Is slavery in itself okay?

[Nate13]

Wrong again.
But I am curious as to what (if anything) you were basing this assumption on?

You consider Paul’s message to be weakened because he told people to obey the legitimate authorities at the time. I’m surprised you didn’t quote Jesus saying “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” along with the others. How can you complain with the results that were achieved in the context of his whole message? Do you consider Ghandi’s message to be “weak” as well? It seemed absurd and you apparently have a problem with Paul’s message to women which I believe you would describe as degrading would you not? I’m still trying to figure out how “woman is created in the image of man” connects with undercutting Paul’s message of revolution? If I’m wrong, I’m wrong

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You can’t legally free your slaves, because the law considers them slaves forever. There is no vehicle for freeing them legally. You could actually let them go even if the government does not recognize it, but your past posts seem to only care about the legal aspect of it.

They probably choose to stay and work for you anyways though, because if they try to run for it other people will track them down and throw them back into slavery even if you don’t want them to be slaves, and they probably won’t be as nice as you were. At least they are in control of their own fate though now, even if the government does not recognize it.

No.
If circumstances leave them with effectively no choice (and I would not consider the right to run away and be brutally hunted down a real option) then they are NOT in control of their own fate.

 

[severus68]

To answer the question you first need to be clear about what slavery is. If we define slavery as the ability to compel someone then almost everyone agrees that slavery is actually quite good. In our modern society parents compel children, the state compels prisoners, the state compels freemen, the state conscripts freemen to die in wars.

 

[severus68]

The Northerners and the Union that they fought for was hardly perfect but the South was worse.

The Confederacy lost, and it deserved to lose.

Yes, I agree.

 

[exnihilo]

But (virtually) no one defines slavery that way.
According to your definition virtually any state of human affairs but anarchy is a form of slavery (because in all human societies people are compelled to do things).
Under this standard, labelling someone a slave is essentially meaningless.

Well then what is the definition and what is the immoral aspect? Ownership is not an option since ownership is just the same as the power to compel. Ownership is control and not just a legal construct.

Do you have any proof of these claims?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Those are not extraordinary claims. They are mostly facts that anyone can verify. I could spend the time providing proof but then what? Will that change your mind? If so I’ll be glad to do so. But I dont want to waste my time.

You think parents own their children like slaves then?

Yes they most certainly do. As I recall Roman parents owned the life of their children, like they owned the life of their slaves, and could kill them. I disagree with that form of ownership. But a parent can compel their child to work most certainly. They can compel them to be educated or not educated. So it is very similar. Ultimately God owns everything, but in this world men claim ownership of everything. If the parents dont own the kids then who does?

Why?

You obviously don’t have a problem with a small elite (such as slavemasters) having absolute power over a much larger group (like slaves).

Does it suddenly become immoral in your eyes when it could effect you and your peers?

Actually I’ve not really stated what I do or dont have a problem with. I just find it impossible to condemn slavery while praising the modern nation state. I certainly dont like the modern nation state. I could see condemning the nation state and slavery but not slavery without the modern nation state. I see it as bit hypocritical.

 

[Et_Cetera]

I’m not reading any of this thread; I don’t want to get outraged. No, slavery is not okay. There are about 350K members of this forum, and who knows how many daily visitors. This looks horrible on the first page of a major section of a Catholic forum. This should be locked and removed.

 

[exnihilo]

Again that tired arguement likening the parent-child relationship to slavery.

I’ve not been convinced of the difference other than words.

Try being an actual slave. Try being a victim of white slavery today, possessed by another, forced to do the unthinkable, being hurt repeatedly physically and emotionally.

The government made me register so that if they wanted they could force me to kill or die or be maimed for them. I cant say any of those things have happened to me. But they could have. Had they I would have thought it terrible.

Perhaps you can explain what you mean by this?

Christian teaching is that there is authority, the government, parents etc. If the slavery is immoral then the state and parenthood would be immoral on the same grounds.

What abhorrent, warped thinking!

I’m surprised to learn that (mostly) facts are abhorrent and warped thinking.

Someone not to use as an example and whose views should not be followed.

Do you know his views? If not how can you dismiss them?

 

[severus68]

I’m not reading any of this thread; I don’t want to get outraged. No, slavery is not okay. There are about 350K members of this forum, and who knows how many daily visitors. This looks horrible on the first page of a major section of a Catholic forum. This should be locked and removed.

The fact that any Catholic/Christian can say slavery is okay in any circumstances is outrageous, unacceptable and disgraceful.

 

[severus68]

I’ve not been convinced of the difference other than words.

The government made me register so that if they wanted they could force me to kill or die or be maimed for them. I cant say any of those things have happened to me. But they could have. Had they I would have thought it terrible.

Christian teaching is that there is authority, the government, parents etc. If the slavery is immoral then the state and parenthood would be immoral on the same grounds.

I’m surprised to learn that (mostly) facts are abhorrent and warped thinking.

Do you know his views? If not how can you dismiss them?

I am not interested in views supported by anyone who says slavery in the US was not too bad.

 

[Hastrman]

The fact that any Catholic/Christian can say slavery is okay in any circumstances is outrageous, unacceptable and disgraceful.

Depends how you define slavery. Chattel slavery is immoral, but forced labor isn’t—it’s just a lousy basis for an economic system (well, actually, it’s quite efficient, it just tends to produce minimal quality).

See, chattel slavery is where there’s a legal fiction that a person is an object, subject to ownership. Forced labor is merely where one person is constrained, by law, to work for another.

Generally speaking, you should only ever use forced labor in a dire emergency; conscription, for instance, is only not immoral in the case of invasion, and every Western country agreed on that until the “Enlightenment”, although freemen were expected to aid their lord when he went to war, in the medieval era (that’d be because in the Germanic tribes whose customs became feudalism, all freemen were warriors, and lords had originally been their chieftains).

 

[UnusVeritas]

The OP should have defined what he meant when he said slavery then. I think we have done a respectable job of breaking it down. What makes slavery wrong is:

1. Laws or social structure that recognize the ability to own people.
2. Taking away someone’s freedom’s unjustly.

The OP doesn’t know in what sense the Church meant slavery in the context of the Catholic Encyclopedia and the quote from the Holy Office. I was hoping for an analysis of what slavery means in those contexts and 1. Explain why those texts which defend the morality of slavery in itself are correct or 2. Explain why those two quotes specifically are wrong. I love the job of explaining why it’s wrong in general, but if someone could provide an analysis of my two quotes or either one, that would be great.

 

[exnihilo]

See, chattel slavery is where there’s a legal fiction that a person is an object, subject to ownership. Forced labor is merely where one person is constrained, by law, to work for another.

I’m not an attorney but I dont think slavery was a legal fiction, at least in the sense of the law. A legal fiction would a corporation being considered a person in order to apply law. According to wikipedia another legal fiction would be when parents give their children up for adoption. This is most interesting. In this case the court acknowledges the laws of nature that parents have control (ownership) of their children. The fiction is that the actual parent will no longer be considered as such under the law. He will be a stranger. And the adoptive parents will now be considered the actual parents. (source)

In the case of children the birth certificate is like a title. It reflects the actual owners and can be changed when ownership changes. The law sets an ultimately arbitrary date when the title expires.

I think persons are owned by the government. I am owned by my state and the federal government. I was required to be registered with the government at birth. I am required to carry a document indicating which country controls me when traveling outside of the US. If I earn money while working overseas the US government claims I owe them a portion of that money as tax. I can transfer my ownership to another government at the pleasure of the US. But I can not relinquish ownership by any and all governments. I think we would have to prove governments do not own their citizens to make the claim that people can not be owned. I do not think it is possible to demonstrate that.

But what is ownership? There is a legal sense of title. But I would say the idea is much more complex. I would think ownership is the actual power to control. In fact the law generally recognizes this with the principle found in the phrase ‘possession is nine-tenths of the law’. We find this idea of ownership is control in the claims of the pro-abortion movement where they say ‘my body my choice’. They are proclaiming that though they are freewomen under the law that outside control over their body is a violation of the rights of one who has ownership. Of course they are wrong in that they dont recognize that a fetus is a human and thus their rights are not the only consideration. But the ownership aspect has merit.

In the law today a person can own or control another person through power of attorney. If I have such power for a loved one I can legal decisions for them even if they are of sound mind. I can make health care decisions. I can even decide for them when they should not receive medical treatment which might lead to their death. It seems to me the power to allow someone to die is at least as great as the power to compel someone to work.

Generally speaking, you should only ever use forced labor in a dire emergency; conscription, for instance, is only not immoral in the case of invasion, and every Western country agreed on that until the “Enlightenment”, although freemen were expected to aid their lord when he went to war, in the medieval era (that’d be because in the Germanic tribes whose customs became feudalism, all freemen were warriors, and lords had originally been their chieftains).

I think we would have to develop this further. I dont think we can just say the rules are off in an emergency. By what reason does the state have the power to enslave people under any circumstance?

 

[Baelor]

I don’t think its contrived. I don’t think its uncommon in history to find cases where a group of individuals were considered slaves permanently because of their ethnicity or some group they belonged to.

Were they able to be legally manumitted or not? I do not care about societal perception, I care about what was legally feasible.

My statements only hold for cases in which manumission is impossible, which is evident from the fact that I referenced the assumption of possibility of manumission in each of my posts.

That would be simple to answer morally. He wouldn’t have stabbed the guy willfully or knowingly and you could probably argue that he wasn’t even the one you stabbed him at all. In other words not a sin at all.

That should answer your question about inheriting slaves, then.

Christian teaching is that there is authority, the government, parents etc. If the slavery is immoral then the state and parenthood would be immoral on the same grounds.

False. Slavery is defined as someone owning another person. This was pointed out by several people.

Depends how you define slavery. Chattel slavery is immoral, but forced labor isn’t—it’s just a lousy basis for an economic system (well, actually, it’s quite efficient, it just tends to produce minimal quality).

This thread is discussing chattel slavery, as has been explicitly pointed out:

Baelor:

That is what makes a person a slave: “a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them,” from my computer dictionary.

Baelor:

Let us use Merriam-Webster’s definition: “the state of a person who is a chattel of another.”

See, chattel slavery is where there’s a legal fiction that a person is an object, subject to ownership. Forced labor is merely where one person is constrained, by law, to work for another.
AA:

But (virtually) no one defines slavery that way.
According to your definition virtually any state of human affairs but anarchy is a form of slavery (because in all human societies people are compelled to do things).
Under this standard, labelling someone a slave is essentially meaningless.

exnihilo:

Well then what is the definition and what is the immoral aspect? Ownership is not an option since ownership is just the same as the power to compel. Ownership is control and not just a legal construct.

Ownership is an option because the legal construct is laying out a specific point of view. The fact that there is a legal construct that designates one human to be a possession and therefore sub-human (by definition) is sufficient to condemn slavery as immoral.

You and the slavery apologists keep mentioning the issue of control, etc. and then drawing parallels to other institutions.

Those opposing slavery are not arguing on those grounds. We are saying that the legal ownership and legal designation of someone as property is what is problematic.

Why would you keep arguing about control? No one is even discussing it.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You consider Paul’s message to be weakened because he told people to obey the legitimate authorities at the time. I’m surprised you didn’t quote Jesus saying “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” along with the others. How can you complain with the results that were achieved in the context of his whole message? Do you consider Ghandi’s message to be “weak” as well? It seemed absurd and you apparently have a problem with Paul’s message to women which I believe you would describe as degrading would you not? I’m still trying to figure out how “woman is created in the image of man” connects with undercutting Paul’s message of revolution? If I’m wrong, I’m wrong

Ask and you shall receive:

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
1 Corinthians 11:7-9

Here’s some notes on the passage by Biblical scholar Albert Barnes:
But the woman is the glory of the man - The honor, the ornament, etc. She was made for him; she was made after he was; she was taken from him, and was “bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh.” All her comeliness, loveliness, and purity are therefore an expression of his honor and dignity, since all that comeliness and loveliness were made of him and for him. This, therefore, ought to be acknowledged by a suitable manner of attire; and in his presence this sense of her inferiority of rank and subordination should be acknowledged by the customary use of the veil.

Source:
barnes.biblecommenter.com/1_corinthians/11.htm

P.S. I think the paragraph captures the basic idea fairly well.
Now I know that that is not how the Catholic Church interprets the passage now. But that is basically how many people (mainly Protestants) interpreted for a long time. And I frankly think that its a more logical conclusion based on the passage itself.
I despise misogyny, but I don’t think that any real student of history can honestly argue that the Bible (especially words of Saint Paul) hasn’t been used to justify it in the past.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You consider Paul’s message to be weakened because he told people to obey the legitimate authorities at the time. I’m surprised you didn’t quote Jesus saying “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” along with the others. How can you complain with the results that were achieved in the context of his whole message? Do you consider Ghandi’s message to be “weak” as well? It seemed absurd and you apparently have a problem with Paul’s message to women which I believe you would describe as degrading would you not? I’m still trying to figure out how “woman is created in the image of man” connects with undercutting Paul’s message of revolution? If I’m wrong, I’m wrong

He told people already oppressed and degraded by Jewish and Roman society (women and slaves) to obey and respect their social betters (masters and with regard to women men in general).
Yet all he asked of men was to love their wives and masters to be kind to their slaves.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You consider Paul’s message to be weakened because he told people to obey the legitimate authorities at the time. I’m surprised you didn’t quote Jesus saying “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” along with the others. How can you complain with the results that were achieved in the context of his whole message? Do you consider Ghandi’s message to be “weak” as well? It seemed absurd and you apparently have a problem with Paul’s message to women which I believe you would describe as degrading would you not? I’m still trying to figure out how “woman is created in the image of man” connects with undercutting Paul’s message of revolution? If I’m wrong, I’m wrong

Like what?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
But (virtually) no one defines slavery that way.
According to your definition virtually any state of human affairs but anarchy is a form of slavery (because in all human societies people are compelled to do things).
Under this standard, labelling someone a slave is essentially meaningless.

Well then what is the definition and what is the immoral aspect? Ownership is not an option since ownership is just the same as the power to compel. Ownership is control and not just a legal construct.

That’s nonsense.
If government compels you not to steal does it automatically own you?
If a government compels me to obey traffic laws does it automatically own me?

Can you see the difference between absolute power and limited control?

 

[exnihilo]

Ownership is an option because the legal construct is laying out a specific point of view. The fact that there is a legal construct that designates one human to be a possession and therefore sub-human (by definition) is sufficient to condemn slavery as immoral.

You are making a false claim that slavery must consider a slave sub-human. We all agree, I hope, that different humans can have different rights. Whether you agree or not different humans do have different rights: children, parents, husbands, prisoners, soldiers. The difference in rights which is based on a condition is not always a condition of choosing. Different rights do not necessarily make one sub-human. If reduced rights made someone sub-human then prisoners could be abused. In fact I think it is the wide acceptance in our modern society that those with less rights can be abused that causes the strong reaction against the idea of slavery.

Those opposing slavery are not arguing on those grounds. We are saying that the legal ownership and legal designation of someone as property is what is problematic.

Why would you keep arguing about control? No one is even discussing it.

I’m trying to discuss it and being ignored. If we go with your definition then if there existed an island in isolation with just two inhabitants, a master and a slave, we could not condemn that slavery because there was no legal designation of someone as property. I’m assuming the master does not go through the trouble of writing down laws, titling property, collecting taxes or doing anything else to make himself a government.

If we rely on this legal definition then how is the state not my master for the reasons I indicated a post above? I’ve got their passport title right here. I hope people realize slaves needed papers whenever they traveled off the master’s property just like we need a passport.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Do you have any proof of these claims?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Those are not extraordinary claims. They are mostly facts that anyone can verify. I could spend the time providing proof but then what? Will that change your mind? If so I’ll be glad to do so. But I dont want to waste my time.

.

No you can’t.
The only ones who advocate that position (without proof by the way) are Confederate apologists who embrace the Lost Cause historical narrative.
In other words, people arguing from a position lacking any moral or intellectual credibility.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
You think parents own their children like slaves then?

Yes they most certainly do. As I recall Roman parents owned the life of their children, like they owned the life of their slaves, and could kill them. I disagree with that form of ownership. But a parent can compel their child to work most certainly. They can compel them to be educated or not educated. So it is very similar. Ultimately God owns everything, but in this world men claim ownership of everything. If the parents dont own the kids then who does?
.

Perhaps God

That is what you said in the previous sentence after all.