Augustine, slavery, and whipping

[Alex337]

In 30 years the state will raise all children in creches and we’ll be arguing about the barbarity of thinking parents had the authority to discipline children with timeouts and groundings.

I like scifi too

 

[theCardinalbird]

So you don’t think belting people is okay?

Yes!

Then how is it a defence of Augustine?

Augustine lived in a time period where using the lash was considered a form of punishment that was acceptable. His defence comes from the idea that punishments are not all the same in different time periods and that there was no one procedure in how to discipline a child (that is righteous in every age).

If I were to live 30 years ago and say that hitting a child on the hands with a ruler was evil and wrong. People would say I am crazy and know nothing of disciplining.

If I applied this with Augustine, we could see how using a lash was seen as the common form of discipline and therefore that was how things were. This defends Augustine because CONTEXT explains why he said those things, where we have to understand that at the time it was acceptable to use this means of punishment and therefore his logic in relations with people was for that time period.

Bear in mind, this has nothing to do with divine laws (which never change). This idea Augustine had was meant for his society at the time (which does in fact change and progress) but would never suit our society today. We can say it is wrong for one to lash a child this day and age, but in those times, that was normal in society and we have learned to grow from that.

 

[Alex337]

So the morality of beating people you own is relative to the time period and culture it’s done in?

 

[Alex337]

Also, I still don’t see why you brought up belting as a defence. And if you said that hitting children was wrong 30 years ago you would not have been seen as particularly weird, studies were already being done on the ineffectiveness of corporeal punishment back then.

 

[wkj_123]

Sorry, still doesn’t make whipping a slave right. Replace “whipping a slave” with any other evil and see if the “times have changed” defence still stands

If your looking for someone to come out and say Augustine was a terrible person for this without trying to use history as an excuse your not going to get it. Augustine is too big a figure in the Church and institutional protectionism kicks in. I’m not sure what side your arguing, but anyone who could own another human, whip another human, call for another humans whipping is a terrible person. I don’t care when it happened. Empathy exists today like it did yesterday. They knew how much they wouldn’t want to be treated that way, but did it to others. Inexcusable. I don’t care if they are athiest, Christian , Muslim whatever it’s inexcusable.

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

Augustine did have a good analogy for the changes in the morality of the Old Law and that of New one. Might be relevant.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

Sorry, still doesn’t make whipping a slave right. Replace “whipping a slave” with any other evil and see if the “times have changed” defence still stands

If your looking for someone to come out and say Augustine was a terrible person for this without trying to use history as an excuse your not going to get it. Augustine is too big a figure in the Church and institutional protectionism kicks in. I’m not sure what side your arguing, but anyone who could own another human, whip another human, call for another humans whipping is a terrible person. I don’t care when it happened. Empathy exists today like it did yesterday. They knew how much they wouldn’t want to be treated that way, but did it to others. Inexcusable. I don’t care if they are athiest, Christian , Muslim whatever it’s inexcusable.

Agreed. I don’t care how big a figure he is; this idea is odious.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Also, I still don’t see why you brought up belting as a defence. And if you said that hitting children was wrong 30 years ago you would not have been seen as particularly weird, studies were already being done on the ineffectiveness of corporeal punishment back then.

And were these studies done in Augustines time? Also would you say that, if you lived in Augustines time period, you would disagree with society on this disciplinary action? I’m sure you wouldn’t disagree, because you right now are projecting todays society’s reaction to a previous society’s ways where if we turned the tables, you would probably have a crazy reaction about how modern man behaves.

Morality has nothing to do with the conversation. I am simply trying to explain the context of Augustine’s writings where you continue to condemn the actions of a man who was in a different society, where you probably thought he should know better. See, some paint these old saints as heartless and cruel, I am arguing that they were probably the standard kind of person in their society and that we have to look at their writings in CONTEXT. We know that whipping doesn’t work but in those times they didn’t, and we have to accept that we changed (thank God that happened).

I only tried to see Augustines thinking, I never wanted the justification for whipping. If you see it as cruel to beat someone, then I agree with you, but what I will not have is the lack of context given when analyzing someone’s writings where context could paint a very different picture than from perception.

 

[theCardinalbird]

If your looking for someone to come out and say Augustine was a terrible person for this without trying to use history as an excuse your not going to get it. Augustine is too big a figure in the Church and institutional protectionism kicks in.

Augustine is not a terrible person! He was only going by society’s logic at the time. Can you honestly tell me that you would be the exact same person as you are today compared to living centuries ago? We know the saints are not infallible, they are men. people were different compared to today and therefore there is a difference in thinking and we have to understand that

 

[Theo2]

I believe it would be a kindness if we would cane people for certain crimes. With the intent to change behavior and turn the person around. I believe it would be a deterrent. We are not being kind to keep putting people in prison, only to see them return for the same crime.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

Also, I still don’t see why you brought up belting as a defence. And if you said that hitting children was wrong 30 years ago you would not have been seen as particularly weird, studies were already being done on the ineffectiveness of corporeal punishment back then.

And were these studies done in Augustines time? Also would you say that, if you lived in Augustines time period, you would disagree with society on this disciplinary action? I’m sure you wouldn’t disagree, because you right now are projecting todays society’s reaction to a previous society’s ways where if we turned the tables, you would probably have a crazy reaction about how modern man behaves.

Morality has nothing to do with the conversation. I am simply trying to explain the context of Augustine’s writings where you continue to condemn the actions of a man who was in a different society, where you probably thought he should know better. See, some paint these old saints as heartless and cruel, I am arguing that they were probably the standard kind of person in their society and that we have to look at their writings in CONTEXT. We know that whipping doesn’t work but in those times they didn’t, and we have to accept that we changed (thank God that happened).

I only tried to see Augustines thinking, I never wanted the justification for whipping. If you see it as cruel to beat someone, then I agree with you, but what I will not have is the lack of context given when analyzing someone’s writings where context could paint a very different picture than from perception.

Does my disagreeing with a thing determine the morality?

All I have said this time is that Augustine was wrong. I didn’t say he should have known better, though that would have been good for a man who thought so much on morality. You seem to be projecting a bit too.

So; was Augustine wrong about it being okay to whip slaves? Yes? No?

 

[theCardinalbird]

So; was Augustine wrong about it being okay to whip slaves? Yes? No?

In present day. Yes

Does that make him a terrible person as other posters have said? He is human and prone to make mistakes

 

[Alex337]

wkj_123:

If your looking for someone to come out and say Augustine was a terrible person for this without trying to use history as an excuse your not going to get it. Augustine is too big a figure in the Church and institutional protectionism kicks in.

Augustine is not a terrible person! He was only going by society’s logic at the time. Can you honestly tell me that you would be the exact same person as you are today compared to living centuries ago? We know the saints are not infallible, they are men. people were different compared to today and therefore there is a difference in thinking and we have to understand that

I can honestly say that if I beat slaves and preached that it was just I would be wrong and horrible. Unless, again, you think that morals are relative to society and time period.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

So; was Augustine wrong about it being okay to whip slaves? Yes? No?

In present day. Yes

So you think slavery and beating slaves used to be moral?

 

[Alex337]

I believe it would be a kindness if we would cane people for certain crimes. With the intent to change behavior and turn the person around. I believe it would be a deterrent. We are not being kind to keep putting people in prison, only to see them return for the same crime.

Rehabilitation would likely work better than beatings.

 

[on_the_hill]

This is funny. You think that using a belt is different from using a whip.

 

[theCardinalbird]

I can honestly say that if I beat slaves and preached that it was just I would be wrong and horrible. Unless, again, you think that morals are relative to society and time period.

I do not think morals are relative. In the end, slavery is considered wrong in society. We recognized unjust servitude and slavery were wrong centuries ago. Augustine was speaking about a social custom that was not considered wrong in society at the time. Explain to me how I should look at this?

When society changes, people who held views before the change immediately are characterized as evil. Explain the justice in doing that?

This is the confusion I am having and is really what I am arguing about

 

[on_the_hill]

If I were to live 30 years ago and say that hitting a child on the hands with a ruler was evil and wrong. People would say I am crazy and know nothing of disciplining.

I think you’d have to go a lot farther back than 30 years, friend. There wasn’t any ruler smacking going on in 1988.
It’s always interesting when people want to hearken back to the old days, and the old days seem like yesterday to me.

 

[theCardinalbird]

I think you’d have to go a lot farther back than 30 years, friend. There wasn’t any ruler smacking going on in 1988.
It’s always interesting when people want to hearken back to the old days, and the old days seem like yesterday to me.

I should have said 40. My parents got hit with the belt

 

[wkj_123]

Augustine is not a terrible person! He was only going by society’s logic at the time. Can you honestly tell me that you would be the exact same person as you are today compared to living centuries ago? We know the saints are not infallible, they are men. people were different compared to today and therefore there is a difference in thinking and we have to understand that

Anybody who could beat and own another human being is a terrible person. Anyone who advocates for that is a terrible person. Empathy existed in Augustine’s time. It appears he just chose not to utilize it. It’s not just Christians eithier, people of all and no Faith’s were guilty.