Question about this slavery article

[fish90]

Please read this article about the Church and Slavery.
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp

Is indentured servitude still allowed?

Is a sort of debt work (I mean where a person agrees to work for a period of time without gaining capital but losing debt, but still maintains his God given rights) moral?

God Bless

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Please read this article about the Church and Slavery.
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp

Is indentured servitude still allowed?

Is a sort of debt work (I mean where a person agrees to work for a period of time without gaining capital but losing debt, but still maintains his God given rights) moral?

God Bless

I’ll skip the article and simply give you a couple of answers 1) Slavery exists in many forms, the American practiced slavery was a mixture of moral and immoral. The immoral facets received the main attention. The moral forms treated slaves as people of value, who simply had no money or land and traded servitude for food and shelter 2) Yes indentured servitude still exist is all the US Military Academies! The young receive a free education and have to serve an addition 4-6 years after the education. This is an opportunity to see how many would not want to abolish the US Military Academies even though some cadets die in war

chocolatework.com/slavery/chocolateslavery-definitions.htm

 

[Langdell]

I just took a quick look at the article. I have to say, I’m confused by what he says about indentured servitude here:

However, there are circumstances in which a person can justly be compelled to servitude against his will. Prisoners of war or criminals, for example, can justly lose their circumstantial freedom and be forced into servitude, within certain limits. Moreover, **people can also “sell” their labor for a period of time (indentured servitude). **

These forms of servitude or slavery differ in kind from what we are calling chattel slavery. While prisoners of war and criminals can lose their freedom against their will, they do not become mere property of their captors, even when such imprisonment is just. They still possess basic, inalienable human rights and may not justly be subjected to certain forms of punishment-torture, for example. Similarly, indentured servants “sell” their labor, not their inalienable rights, and may not contract to provide services which are immoral. Moreover, they freely agree to exchange their labor for some benefit such as transportation, food, lodging, et cetera. Consequently, their servitude is not involuntary.

This seems odd to me because he makes it sound as if indentured servitude is going on in the U.S. now. However, aside from the military (as mentioned above), it’s illegal to force someone to work for you, which was an essential characteristic of indentured servitude. Nowadays, even if you have, say, a three-year employment contract, you can stop working for the employer at any time – you “just” have to pay money damages for breaching the contract. No court will order you to keep working for the full three years.
.

 

[fish90]

Is it right to conclude that indentured servitude is moral and just, so long as that contract can be breached whenever by the indentured servant? Is indentured servitude legal in this country?

God Bless

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Is it right to conclude that indentured servitude is moral and just, so long as that contract can be breached whenever by the indentured servant?

Mostly indentured servitude is morally neutral, as in the current academy contracts. If the cadet fails to serve the military career he agreed to; then he owes the equal dollar value. If you look at the years 1500-1800 that was a common way to travel, many new Americans were indentured for X years to a low paying job.

Is indentured servitude legal in this country?

God Bless

Yes however as you point out U.S. laws always allows the servant to walk away; owing the financial equivalent. Today is hard to collect these default payments thus few indentured contracts exist today in the U.S.

 

[Langdell]

Mostly indentured servitude is morally neutral, as in the current academy contracts. If the cadet fails to serve the military career he agreed to; then he owes the equal dollar value. If you look at the years 1500-1800 that was a common way to travel, many new Americans were indentured for X years to a low paying job.

Yes however as you point out U.S. laws always allows the servant to walk away; owing the financial equivalent. Today is hard to collect these default payments thus few indentured contracts exist today in the U.S.

Technically, if the “servant” can breach the employment contract and be required only to pay money damages, then it’s not really indentured servitude. The distinguishing characteristic of indentured servitude is that the master could get a court order forcing you to work for him. (Of course, if you offered him enough money, he might be willing to let you off the hook, but he wasn’t obligated to.)

The only situations in which true indentured servitude is legal in the U.S. today are in the military (you can’t buy your way out of your term of service) and in prisons.
.