Is slavery in itself okay?

[AngryAtheist8]

I know Catholic ethics are not strictly Kantian, but nevertheless I think a useful way to evaluate whether an action accords with the natural law or not is to imagine its effects if it were universalized. This is because, even in Thomistic ethics, evil is its own undoing, so an act universalized throughout a society would destroy that society.

For instance, contraception. If everyone used contraception all the time, society would perish. Likewise with homosexuality.

I don’t think slavery can be universalized with respect to strictly human society. Slavery requires a master, after all. But it can be universalized when you take into account man’s subordination to God. Would it be good, then, for all mankind to be enslaved to God’s will?

Well, that’s what we’re called to, no? Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, says you can be either a slave to God or a slave to sin. There is no such thing as freedom, ethically speaking. Granted, it’s not the slavery of compulsion, but rather the subordination of the passions to the intellect which perceives God not only as his own highest good but as the highest good, period (in the case of “slavery to God”), or enslavement of the intellect to the passions (in the case of “slavery to sin”).

**We can also evaluate it by asking “does it conflict with our duties?” Remember that, in natural law theory, “natural rights” are simply the inverse of our ethical duties. So a child has the right to be cared for by his parents because his parents have the duty to care for him. Does slavery necessarily interfere with natural duties?

The answer here is clearly no,** although slavery has often taken pathological forms that do – 19th century America is a good example here. We can easily imagine a form of slavery that can be reconciled with our natural duties: for instance, in which slaves are permitted to keep and raise families, to attend mass, and their right to live and to the goods necessary to sustain those rights are protected. In the case of some obligations (i.e., the duty to obey authority), slavery offers one manner for manifesting that duty. This is the kind of slavery which was generally practiced in Europe around the Middle Ages. We have to remember that slavery persisted in Christian Europe and the Middle East long after the collapse of the Roman Empire, and that the percentage of slaves in the population was sometimes into the double digits; nevertheless, this society simultaneously produced large numbers of saints, and also saw fit to basically abolish slavery (though it often replaced it with serfdom).

Long story short, trust in what the Church says. It says it’s bad, therefore it’s bad.

The answer is clearly YES.

One of the defining characteristics of slavery (if not THE defining characteristic) is that a master has unrestricted control of his slave, and that the slave doesn’t have the right to say no.

A slavemaster could command his slaves to convert to Christianity (and some Christians would say that that would be good thing), but he could also command his slaves to convert to Islam or any other religion.

A slave is not an independent moral actor in according to the rules of slavery. He or she (and women often had it particularly rough as slaves) is viewed more like a piece of equipment.

Here’s a scenario to illustrate my point:
Imagine a family of slaves living in ancient Rome, the old Israelite kingdom, or Southern U.S. states during the 19th century (when slavery was legal there). Now imagine that the whole family is owned by one man, a man who considers the slaves nothing more than property.

Now imagine that this slave master tries to rape one of the women in his family of slaves. What will happen to the slave woman’s father or brothers if they try to defend her? Will the (slave owning) society at large side with the victim if the master is hurt or injured by her family?

The answer is once again obvious.
The society of the slave master will side with him, and if he is hurt or killed by the slaves trying to protect their sister or daughter, the slaves will by severely punished (perhaps even killed) with the full blessings of that society.

 

[Nate13]

One of the defining characteristics of slavery (if not THE defining characteristic) is that a master has unrestricted control of his slave, and that the slave doesn’t have the right to say no.

How is that different from a parent-child relationship?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Actually you would have to say arranged marriages and slavery are equal. There is really only one intrinsic difference between slavery and me deciding to work for someone and solely receive as payment a place to stay and meals. One was a choice. This is the same difference inherent to arranged marriages.

When a woman is given to a man in marriage in an arranged marriage he could be a good loving husband or he could be evil and do her harm. Either way she didn’t get a choice in the matter. The same applies to slaves in the past.

**I don’t think anyone then ever considered a woman not being able to choose who she married to be an infringement on her human dignity. That just wasn’t how it was viewed then. The same applies to slavery. **
That line of thinking has not died either. We take the freedom to make choices away from people all the time in America just on a smaller scale.

You’re right about that.
But that’s because slaves and women were not viewed as people (at least not to the same extent that free born men were).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

How is that different from a parent-child relationship?

The most important difference is that childhood (by its very nature) is a temporary condition.

Someone can be a slave for their whole lives, but nobody can be a child their whole life unless they die young. Children naturally grow up, but slave masters do not naturally give up their slaves in same way.

Besides which, most societies limited the power that parents had over their children in a way that a slave master’s power was not.
For instance, in virtually all (slave owning) societies it was a taken as a given that male masters could demand sexual favors from their female slaves.
But no society that I can think extended the same privilege to parents with regard to their children.

 

[Nate13]

The most important difference is that childhood (by its very nature) is a temporary condition.

Someone can be a slave for their whole lives, but nobody can be a child their whole life unless they die young. Children naturally grow up, but slave masters do not naturally give up their slaves in same way.

Besides which, most societies limited the power that parents had over their children in a way that a slave master’s power was not.
For instance, in virtually all (slave owning) societies it was a taken as a given that male masters could demand sexual favors from their female slaves.
But no society that I can think extended the same privilege to parents with regard to their children.

I see but your arguing that slavery is intrinsically wrong. Using what you said, slavery would be permissible if society regulated what was allowed and put a time limit on service. I also don’t see the difference from having your freedom stripped from you for 10 years as opposed to a whole lifetime as least in terms of claiming slavery is intrinsically evil.

Also can you point to any official Church teaching where the Church said it was ok to rape a slave because they were less than human?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I see but your arguing that slavery is intrinsically wrong. Using what you said, slavery would be permissible if society regulated what was allowed and put a time limit on service. **I also don’t see the difference from having your freedom stripped from you for 10 years as opposed to a whole lifetime as least in terms of claiming slavery is intrinsically evil.

Also can you point to any official Church teaching where the Church said it was ok to rape a slave because they were less than human**?

I didn’t mention the Church.
Frankly from my own perspective whether or not the Catholic Church approves of slavery has nothing to do with whether its good or bad.
The fact remains that in all slave owning societies the use of slave women for sexual gratification was an accepted reality.

Moreover, there is a big difference between indefinite servitude and selling (or being compelled to offer) your labor for limited periods.

 

[Nate13]

I didn’t mention the Church.
Frankly from my own perspective whether or not the Catholic Church approves of slavery has nothing to do with whether its good or bad.
The fact remains that in all slave owning societies the use of slave women for sexual gratification was an accepted reality.

Moreover, there is a big difference between indefinite servitude and selling (or being compelled to offer) your labor for limited periods.

Hmm well a lot of the slaves in the past have come from being prisoners of War. Would you consider that to be something intrinsically evil?

 

[keeponkeepingon]

I think the Church’s position on slavery has been to just agree with the status quo of society at the time. Whether the Church thinks it is moral or not is purely a matter of politics.

Correct.

One of the most difficult thing a Christians has to contend with is that socio-political influence over Church position. It is very difficult to explain your allegiance to the Church when things like the position on slavery are cast up to you. And it is very easy to want to turn your back on the Church based on these.

 

[Baelor]

Well, I believe the God of the OT is the same God of the NT. He didn’t have a problem with it and neither did Paul.

Paul is not God. And we are under a different covenant. The Old Testament condones beating slaves, something that the Church rejects (physical harm inflicted on another).

Actually you would have to say arranged marriages and slavery are equal. There is really only one intrinsic difference between slavery and me deciding to work for someone and solely receive as payment a place to stay and meals. One was a choice. This is the same difference inherent to arranged marriages.

They are not the same. A slave is property that can simply be used in perpetuity and until death, and killed without consequence. Arranged marriages do not reflect the status accurately.

Hmm well a lot of the slaves in the past have come from being prisoners of War. Would you consider that to be something intrinsically evil?

The answer should be “Yes, without a question.”

The issue remains: Do you believe that the idea of owning someone else is something that is consistent with Church teaching?

 

[HailStarofSea]

Yes and no. We still have slavery, i.e. the 13th amendment did not free prisoners for crime.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[2]

If our society had never had the inhumanity of slavery and slavery for prisoners who were murderers or rapists was all we knew, the passage would easily stand on its own. But slavery as practiced by much of the Western and Islamic world was a great evil. Revelations of Jesus and Mary have confirmed this. Jesus confirmed this in his Revelations to St. Bridget of Sweden (who is also a patroness of Europe) and Mary has confirmed this more recently in revelations approved by Monsignor John Esseff (Mother Teresa’s spiritual director).

 

[DaveBj]

Nobody has brought this up yet, so I’ll put my oar in.

1. Slavery is against the law in every civilized country (and in a lot of uncivilized ones). 2) The teaching of the Church is that we are to obey the laws of the land, where those laws do not conflict with the Law of God. 3) This makes slavery very much “not okay.”

 

[Nate13]

They are not the same. A slave is property that can simply be used in perpetuity and until death, and killed without consequence. Arranged marriages do not reflect the status accurately.

Haha that is not how slavery has been defined in the past, but sure I can agree that when defined as such they are not the same.

The answer should be “Yes, without a question.”

Then your against jails? That’s all our jails are. Prisoners of war were essentially sentenced to life in jail. Even quite a few of our jails have the prisoners work. Please explain how you consider this to be intrinsically evil.

The issue remains: Do you believe that the idea of owning someone else is something that is consistent with Church teaching?

No I do not. We don’t “own” the people in jail anymore than prisoners of war back then were “owned” though.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Hmm well a lot of the slaves in the past have come from being prisoners of War. Would you consider that to be something intrinsically evil?

Enslaving prisoners of war?
Yes I would say that that’s evil.

Wouldn’t you?

The alternative is a sort of might makes right worldview where prisoners of war deserve what they get because they were conquered.

 

[Nate13]

Enslaving prisoners of war?
Yes I would say that that’s evil.

Wouldn’t you?

The alternative is a sort of might makes right worldview where prisoners of war deserve what they get because they were conquered.

When we are talking back in the past when you don’t have prisons that are worth anything and your alternatives are: “death penalty or they work through their prison time” then I believe what could be called slavery would be a plausible choice.

What is different about having prisoners of war work during their prison time, and having criminals in jail do work in today’s world?

 

[Baelor]

Haha that is not how slavery has been defined in the past, but sure I can agree that when defined as such they are not the same.

Uh…Yes it is. In fact, the situation got so bad in Rome that they had to enact legislation to prevent cruelty to slaves because owners were literally throwing their slaves into pools of lamprey for breaking glasses at dinner. And many slaves were simply worked to death in the fields. Sort of like, I don’t know, the Inca in the silver mines when they were conquered

No I do not. We don’t “own” the people in jail anymore than prisoners of war back then were “owned” though.

Slaves are owned. 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.

Nate, I have asked you this question several times, and you have yet to provide a response. If you continue ignoring it, I will probably conclude that doing so would unravel your argument:

The issue remains: Do you believe that the idea of owning someone else is something that is consistent with Church teaching?

 

[TimothyH]

Christians are called to love. Period.

To use another human being for your own pleasure or your own gain is the opposite of love. This was taught by Blessed Pope John Paul II.

Christians will never use another human being. Period.

-Tim-

 

[Nate13]

Uh…Yes it is. In fact, the situation got so bad in Rome that they had to enact legislation to prevent cruelty to slaves because owners were literally throwing their slaves into pools of lamprey for breaking glasses at dinner. And many slaves were simply worked to death in the fields. Sort of like, I don’t know, the Inca in the silver mines when they were conquered

That’s great no one denies the fact that slavery can be evil. The question the OP asked is if its intrinsically evil. I would argue it depends on your definition of slavery and how broad it is.

Slaves are owned. 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.

I understand that. My question was whether there are practices in society currently that are the same as what was practiced in the past, who’s only difference is that one says they own the other people and the other comes up with a nicer way of saying it.

For example lets say someone treats his son and his slave the same way, the only difference is one of them he paid for. And when I say he treats them the same way I mean he treats his slave like a son, not his son like a how you would imagine slaves are treated. Would this be intrinsically evil?

Or ask this. Would it have been immoral to buy a slave if you weren’t going to consider that slave your property either by releasing the slave to do as they wish or offering them the chance to work for you? If you make the purchase of a slave intrinsically evil, then many Northerners who bought slaves and then freed them would have been committing mortal sins. Technically the law recognized them as owners, but if they did not consider themselves owners and did not treat the slaves as if they owned them would that be wrong?

If not, then it would say nothing to the morality of priests and bishops who technically “owned” slaves. If the purchase itself is not intrinsically evil you could not condemn what they did as immoral unless you knew how they viewed their slaves and treated them. Many of them very well could have chosen freely to continue working for the priest or bishop considering they did not have a lot of other options.

Nate, I have asked you this question several times, and you have yet to provide a response. If you continue ignoring it, I will probably conclude that doing so would unravel your argument:

Reading my response to your question the last time would help. I said “No, I do not”.

 

[Baelor]

That’s great no one denies the fact that slavery can be evil. The question the OP asked is if its intrinsically evil. I would argue it depends on your definition of slavery and how broad it is.

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

Chattel, i.e. property. In other words, the master owns the slave. I would posit that this is intrinsically against Catholic teaching. If you think that I was not aware of the nature of your argument, you are mistaken.

I understand that. My question was whether there are practices in society currently that are the same as what was practiced in the past, who’s only difference is that one says they own the other people and the other comes up with a nicer way of saying it.

Let us operate under the definition provided. When you mention arranged marriages and prison, you are offering a straw man argument – those issues are not addressing that of slavery, whether or not people in this thread can successfully differentiate between them.

For example lets say someone treats his son and his slave the same way, the only difference is one of them he paid for. And when I say he treats them the same way I mean he treats his slave like a son, not his son like a how you would imagine slaves are treated. Would this be intrinsically evil?

Uh, yes, clearly. Because he continues to own a human being, which is against that person’s dignity regardless of how he is treated. Perhaps an example will help: I can treat black people the same as white people, but think that they are intrinsically inferior. Even though the result is the same, this person is certainly not identical in this respect to one who treats black people the same as white people and believes that they are fundamentally equal in dignity. It is not a perfect analog in that it is weaker (involving only mindset and not any external manifestation), but if this is problematic, then slavery must be problematic.

Would it have been immoral to buy a slave if you weren’t going to consider that slave your property either by releasing the slave to do as they wish or offering them the chance to work for you?

In other words, freeing them? How is purchasing them in this case different from freeing them? Freeing them is of course permissible.

If you make the purchase of a slave intrinsically evil, then many Northerners who bought slaves and then freed them would have been committing mortal sins.

I certainly did not put forth this argument.

If not, then it would say nothing to the morality of priests and bishops who technically “owned” slaves.

…They should not have owned slaves. The “purchase” of a slave should not have been a purchase, but rather a purchase of their legal freedom. This is different.

If the purchase itself is not intrinsically evil you could not condemn what they did as immoral unless you knew how they viewed their slaves and treated them.

This does not follow. See above – owning slaves is intrinsically disordered.

Reading my response to your question the last time would help. I said “No, I do not”.

So it is okay to own someone as property?

 

[InJesusItrust]

Paul is not God. And we are under a different covenant. The Old Testament condones beating slaves, something that the Church rejects (physical harm inflicted on another).

Luke 12:47

"That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows.

Jesus did not blush when saying this parable. He did not tell slave owners to repent.

 

[ora_pro_nobis]

So, here’s the Catholic Encyclopedia on the matter…

newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm

And here’s a quote from the Church…

The Holy Office (now called the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a statement in 1866 that said:

“Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons… It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.”

So how is slavery NOT contrary to the natural law? And has the Church wavered on this at all? What exactly is the Church’s teachings on the morality or immorality of slavery? Was this made clear in the early Church?

But see Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical of 1888:

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_05051888_in-plurimis_en.html

"In the presence of so much suffering, the condition of slavery, in which a considerable part of the great human family has been sunk in squalor and affliction now for many centuries, is deeply to be deplored; for the system is one which is wholly opposed to that which was originally ordained by God and by nature. The Supreme Author of all things so decreed that man should exercise a sort of royal dominion over beasts and cattle and fish and fowl, but never that men should exercise a like dominion over their fellow men. "

I can’t believe there are people on this forum trying to defend slavery.