Bible Slavery v. American Slavery

[Sweetdeath]

I think we do need to realise the constituion is as out of date as the bible. 

We should remember it was written by men, who stole this country from its indegnious people.  They were rascists biggots, and most likely supetstisious.  I think ot does need to be updated, big time.

I never thought the constition to be fair or equal.

[Black36]

^What?
How does this apply to whether slavery is wrong or not?  It's pretty black and white that is.  No matter what.

One should look at slavery objectively in each historical case, rather than in one subjective broad stroke.

[Whitney]

Here's an example: Suppose you and I observe a person who pulls up to a house in a truck. The person then gets out of the truck and then goes into the garage, which is open. After a few moments the person comes out of the garage with a garden hose, tosses it in the back of the truck, and then drives away.

Question: Has this person done anything wrong?

Answer: It depends. Objective morality requires that we have some more information before judging whether something wrong has occurred. If the person was a stranger to the house, then a crime was committed. If the person was the owner of the house, then no crime was committed. Make sense?

Could you please define what you mean by objective, subjective, and absolute.   You don't seem to be using them in the way philosophers use them nor how they are commonly defined.  

objective means everyone agrees...for example, "the sky is blue" is an objective statement.  Objective statements can be applied universally and are supported by evidence based facts.

subjective is when something is up for interpretation and there is no universal fact that can be used for validity...for example, "lavender makes wonderful tea"  someone could be correct in agreeing or disagreeing because taste is purely subjective and up to the individual.

absolute is when something is always a certain way no matter way.  For example....it is absolutely wrong to steal.  However, objective morality need not be absolute because it could objectively allow for stealing being okay under set conditions.

What you said in what I quoted above does not make sense given how I just defined words such as objective.  Do you mean to change the words you are using?  If not, then can you point me to the dictionary where it shows that I"m using the words incorrectly?

[Tank]

^What?
How does this apply to whether slavery is wrong or not?  It's pretty black and white that is.  No matter what.

One should look at slavery objectively in each historical case, rather than in one subjective broad stroke.

You seem to have a fetish about the word objective. Black36 you are now my slave. I don't care what you think about being my slave, you have no choice in the matter. You will sell all your assets and forward the proceeds to me within 30 days. You will then come to the UK where you will kneel at my feet and do anything and everything I order for as long as I see fit that you do so. Do you like that idea? If not you are simply making a subjective evaluation of your position as my slave.  

[Whitney]

^What?
How does this apply to whether slavery is wrong or not?  It's pretty black and white that is.  No matter what.

One should look at slavery objectively in each historical case, rather than in one subjective broad stroke.

So, in your opinion, slavery is NOT objectively wrong?

Sorry, but I don't see any good in owning people and being allowed to beat them under any circumstances.

[The Magic Pudding]

^What?
How does this apply to whether slavery is wrong or not?  It's pretty black and white that is.  No matter what.

One should look at slavery objectively in each historical case, rather than in one subjective broad stroke.

You seem to have a fetish about the word objective. Black36 you are now my slave. I don't care what you think about being my slave, you have no choice in the matter. You will sell all your assets and forward the proceeds to me within 30 days. You will then come to the UK where you will kneel at my feet and do anything and everything I order for as long as I see fit that you do so. Do you like that idea? If not you are simply making a subjective evaluation of your position as my slave.  

But if he was your slave wouldn't he be an object, and hence his opinions would be objective?
Or would they merely remain objectionable?

[Tank]

^What?
How does this apply to whether slavery is wrong or not?  It's pretty black and white that is.  No matter what.

One should look at slavery objectively in each historical case, rather than in one subjective broad stroke.

So, in your opinion, slavery is NOT objectively wrong?

Sorry, but I don't see any good in owning people and being allowed to beat them under any circumstances.

Oh I can see the personal good of having unpaid workers that did my every bidding. But after thinking about the issue and applying the golden rule I would realise that I would not like to be treated like a slave and thus would not attempt to own people. This would be based on my own judgement of the situation, not somebody elses.

[Whitney]

I probably should have said ethical instead of good since good is an inherently subjective word.

I would be concerned about any moral system that claims to be objective yet still allows for slavery.

At least with a subjective understanding of morality one can see how people of a time may have justified their actions even if we now have a perspective that allows us to view it as wrong. 

[Black36]

Here's an example: Suppose you and I observe a person who pulls up to a house in a truck. The person then gets out of the truck and then goes into the garage, which is open. After a few moments the person comes out of the garage with a garden hose, tosses it in the back of the truck, and then drives away.

Question: Has this person done anything wrong?

Answer: It depends. Objective morality requires that we have some more information before judging whether something wrong has occurred. If the person was a stranger to the house, then a crime was committed. If the person was the owner of the house, then no crime was committed. Make sense?

Could you please define what you mean by objective, subjective, and absolute.   You don't seem to be using them in the way philosophers use them nor how they are commonly defined.  

objective means everyone agrees...for example, "the sky is blue" is an objective statement.  Objective statements can be applied universally and are supported by evidence based facts.

subjective is when something is up for interpretation and there is no universal fact that can be used for validity...for example, "lavender makes wonderful tea"  someone could be correct in agreeing or disagreeing because taste is purely subjective and up to the individual.

absolute is when something is always a certain way no matter way.  For example....it is absolutely wrong to steal.  However, objective morality need not be absolute because it could objectively allow for stealing being okay under set conditions.

What you said in what I quoted above does not make sense given how I just defined words such as objective.  Do you mean to change the words you are using?  If not, then can you point me to the dictionary where it shows that I"m using the words incorrectly?

Subjective morality is based on the subject's preference. Objective morality is based on the circumstance. Absolute morality is always the case regardless of the circumstance. Biblical morality is objective. Is it wrong to lie? Yes, but there are times when a greater good is in play. Rahab lied about hiding the Israelite spies in Jericho. But, she was considered righteous in protecting them. David ate from the showbread at the tabernacle when on the run from Saul. Only a priest is supposed to eat from the showbread. Again, a greater good was in play, David's protection which would later lead to the Christ being born through David's lineage. Jesus allowed the disciples to pick heads of grain to eat during the Sabbath. Work was not to be done in the Sabbath, but a greater good was in play. There are many more examples of the Bible's objective moral rubric. Your example of the sky being blue is absolute, not objective. A color's wavelength, is a color's wavelength. The circumstance does not change it. If the group decided that the sky was pink, when it was actually blue, this would then be a subjective judgement of the sky's color.

[The Magic Pudding]

What's the difference between a slave and a conscript in time of war?
We don't do the slave thing these days but sending the unwilling to their possible death seems OK.

[Black36]

^What?
How does this apply to whether slavery is wrong or not?  It's pretty black and white that is.  No matter what.

One should look at slavery objectively in each historical case, rather than in one subjective broad stroke.

So, in your opinion, slavery is NOT objectively wrong?

Sorry, but I don't see any good in owning people and being allowed to beat them under any circumstances.

Biblical slavery instituted by God for the Israelites had strict moral guidelines. American slavery did not. Regardless of how much one wants to call them synonomous, it does not make them synonomous.

[Black36]

What's the difference between a slave and a conscript in time of war?
We don't do the slave thing these days but sending the unwilling to their possible death seems OK.

I don't follow what you're getting at here.

[Tank]

What's the difference between a slave and a conscript in time of war?
We don't do the slave thing these days but sending the unwilling to their possible death seems OK.

A conscript is paid for their time, there is also a nominal end period to their conscription, death or the end of the war. In a democracy conscription is also carried out by an elected government, a government that the conscript may have had an oppertunity to vote for. This does raise the question of whether a person can be conscripted if they were under the age of majority when the government came into power. Although in time of war governments often become coalitions for the duration and thus theoretically represent the whole population and act for the benefit of the population as a whole.  

There was an episode of DS9 where a projection said it was better to surrender to the Dominion than fight as that would ultimately save billions of lives. Needless to say the Federation did not surrender and billions were not killed.

[Black36]

What's the difference between a slave and a conscript in time of war?
We don't do the slave thing these days but sending the unwilling to their possible death seems OK.

A conscript is paid for their time, there is also a nominal end period to their conscription, death or the end of the war. In a democracy conscription is also carried out by an elected government, a government that the conscript may have had an oppertunity to vote for. This does raise the question of whether a person can be conscripted if they were under the age of majority when the government came into power. Although in time of war governments often become coalitions for the duration and thus theoretically represent the whole population and act for the benefit of the population as a whole.  

There was an episode of DS9 where a projection said it was better to surrender to the Dominion than fight as that would ultimately save billions of lives. Needless to say the Federation did not surrender and billions were not killed.

Thanks

[Tank]

^What?
How does this apply to whether slavery is wrong or not?  It's pretty black and white that is.  No matter what.

One should look at slavery objectively in each historical case, rather than in one subjective broad stroke.

So, in your opinion, slavery is NOT objectively wrong?

Sorry, but I don't see any good in owning people and being allowed to beat them under any circumstances.

Biblical slavery instituted by God for the Israelites had strict moral guidelines. American slavery did not. Regardless of how much one wants to call them synonomous, it does not make them synonomous.

However much you want to try to make there appear to be a significant difference there isn't. The situation is basically one person owning another who does not want to be owned, whatever flowery bits of irrelevent niceness you want to add to the issue. Unless of course you would be willing to become a slave, if not for me but for an orthodox Israeli Jew. Would you become a slave under the Biblical rules?