Atheism, Slavery, And The Moral High Ground...

[seer]

Oops. I forgot that you defined "universal moral truths" as "the law of God".

Nope, I can't get there. But I don't see a need to.

No, I would like to see someone make the case for universals apart from God. Apart from a universal mind.

[Christianbookworm]

Why would a bunch of primates even be having this conversation? And not just looking for food and enrichment opportunities?

[Stoic]

No, I would like to see someone make the case for universals apart from God. Apart from a universal mind.

Okay. I'd like to see someone make the case that universals are necessary.

[Sparko]

1) Prisoners (are supposed to) get paid.
2) Prison terms are (usually) limited.

Edited to add: Actually, point (1) may be wrong - I'm assuming prisoners are paid based on various sources, but it may not be true, or may not be universal. I hope it is that case that prisoners in the US are paid for their labour, preferably with more than just food and board.

Prisoners are sometimes paid for labor, but they are still slaves of the state. They can't leave, they have to obey their masters. Getting paid a few cents an hour doesn't change them into "employees" - so morally how is this different from slavery?

Back in the ancient world, they pretty much took people who were considered criminals not bad enough to be killed outright, and put them into slavery to work off their debts. Same with prisoners of war/conquered peoples. I am sure masters gave their slaves money from time to time also. Didn't magically change them in to employees.

2. Not all prison terms are limited. And not all slavery was for life. Especially as mentioned above, the Jubilee where slaves were freed. debt slaves were also released when they paid back their debt.

[Christianbookworm]

And runaway slaves were not to be returned to their master, so they could just leave? If you can quit at anytime, sounds voluntary to me.

[Roy]

Prisoners are sometimes paid for labor, but they are still slaves of the state. They can't leave, they have to obey their masters. Getting paid a few cents an hour doesn't change them into "employees" - so morally how is this different from slavery?

A couple of other differences also come to mind:
1) Prisoners are confined by the government, slaves are owned by private citizens
2) Slaves can be bought/sold and inherited as possessions, prisoners can't.

But given the tendency in the US towards private prisons, these may no longer apply.

The situation of US prisoners does seem much closer to that of slaves than in European countries, although I think it still falls short of ownership of people.

But morally, there is another difference - prisoners have been convicted of crimes. Slaves could be born that way.

Back in the ancient world, they pretty much took people who were considered criminals not bad enough to be killed outright, and put them into slavery to work off their debts. Same with prisoners of war/conquered peoples. I am sure masters gave their slaves money from time to time also. Didn't magically change them in to employees.

People sometimes freed slaves too, but that doesn't mean the slaves weren't slaves.

2. Not all prison terms are limited. And not all slavery was for life. Especially as mentioned above, the Jubilee where slaves were freed. debt slaves were also released when they paid back their debt.

Please stop intermixing the treatment of Hebrews with the treatment of foreign slaves. They were two separate situations where different OT laws applied.

[seer]

Okay. I'd like to see someone make the case that universals are necessary.

I guess the difference is whether we live in an amoral, unjust universe or not.

[Sparko]

A couple of other differences also come to mind:
1) Prisoners are confined by the government, slaves are owned by private citizens
2) Slaves can be bought/sold and inherited as possessions, prisoners can't.

But given the tendency in the US towards private prisons, these may no longer apply.

The situation of US prisoners does seem much closer to that of slaves than in European countries, although I think it still falls short of ownership of people.

But morally, there is another difference - prisoners have been convicted of crimes. Slaves could be born that way.

You are going into technical differences, I am talking about moral differences. This seems typical of your nitpicking personality.

Next you will tell me a difference is that slavery in the ancient world was long ago and prisoners are something we have now

Not all slaves in the ancient world were privately owned. The Hebrew people were owned by the Egyptian government.

People sometimes freed slaves too, but that doesn't mean the slaves weren't slaves.

Please stop intermixing the treatment of Hebrews with the treatment of foreign slaves. They were two separate situations where different OT laws applied.

Since we are talking about slavery in the bible, it seems odd to try to exclude the Hebrews from the discussion.

I am not saying that slavery didn't have some bad qualities or that it wasn't bad. I am saying that the reason it even existed was as a way to deal with criminals and prisoners of war. They didn't have a concept or a means to house large numbers of prisoners and feed them. And being a slave is better than being executed after a people were conquered, right?

Today we still have the same problems with what to do with criminals and prisoners of war. And our solution is not that different. We take away their freedom and many of their rights. They are for all practical purposes, slaves.

slavery has a "bad rap" mostly because of the US version of slavery. But it was a practical solution in the ancient world, even if it was abused. Without it, what would they have done with criminals and prisoners of war?

[Machinist]

Why would a bunch of primates even be having this conversation? And not just looking for food and enrichment opportunities?

Well this primate at least has already been to the grocery store.

[Machinist]

I guess the difference is whether we live in an amoral, unjust universe or not.

You believe we live in a moral and just one correct?

The Atheist believes that it is amoral.

This is the impasse I get lost at.

[Christianbookworm]

Well this primate at least has already been to the grocery store.

Yay! Did you find good food?

[Roy]

And runaway slaves were not to be returned to their master, so they could just leave? If you can quit at anytime, sounds voluntary to me.

Runaway slaves from other nations who entered Israel were not to be returned.

[Machinist]

Yay! Did you find good food?

It's a grocery store. Of course I found good food.

[Christianbookworm]

Runaway slaves from other nations who entered Israel were not to be returned.

There is no reason to assume that. And the Hebrews were not to oppress others like how they were treated in Egypt. They ended up being taken in exile because they were horrible to God and others.

[Roy]

... But morally, there is another difference - prisoners have been convicted of crimes. Slaves could be born that way.

You are going into technical differences, I am talking about moral differences. This seems typical of your nitpicking personality.

That was a moral difference, Sparko.

Since we are talking about slavery in the bible, it seems odd to try to exclude the Hebrews from the discussion.

I'm not excluding Hebrews from the discussion, merely noting that there were two sets of laws, and you're replying to comments about one with comments about the other. This seems typical of your inability to deal with anything that isn't obvious.

I am not saying that slavery didn't have some bad qualities or that it wasn't bad. I am saying that the reason it even existed was as a way to deal with criminals and prisoners of war. They didn't have a concept or a means to house large numbers of prisoners and feed them. And being a slave is better than being executed after a people were conquered, right?

You're defending slavery as a better option for conquered people than genocide?

slavery has a "bad rap" mostly because of the US version of slavery. But it was a practical solution in the ancient world, even if it was abused. Without it, what would they have done with criminals and prisoners of war?

Rule their lands as provinces under the control of garrisons. It worked for the Romans.