|
Post by rational on Jun 20, 2008 22:01:36 GMT -5
do you believe that they could be, as I have suggested? I would sell everything ..or give everything to a Worthy Master, ...that is what the workers do in a natural way, and all believers, in a spiritual sense, so, yes, if we give ourselves to a cause, is that not the same as ''selling '' ourselves? now don't take this wrong, please. Oh, I won't take it the wrong way, or any way. You have made the claim that all morals are from god. It is clear from the bible that slavery and the sale of a daughter was not considered immoral by the person giving the commandments. Since this must be a universal moral code, do you believe selling your daughter or slavery is a moral act? Given gods commandments on the OT, the secular laws against slavery could be considered ungodly.
|
|
|
Post by y me on Jun 21, 2008 0:17:47 GMT -5
do you believe that they could be, as I have suggested? I would sell everything ..or give everything to a Worthy Master, ...that is what the workers do in a natural way, and all believers, in a spiritual sense, so, yes, if we give ourselves to a cause, is that not the same as ''selling '' ourselves? now don't take this wrong, please. Oh, I won't take it the wrong way, or any way. You have made the claim that all morals are from god. It is clear from the bible that slavery and the sale of a daughter was not considered immoral by the person giving the commandments. Since this must be a universal moral code, do you believe selling your daughter or slavery is a moral act? It doesn't have to have anything to do with morality, even today, but the abusive practice of it, is (once 'abusive' is used, then we know it is immoral, so be nice)hmmm, I tried to call that a trick question, but you thought I was ''spinning''. You want a yes/no answer to an irrelative question? I think it can be immoral, and it can be moral, depending on the judge and the lawyer making the case. Look at Hebrew morality as a study, they read about Jeptheba (the father offered his daughter up for a sacrifice--unwittingly, was that immoral? It could be studied as a rash vow, also, but this is a symbolic account of keeping our vows, no matter how much they cost us--that is the moral thing to do.Given gods commandments on the OT, the secular laws against slavery could be considered ungodly. the problem with our secular laws against slavery, is that they are unenforceable, in a figurative sense, just like slavery is not inherently bad/evil, many low income laborers in our society are paid less than pitance, and do more than slave labor, the Hebrews themselves were treated quite harshly by their masters, and were quite relieved to get out of Egypt. but the reality was that was the enevitable position that this world metes out, and the 'world' (Egypt) is known to be a cruel task-master (even symbolically)
With the discovery of inflationary money policies, we find that productivity theoretically has increased, so that is our current economic format, is it better than well treated slave system, (perhaps), it certainly is better format than illtreated slavery systems (abusive slavery)
Perhaps one could argue that professional atheletes are owned, bought, sold, and are controlled by their owners, some are 'encouraged' to use health-altering drugs, for the selfish pleasure of the athelete's owner, with no real thought that in a few short years, there could be substantial health problems occuring... I suppose you could argue that they are well paid slaves! Well, is there a law against paying slaves well?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 21, 2008 16:34:44 GMT -5
Oh, I won't take it the wrong way, or any way. You have made the claim that all morals are from god. It is clear from the bible that slavery and the sale of a daughter was not considered immoral by the person giving the commandments. Since this must be a universal moral code, do you believe selling your daughter or slavery is a moral act? It doesn't have to have anything to do with morality, even today, but the abusive practice of it, is (once 'abusive' is used, then we know it is immoral, so be nice) hmmm, I tried to call that a trick question, but you thought I was ''spinning''. You want a yes/no answer to an irrelative question? I think it can be immoral, and it can be moral, depending on the judge and the lawyer making the case. Look at Hebrew morality as a study, they read about Jeptheba (the father offered his daughter up for a sacrifice--unwittingly, was that immoral? It could be studied as a rash vow, also, but this is a symbolic account of keeping our vows, no matter how much they cost us--that is the moral thing to do. Given gods commandments on the OT, the secular laws against slavery could be considered ungodly. the problem with our secular laws against slavery, is that they are unenforceable, in a figurative sense, just like slavery is not inherently bad/evil, many low income laborers in our society are paid less than pitance, and do more than slave labor, the Hebrews themselves were treated quite harshly by their masters, and were quite relieved to get out of Egypt. but the reality was that was the enevitable position that this world metes out, and the 'world' (Egypt) is known to be a cruel task-master (even symbolically) With the discovery of inflationary money policies, we find that productivity theoretically has increased, so that is our current economic format, is it better than well treated slave system, (perhaps), it certainly is better format than illtreated slavery systems (abusive slavery) Perhaps one could argue that professional atheletes are owned, bought, sold, and are controlled by their owners, some are 'encouraged' to use health-altering drugs, for the selfish pleasure of the athelete's owner, with no real thought that in a few short years, there could be substantial health problems occuring... I suppose you could argue that they are well paid slaves! Well, is there a law against paying slaves well? When you are done blowing smoke and spinning in the wind just post your answer to support your premise that all morals come from god and we will pick it up from there.
|
|
|
Post by y me on Jun 21, 2008 17:22:58 GMT -5
Oh, I won't take it the wrong way, or any way. You have made the claim that all morals are from god. It is clear from the bible that slavery and the sale of a daughter was not considered immoral by the person giving the commandments. Since this must be a universal moral code, do you believe selling your daughter or slavery is a moral act? It doesn't have to have anything to do with morality, even today, but the abusive practice of it, is (once 'abusive' is used, then we know it is immoral, so be nice) hmmm, I tried to call that a trick question, but you thought I was ''spinning''. You want a yes/no answer to an irrelative question? I think it can be immoral, and it can be moral, depending on the judge and the lawyer making the case. Look at Hebrew morality as a study, they read about Jeptheba (the father offered his daughter up for a sacrifice--unwittingly, was that immoral? It could be studied as a rash vow, also, but this is a symbolic account of keeping our vows, no matter how much they cost us--that is the moral thing to do. Given gods commandments on the OT, the secular laws against slavery could be considered ungodly. the problem with our secular laws against slavery, is that they are unenforceable, in a figurative sense, just like slavery is not inherently bad/evil, many low income laborers in our society are paid less than pitance, and do more than slave labor, the Hebrews themselves were treated quite harshly by their masters, and were quite relieved to get out of Egypt. but the reality was that was the enevitable position that this world metes out, and the 'world' (Egypt) is known to be a cruel task-master (even symbolically) With the discovery of inflationary money policies, we find that productivity theoretically has increased, so that is our current economic format, is it better than well treated slave system, (perhaps), it certainly is better format than illtreated slavery systems (abusive slavery) Perhaps one could argue that professional atheletes are owned, bought, sold, and are controlled by their owners, some are 'encouraged' to use health-altering drugs, for the selfish pleasure of the athelete's owner, with no real thought that in a few short years, there could be substantial health problems occuring... I suppose you could argue that they are well paid slaves! Well, is there a law against paying slaves well? When you are done blowing smoke and spinning in the wind just post your answer to support your premise that all morals come from god and we will pick it up from there. I thought you were understanding my point, although , my answer has evolved a bit, Because certain slavery issues are against the law, we NOW consider any form of slavery to be immoral, because we have been brainwashed into thinking that some forms of slavery are just! I think I could consider my own self to be a slave, because I do recognize the being that I feel owns the rights to my life. Do you agree? Slavery, is neither immoral or moral, any more than for me to say working for XYZ is immoral or moral. It could be. Language can be either moral or immoral, art work can be interpreted both ways, etc, Many issues. and as far as this thread/subject contrceptives could be moral or immoral, depending on the reasons for using them>. OK then, but for civil law, we do interpret some actions as ALWAYS immoral, but I AM not convinced of that, I think good morality, comes from good judgement, and all good things come from god, (do you want me to look up the reference, or if I just say I believe it, ...perhaps I am spinning my own doctrines again?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 22, 2008 21:33:47 GMT -5
I thought you were understanding my point, although , my answer has evolved a bit, Because certain slavery issues are against the law, we NOW consider any form of slavery to be immoral, because we have been brainwashed into thinking that some forms of slavery are just! Legal and moral issues are not connected. Laws make things legal or illegal not moral or immoral. You have stated that all morals come from god. Do you think slavery is moral?
|
|
|
Post by y me on Jun 23, 2008 9:26:53 GMT -5
I thought you were understanding my point, although , my answer has evolved a bit, Because certain slavery issues are against the law, we NOW consider any form of slavery to be immoral, because we have been brainwashed into thinking that some forms of slavery are just! Legal and moral issues are not connected. Yes and no, many people would say that it is immoral to break the law! do you agree? [yet] not always though, so you are right, human legality, is not the same as good morals, I agree {good point!}Laws make things legal or illegal not moral or immoral. hmmm, now....human laws can make things "legal''
but.................(divine/spirtual/moral) laws can make things ''moral'' , of course that is what we are discussing , right?[in my opinion] so I do agree with you! You have stated that all morals come from god. Do you think slavery is moral? Yes, it can be very moral, I think there were many slaves that love working for their masters more than for a ''company'', but abusive slavery is certainly immoral, just as it is discribed!so, rational, do you think ''language'' is immoral?
|
|
|
Post by y me on Jun 23, 2008 10:36:07 GMT -5
some forms of slavery are just! {and some forms are 'unjust'} sorry I missed that point! Legal and moral issues are not connected. Laws make things legal or illegal not moral or immoral. You have stated that all morals come from god. Do you think slavery is moral? Yes, it can be very moral, but also immoral, if it is abusive. Have you heard of people being 'love slaves', they say they will do anything for someone, and they seem to mean it, look at the polygamy compound , to see ....are these women being held slaves, ? perhaps, but if they do not object to it, would you say they are immoral, based on their devotion to their beliefs? perhaps, but if they are happy to live there, should the legal system tell them they can't? even though I hope that these people are not being harmed, ...how can we know ? can we? they don't fit in to society? I strongly disagree with the beliefs of this group, but honest I haven't investigated it much. My point is, that some people enjoy being slaves, (but how do you define a slave? If I say that I am a slave, would you accept that as my definition, hmmmm, this discussion will hinge on how we define 'slavery'? right? and sure, in my opinion, abusive slavery is immoral, but willing slavery......how can you outlaw it? how can you ''make it immoral'' ?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 24, 2008 16:51:46 GMT -5
Yes and no, many people would say that it is immoral to break the law! do you agree? [yet] not always though, so you are right, human legality, is not the same as good morals, I agree {good point!} Again, it is the act that is moral or immoral, not the law. Laws make things legal or illegal not moral or immoral. But cannot make them either moral or immoral. So you are agreeing that slavery, since it was a law from god, is moral. Finally. I don't believe there is anything else to discuss regarding this issue. I do not think it is moral for one person to own another. Since you have quoted the word in question, why don't you tell your definition before we try to discuss anything else.
|
|
|
Post by y me on Jun 24, 2008 17:54:44 GMT -5
Yes and no, many people would say that it is immoral to break the law! do you agree? [yet] not always though, so you are right, human legality, is not the same as good morals, I agree {good point!} Again, it is the act that is moral or immoral, not the law. .[/quote] My guess is that before the United Nations was formed to settle international problems, people went to war with other peoples, and if you were the loser, then you became the slaves of the other country. I think that is a fair way to reward the victors. Personally, I do not like war, if I was ever taken captive and made into a slave, I could only hope that my owner would treat me morally. (/humanely) Being a slave ''could be demoralizing'' , yes, but not necessarily. So, if slaves are allowed to have children, then the slave owner could sell the slaves he didn't need. I can see that ''humans'' would more likely abuse this slavery system, but in reality, it could be a very good system, (depending on how you define 'freedom') I think some slaves have more freedom than bluecollar working class citizens. , but that is ONLY my opinion. ok then?
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 24, 2008 19:42:27 GMT -5
I don't believe there is anything else to discuss regarding this issue. I do not think it is moral for one person to own another. Why not? Someone who owns slaves is just giving themselves a genetic competitive advantage. With more time and money than others they have more opportunity to disseminate their genes and ensure their own offspring are well provided for, educated and have their own competitive advantage. Surely you're not implying that slavery is objectively immoral in all times and places for all people?
|
|
|
Post by y me on Jun 24, 2008 23:43:09 GMT -5
I don't believe there is anything else to discuss regarding this issue. I do not think it is moral for one person to own another. Why not? Someone who owns slaves is just giving themselves a genetic competitive advantage. With more time and money than others they have more opportunity to disseminate their genes and ensure their own offspring are well provided for, educated and have their own competitive advantage. Surely you're not implying that slavery is objectively immoral in all times and places for all people? yan, but if the main purpose was for breeding stock, wouldn't that be the same as polygamy? just wondering but I do agree with you that that slavery is not immoral, anymore than putting prisioners in prision should be calle immoral, perhaps it is the only way to deal with war POW's and to let them work for their room and board is basec common sense, imho .....right?
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 24, 2008 23:48:51 GMT -5
but I do agree with you that that slavery is not immoral, anymore than putting prisioners in prision should be calle immoral, perhaps it is the only way to deal with war POW's and to let them work for their room and board is basec common sense, imho .....right? My post was rhetorical. Some types of slavery are immoral.
|
|
|
Post by y me on Jun 25, 2008 13:16:30 GMT -5
but I do agree with you that that slavery is not immoral, anymore than putting prisioners in prision should be calle immoral, perhaps it is the only way to deal with war POW's and to let them work for their room and board is basec common sense, imho .....right? My post was rhetorical. Some types of slavery are immoral. I agree, absolutely, and the type of slavery, might depend on who the slave master is? In the case that Hebrews practiced slavery, the slaves were permitted to gain their independance according to the Hebrew law, and if they chose to remain a slave, they could have their ear marked, and then they would be ''willing slaves'' ....perhaps only to the ''said master'' ---hoping he doesn't sell them, which most likely he wouldn't ...given the amount of trust the slave is demonstrating by having his ear marked? I find this subject/study most interesting, and want to thank everyone who contribute(d)(s). whichever the case, and thanks for rational for bringing up this subject!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 25, 2008 16:19:03 GMT -5
Why not? Someone who owns slaves is just giving themselves a genetic competitive advantage. By breeding with the slaves? Are you assuming the slaves are genetically superior? Yet that didn't work out all that well for slave holders. Can you name any situation where slavery resulted in superior genetic stock? Slavery was just the example. The statement was made that all morals come from god. That would mean morals are objective.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 25, 2008 16:21:16 GMT -5
but I do agree with you that that slavery is not immoral, anymore than putting prisioners in prision should be calle immoral, perhaps it is the only way to deal with war POW's and to let them work for their room and board is basec common sense, imho .....right? The question wasn't whether slavery was more of less moral than something else.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 25, 2008 16:38:23 GMT -5
I agree, absolutely, and the type of slavery, might depend on who the slave master is? In the case that Hebrews practiced slavery, the slaves were permitted to gain their independance according to the Hebrew law, and if they chose to remain a slave, they could have their ear marked, and then they would be ''willing slaves'' ....perhaps only to the ''said master'' ---hoping he doesn't sell them, which most likely he wouldn't ...given the amount of trust the slave is demonstrating by having his ear marked? The 7 year limit only applied to other Hebrews. Non-Hebrews were chattel. Also, in the example you were giving, the slave got to go free but not his wife and children. The implication was that the slave stayed because he loved his wife and children. Of course, it was also fine to beat slaves as long as they didn't die. I am still wondering how you can justify ownership of humans. Depriving people of free will.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 25, 2008 19:26:23 GMT -5
Why not? Someone who owns slaves is just giving themselves a genetic competitive advantage. By breeding with the slaves? Are you assuming the slaves are genetically superior? I actually wasn't referring to procreation with slaves, but I wasn't clear. What I meant was a person with more money, power and resources has more opportunities with the other gender and more time to pursue those opportunities. Such a person is not only in a great position to "maximise their gusto" to borrow from Zindler, but has the resources to ensure their own offspring get the best opportunities in life. If there are no such things as objective moral values, I cannot see how such a situation can really be wrong. It can only be distasteful to those who think otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 27, 2008 14:06:20 GMT -5
I actually wasn't referring to procreation with slaves, but I wasn't clear. What I meant was a person with more money, power and resources has more opportunities with the other gender and more time to pursue those opportunities. Such a person is not only in a great position to "maximise their gusto" to borrow from Zindler, but has the resources to ensure their own offspring get the best opportunities in life. This still makes the assumption that the available breeding stock, that is, the non-slaves, is superior to the slaves. Wouldn't it make sense to breed slaves to be superior as well? It would increase their worth. Giving your offspring the best opportunities does help the gene pool. That was the start of this discussion. The bible shows, in several cases, that slavery was considered moral. The question asked was if people considered slavery moral.
|
|