A
Alex337
Guest
Defending. Slavery.Alex337:
Punching babies? Really? That did not appear anywhere. His comment was wrong and makes the people of the Church seem so horrible that we would ever do that
- Status
O
OsculeturMeOsculo
Guest
Because most of the arguments they use can be used to defend things like this. There is also an obsession with being objective. So I was wondering if there are any objective arguments.
Last edited:
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
Tell me, did you know that there are different forms of slavery?
A
Alex337
Guest
Yes. Tell me; which do you feel are morally right to beat?Alex337:
Tell me, did you know that there are different forms of slavery?
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
None of them. Why are you constantly bringing up this whole beating thing again? Why must it always return to this? Have you no concept of human error, that people can be wrong?
Last edited:
W
wkj_123
Guest
What are you talking about? I mean literally? Slavery is evil. It was wrong then and now. Human empathy can attest to this. Look I get it. Your church has been right there with the rest of the world doing terrible things and it looks bad since you guys hold “the fullness of truth”. Your making yourself look incredibly, and I don’t say this lightly, incredibly ignorant. Very few other places would I have to argue why slavery and whipping is wrong. You, your attitude is what creates institutional protectionism that has victimized so many. Please stop. Please.
A
Alex337
Guest
I do, remember I was the one who called him wrong first.Alex337:
None of them. Why are you constantly bringing up this whole beating thing again? Why must it always return to this? Have you no concept of human error, that people can be wrong?
So, which kind of slave do you think you should morally be allowed to own?
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
None of them
A
Arkansan
Guest
If it’s so obvious then the argument should be easy to make.
A
Alex337
Guest
So why bring it up?Alex337:
None of them
O
OsculeturMeOsculo
Guest
I am just wondering if this is subjective or objective determination of evil. Empathy would be subjected to emotions, right? This is a thought experiment not really a defense of these things. It kind of is a necessary step to make a good debate to give them a proper defense. I don’t actually condone these things.
Last edited:
A
Arkansan
Guest
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. – Aristotle
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
Because I was wondering if you understood that slavery is not all the same. Not all forms of slavery in human society could be described as concretely against the human dignity of the slaves of a certain time, given the different conditions and great social inequality. I just was wondering
A
Alex337
Guest
They are all morally wrong. And you keep straying into “at the time” apologies.Alex337:
Because I was wondering if you understood that slavery is not all the same. Not all forms of slavery in human society could be described as concretely against the human dignity of the slaves of a certain time, given the different conditions and great social inequality. I just was wondering
Last edited:
W
wkj_123
Guest
The argument has been made. Slavery is morally wrong. We derive morality from empathy. When you own a human, you know that you yourself wouldn’t want to be owned. When you whip your slave you know you yourself wouldn’t want to be whipped. It’s wrong. You guys making these arguments prove without a doubt that God has nothing to do with morality. You don’t have the common human decency to just admit it’s wrong. You want to turn it to a philosophical discussion to lesson the guilt on high ranking members of your church. You should be ashamed of yourself.
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
Did you know that “at the time” St. Paul does not suggest that the Christian master free his slave in the first-century Roman empire, nor does he allow slaves to run away or revolt. This was because in the conditions of that society Christians could respect the dignity of slaves better by keeping them or by gradually freeing them. St. Peter Claver had to own slaves in order to guarantee their good treatment, for example.
Would you say that was wrong of them?
O
OsculeturMeOsculo
Guest
That isn’t the point of this thought experiment. Empathy is subjective so it doesn’t meet the requirements. What happens when Society uses something else to change its morality? You kind of are being accusatory.
Last edited:
A
Arkansan
Guest
The same argument could be made against any social system that negatively affects anyone in any way. It leads to a reductio ad absurdum.
Why is corporal punishment wrong? Do you hold that all forms of punishment are wrong (certainly, they are all objectionable to those subject to them)? If not then why is corporal punishment specifically wrong?
Why is corporal punishment wrong? Do you hold that all forms of punishment are wrong (certainly, they are all objectionable to those subject to them)? If not then why is corporal punishment specifically wrong?
Last edited:
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
Here’s an article about the changing circumstances of slavery:
www.catholic.com
The Changing Circumstances of Slavery
Did the Catholic Church or any pope formally condone slavery? Click here for some historical backround on the changing circucmstances of slavery.
W
wkj_123
Guest
You have disappointed me @osculeturmeosculo. You can’t handle a morality system without God, so one based on empathy rifles your feathers. Getting past your in appropriate “experiment” which you are obviously not very knowledgeable at, will you not agree that Augustine was wrong?
- Status