.
Why would I try to win an argument with someone who makes up their own meaning of words.
Slavery can be considered employment only in the mind of a slave owner, not the slave.
Tim
I have to chuckle — but also likewise be at least slightly disgusted — at the way in which I have seen people of the Abrahamic religions justify various parts of their holy books in modern times. They should just realize that their books really aren't that holy and see them for what they are: religious propaganda of a bygone era. But we know that won't be happening any time soon.
Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 11 2010,00:19) I have to chuckle — but also likewise be at least slightly disgusted — at the way in which I have seen people of the Abrahamic religions justify various parts of their holy books in modern times. They should just realize that their books really aren't that holy and see them for what they are: religious propaganda of a bygone era. But we know that won't be happening any time soon.
You confuse “Holy” with nice. There are all sorts of terrible things written in the Bible and that is one of the reasons it is not propoganda and should be considered valuable evidence of the relity of God.bodhitharta wrote:
Quote Would you then condone that the person that attacked you spend time in prison as a ward of the state which is a state sanctioned form of slavery? Would you say let the criminal go free? Your mindset really is stuck in the 15th century, isn't it?
I don't know if you know this, but there are multiple ways to punish crime in modern times, and none of them involve slavery. There's the possibility of direct restitution to the victim, expulsion from society, and, yes, imprisonment. But, imprisonment does not mean that the prisoners are treated like property. They can not be forced to work, (in most civil societies), and they can not be abused. Slavery, on the other hand, allows for both.
Get out of the 15th century bodhitharta!
You wrote:
Quote You confuse “Holy” with nice. No, I think he's confusing “holy” with good.
kerwin wrote:
Quote …those immoral but less than grossly unethical actions sometimes snowball to have a great effect. So let me get this straight:
You believe that “less than grossly unethical actions” can be classified as evil because of their “snowball” effect, but the institution of slavery, (i.e. where men are reduced to property, like cattle), is neutral?
You believe that minor ethical infractions are evil, but a practice that allows you to beat a human being regularly is not?
Do I have this straight?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Aug. 11 2010,03:48) bodhitharta wrote: Quote Would you then condone that the person that attacked you spend time in prison as a ward of the state which is a state sanctioned form of slavery? Would you say let the criminal go free? Your mindset really is stuck in the 15th century, isn't it?
I don't know if you know this, but there are multiple ways to punish crime in modern times, and none of them involve slavery. There's the possibility of direct restitution to the victim, expulsion from society, and, yes, imprisonment. But, imprisonment does not mean that the prisoners are treated like property. They can not be forced to work, (in most civil societies), and they can not be abused. Slavery, on the other hand, allows for both.
Get out of the 15th century bodhitharta!
You wrote:
Quote You confuse “Holy” with nice. No, I think he's confusing “holy” with good.
You are correct “Holy” does not equate to good or evil.This is why I am saying that your ideas are based upon your arbitrary emotions and not based in any absolute sense of Holiness.
God destroyed all the people in Noah's day
Did he have the right to?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
