Augustine, slavery, and whipping

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Even though prior to the discovery of Divjak epistle 10* scholars such as Claude Lepelley and Peter Brown have argued, drawing heavily on Augustine’s homilies and Scripture commentaries, that Augustine evinced extraordinary concern for the downtrodden and destitute,[6] the Divjak letters provide additional strength to such claims and reveal the degree to which Augustine and his congregation were actively involved in socio-political projects on behalf of the poor, oppressed, and exploited. In addition, Divjak letter 10* reveals Augustine’s concern for political or citizen freedom—even though incomplete and in need of revision. This suggests that Augustine was not unaware of the connection between political freedom and metaphysical freedom—a connection commonplace in Franciscan tradition.[7] (In future posts, I hope to revisit, in particular, John Duns Scotus’s views on freedom and slavery).

I think it is fair to say the majority would send them to freedom.
 
Maybe you should enter the fortunetelling business with your mind reading powers. I wasn’t talking about slavery and I was talking about moderated disciplines not “beatings.”
 
Last edited:
Alex337 said:
Ah, but that ruling says all slaves should not rebel. You’ll be sending slaves back to non Christians, friend.
Click to expand...
Slavery is not intrinsically immoral (in the ancient world). It was a fact of life in the ancient world --an economic reality (and necessity), and St. Paul and St. Augustine treated it as such. In ancient times, slavery was a natural byproduct of war and taking prisoners of war. The only alternative was to kill prisoners of war (and their families) …which would be essentially immoral. Also, slavery in the Greek and Roman world was not like modern slavery. It was not based on race, nor were any one people considered natural slaves or a “slave race.” Slaves were, more often than not, considered part of the master’s family and treated fairly well. 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.
 
Last edited:
I am pretty sure I just did a bad job communicating them, but I think you also made some assumptions.
 
Why is it wrong for a parent to spank their child?

You’ve consistently refused to answer this.
 
That’s not talking on the morality of slavery but on the morality of disciplining them in a certain way.
 
Last edited:
OsculeturMeOsculo said:
That’s not talking on the morality of slavery but on the morality of disciplining them in a certain way.
Click to expand...
There can be no moral discipline of slaves. Slavery itself is wrong. There is no way to morally discipline a slave because the premise is immoral
 
That’s not a good question to ask and it even involves secretly assuming something if I say it might be okay. I am just looking at the circumstances of the time.
 
Last edited:
Okay so violence is sometimes okay. So teaching children that “violence is okay” isn’t bad, it would only be bad to teach children that unjustified violence is okay. How does spanking do that?

Arguing that spanking is bad because it teaches children that it (spanking) is okay would be a circular argument, since whether spanking is okay or not is the subject of the dispute.
 
Arkansan said:
Okay so violence is sometimes okay. So teaching children that “violence is okay” isn’t bad, it would only be bad to teach children that unjustified violence is okay. How does spanking do that?

Arguing that spanking is bad because it teaches children that it (spanking) is okay would be a circular argument, since whether spanking is okay or not is the subject of the dispute.
Click to expand...
Oh wow your not very good at this are you. I really don’t have time for non sequiturs. Because spanking is and of itself unjustified violence. You can teach children to defend themselves, and teach them unjustified violence is wrong by not taking out violence on them when they pose no threat to you. Your logic makes zero sense.
 
Alex337 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
neophyte said:
Always and everywhere? Nonsense. I was belted on occasion by my father, and I assure you that the most severe instances were the ones that were well deserved, much needed and would have been wrong to withold.
Click to expand...
So I guess it is somewhat common 😶
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top