More info on that #2 please.

I read this far from there:

"The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether."

And stopped reading. Seems like the answer is No to question #1 for that website.

Oh, you want a qualified or explained answer now?

I think slavery is justifiable, at least in some circumstances, as a form of punishment. I don't think any reasonable person has a problem with the notion of forced labor as a punishment for crimes. Slavery makes more sense especially in societies lacking the means for prolonged incarceration, as an alternative to the death penalty. It's forced labor with a permanent parole officer, you might say. (This doesn't address the issue of the condition of slavery being passed down to one's children. But you just asked about slavery itself, not about this connected issue.)

Even today, if there were a law instituting slavery to the family wronged as the punishment for DUI manslaughter, I'd probably be on board with that.

Generally and relatively speaking, the slavery of the ancient world was a less inhumane practice than slavery as it was practiced in the United States.

slavery in the OT was not a form of punishment, so basically you are saying the slavery in the OT was not justifiable.

even though i completely disagree with you on when slavery is justifiable, at least we agree that the slavery that was allowed in OT times was not justifiable.

and to claim you know for certain that "the slavery of the ancient world was a less inhumane practice than slavery as it was practiced in the United States" is interesting to say the least ... even then, slavery is still slavery, so i think you guys should consider not using this argument.

I gave one thing, punishment, as something that can justify slavery in some circumstances, in response to a question about why I would answer "no" in answer to the question "is slavery immoral?" So, please, try not to infer that I agree with you about anything that I haven't explicitly stated.

ok so then explain why you believe the slavery in the OT was justified since you obviously believe it was.

U.S. slaves had it WAY easier.

Read the OP.

"Slavery is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others."

Notice that it's not JUST forced labor.

I'm also likely in your category of unreasonable people, but that's a separate punishment vs correction topic.

Anyway, I'm pretty shocked at this tbh, not much more I can add.

I call BS on this one.

I explained above that the notion of a slave being considered under the law as someone's possession makes more sense in a society without the capacity for prolonged incarceration as a form of punishment.

Do you think it would immoral or unjust for someone who commits DUI manslaughter to at least temporarily be the slave of the family of the person he killed? As opposed to being incarcerated for a long time?

I said generally and relatively speaking. Relatively speaking, insofar as life was generally much harder in the ancient world all-around. Generally speaking, inasmuch as many ancient forms of slavery allowed for things not involved in American slavery, such as the right to own property (true of many slaves in Greek and Roman society), the right to purchase freedom, and laws affording slaves some protection. Most importantly, ancient slavery generally afforded a much better possibility of a freed slave taking up a normal position in society as a freeman, which was generally impossible in America, where slavery and racism went hand in hand.

Wtf are you talking about? Which part of a slave being an object is unclear? You can sell a slave, you can severely mistreat him, etc, because a slave is an IT.

Do I think that's immoral in any context? **** yes.


I don't know how you divide out hardship of slavery by general hardship all-around and then compare that for ancient times vs US. I really have no clue. At least you seem to agree that hardship of slavery was much worse in ancient times.

Relative to the general quality of life in the respective eras, I'd tend to disagree. Not that I'm saying there's much to choose.

I think that the (seemingly emotional) insistence that all slavery regards the slave as nothing but an "it" reflects the terrible character of modern American slavery, in which a slave was regarded as subhuman and in which a freed slave couldn't become a normal member of society. My point is that ancient slavery generally didn't make this assessment: slavery existed as a punishment or as a way to get out of debt. If a person was freed from slavery, he generally wasn't regarded as any different from other members of the lower class of society.

People tend to become emotional in defense of views for which they don't have reasons.

Do you think that life imprisonment and forced labor while in prison are justified forms of punishment? Is this not a case of the state, practically speaking, assuming ownership of the person in question?

I said that, although the life of a slave in ancient times may have been harder in some cases, in part this is because of how much harder life in the ancient world was all-around. This difference probably isn't that great anyway. Serves me right for trying to be precise.

I don't think there's any question that many forms of slavery in the ancient world were way less offensive than modern American slavery.

Also:
I thought you liked having your preconceived notions put into question.

Right, this is all I was saying.

tell that to the jewish slaves who were under pharaoh for supposedly 500 years, since you supposedly believe that portion of the OT to be historically accurate.

I don't think I ever mentioned or talked about freeing slaves. So I don't quite see why you keep talking about that. I've only been talking about slaves when you still "own" them.

I heard what you have to say. I really just don't have anything else to add - I'm not good at nor do I want to "preach" morals. I disagree with your viewpoint on both slavery and punishment but this is not my strong suit for argument.

You seem to be having some trouble with logic today, dknightx.

First, you inferred from my saying "X can be justified by Y" that I actually meant "X can only be justified by Y." Non sequitur.

Now you take my statement "X was generally regarded as Y or Z" to mean "X was without exception Y or Z." Item, non sequitur.

I never said that every instance of slavery in history was justified. I merely offered some grounds on which it can be justified.

Do you not apply your "learning 101" rules to your beliefs about morality? I'm not saying you should--but it should be telling to you if you don't that perhaps there isn't a simple, shortly describable, one-size-fits-all method for discovering truth.

It's midnight here and I'm tired right now, I'll return to the subject tomorrow and hopefully take a fresh look at it.

ok smart-o, this is exactly what you said word for word:

slavery existed as a punishment or as a way to get out of debt.

you DID not say this:

slavery generally existed as a punishment or a way to get out of debt

---

and i think you are having some trouble with reading comprehension, since i never claimed you said "that every instance of slavery in history was justified." i asked you to explain why you think the slavery in that is allowed in the OT was justified since its clear to me from you saying "So, please, try not to infer that I agree with you about anything that I haven't explicitly stated." when i claimed you agreed with me that the slavery in the OT was not justified.

if you agree that the slavery in the OT was not justified, then i dont understand why you are so upset that i inferred that you agreed with me, so obviously you do not agree with my statement and believe that the slavery in the OT was justified. If so, please explain and stop dodging the question.

I went back and realized my mistake right after making the post and decided not to edit it out. I wasn't perfectly precise, and for that I apologize. I should have said that you seemed to be inferring from "X was generally not regarded as Y" that "X was never regarded as Y." (X being slave and Y being subhuman.) In my haste, I represented the explanatory phrase from my sentence (the stuff after the colon) rather than the main clause, in which I did use the word '"generally."

Either way, I do apologize for getting a little snippy and being hasty.

I think it wold be vary cruel to do to the family.

The bible was often used by the US slave holders to justify the institution.

Let's just say that I'd be fine with it, if one of my family members were killed. Is there anything unjust about this form of punishment, as opposed to the guy going away to prison for a long time?

There would be so many problems with that type of punishment it couldn't be anything but unjust. Who is going to regulate the treatment of your slave the government? Leave it in the hands of the owner? Are they going to send out probation type offers to check up and make sure your beating slave your correctly? I mean you give me a guy who killed a member of my family and well...i don't know what i would do but it wouldn't be good. You're essentially advocating a form of vigilante justice.

The claim is made over and over in this forum that the rules set out in the bible, while barbaric by today's standards, were an improvement over the prevailing views when it was written.

Your claim that, paraphrasing, slavery wasn't as bad as we think certainly does not seem to jibe with this notion that as an improvement over the existing system, the bible established that you could only beat slaves so badly that they died a couple days later, but not right away; them being your property and all.

Let's say you treat him relatively well and just put him to work for you, because the law doesn't allow you to horribly mistreat him. You follow the law on this point. Would the arrangement be unjust?