Augustine, slavery, and whipping

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Alex337 said:
So, you said earlier that slavery is immoral; which is it?
Click to expand...
After reading and deliberating with an Apologist I’ve decided to say that it is not always immoral given the information I just showed you that he gave me
 
Last edited:
neophyte said:
40.png
Alex337:
Belting someone is also wrong
Click to expand...
Always and everywhere? Nonsense. I was belted on occasion by my father, and I assure you that the most severe instances were ones that were well deserved, much needed and would have been wrong to withold.
Click to expand...
I’m mean scientifically it caused you mental trauma and it’s statistically linked to mental problems. But sure. Beat children.
 
theCardinalbird said:
40.png
Alex337:
So, you said earlier that slavery is immoral; which is it?
Click to expand...
After reading and deliberating with an Apologist I’ve decided to say that it is not always immoral given the information I just showed you that he gave me
Click to expand...
So you support slavery. And/or relativism.

We’re done here.
 
Last edited:
I guess the result is that morality is defined subjectively.
 
Last edited:
Alex337 said:
So you support slavery.

We’re done here.
Click to expand...
Given the information and the fact that it is not intrinsically immoral. Would you rather have people starve? Or be subject to someone? You clearly have no regards for the lives of these people if you think that in Ancient times people had these ease of living like today and could afford a decent life to feed their families like in modern times. I do not agree with slavery in modern time. But back then in ancient times, it was a fact of life in the ancient world --an economic reality (and necessity for many).
 
Last edited:
theCardinalbird said:
40.png
Alex337:
So you support slavery.

We’re done here.
Click to expand...
Given the information and the fact that it is intrinsically immoral. Would you rather have people starve? Or be subject to someone? You clearly have no regards for the lives of these people if you think that in Ancient times people had these ease of living today and could afford a decent life to feed their families like in modern times. I do not agree with slavery in modern time. But back then in ancient times, it was a fact of life in the ancient world --an economic reality (and necessity for many).
Click to expand...
Ah, so morality is relative? Because your argument there is that as slavery is less bad than starving it is then moral.
 
Alex337 said:
40.png
neophyte:
40.png
Alex337:
Belting someone is also wrong
Click to expand...
Always and everywhere? Nonsense. I was belted on occasion by my father, and I assure you that the most severe instances were ones that were well deserved, much needed and would have been wrong to withold.
Click to expand...
I’m mean scientifically it caused you mental trauma and it’s statistically linked to mental problems. But sure. Beat children.
Click to expand...
You obviously don’t understand science if you think that it allows you to make those sorts of claims about individuals. Or if you think a statistical link proves anything.
 
Alex337 said:
Ah, so morality is relative?
Click to expand...
no morality is not relative. It is common sense to get money in order to feed yourself and your family. Slavery is sometimes chosen by the slave to get food.

A slave in many Greek and Roman cities could actually own property (and, if he was a good businessman, could even potentially become more wealthy than his master), and they could normally buy their freedom or work and earn freedom for their children. What must be appreciated is that our modern concepts of “freedom” did not exist for the overwhelming majority of people in the ancient world. There was very little difference between being a slave and being a poor free person in society. Both were entirely dependent on their “patrons” --that is, wealthy citizens in the cities in which they lived, who financially supported poor free persons, and to whom the poor free persons owed complete loyalty and obedience, and so had to do what the rich patron said, if they didn’t want to starve, etc. …just like a slave. Also, if a slave in the ancient world was granted his freedom, this doesn’t mean he could do whatever he wanted. It’s not like he could just go out and find a job and live any way he pleased. Rather, even when granted his freedom, he was still normally dependent on the master (patron) who used to own him. This is simply how life and society operated --the “patron-client” system of Roman society. A slave was merely a very extreme form of “client” (the lowest rung in society). So, it’s very anachronistic and unrealistic to apply modern concepts of freedom vs. slavery to the ancient world.

I have to go to sleep now.
 
So again; because slavery is less bad than starving you find it morally acceptable. Because a society agreed with it, it becomes relatively okay within that setting.
 
You said something very similar about gay marriage so I wouldn’t be talking.
 
You obviously don’t have anything better to say when confronted.
 
I don’t think you understand what a thought experiment is. Plus your definition of professing racist views has a lot of wiggle room. Its actually quite discriminatory.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top