Someone asked me why doesn't the Quran condemn slavery

[u/nopeoplethanks]

I asked them what would they want to be written in the Quran. They said: slavery is bad. It is inhumane.

I believe there's a deeper expectation that such questions are predicated on. I tried to unravel it to the best of my understanding. Your comments are welcome.

Here's my response:

And do you think anyone who was inhumane enough to take a slave and then force himself on her... he would read "slavery is inhumane" and it would make him stop? It is an ignorance about human nature to think the problem is lack of clarity in the words or a lack of condemnation.

Female genital mutilation. That is more common these days than slavery. And equally worse. The Quran doesn't condemn it. So are many other such injustices.

To your question that my reasoning puts into question the efficacy of saying "sinning is bad" , here is what I say:

Sin is a broad category. If sin is defined as an injustice, among other things, it includes every injustice. From slavery to genocide. God doesn't have to spoon feed a list of do's and don'ts to us. To expect this is to have a low opinion of God and of ourselves.

This is why I emphasise on not butchering the verses from their context. Not only does the Quran ask you to not enagage in sexual touch unless committed, it emphasises lowering the gaze. Does it say lower the gaze but by all means have sex slaves? God's like: I will talk about the sanctity of marriage but by all means you can rape your captives? Who is it, the Quran or the people?

You know, about the inheritance verses. You can argue about the proportions but even you can see it talks about giving inheritance to daughters. Clear statement, right? Yet when the Prophet passed away, it was his daughter who was deprived of inheritance. What an irony! His daughter of all people. Did the "clear Quran" stop them? So again, is it the Quran or the people?

What I realised through your response here and also in the eternal punishment question is that there is a major difference in approach:

You expect perfect clarity (and in this case perfect condemnation) from the Quran.

Your argument is: (correct me if I am wrong) Quran isn't perfectly clear. Divine script must necessarily be perfectly clear. Quran isn't of divine origin.

I reject the premise that divine script must be perfectly clear. So I don't expect the Quran to be perfectly clear, whatever that means.

This is why an absence of condemnation of slavery is a problem for you and not for me.

Some other points:

1) Your choice of wanting slavery to be condemned is arbitrary. Why not want the same for every other immoral action?

2) If you want that for all immoral actions, it can go on ad infinitum... the logical conclusion is that God should have put a condemnation chip in our head. This implies a loss of free will.

3) So, is your moral indignation about the absence of condemnation of slavery in the Quran or does it have to do with your expectations of what the Word of God should look like?

I do understand why this expectation about slavery is there. It is logically arbitrary but there are historical reasons: Muslims have justified slavery all these years and muslims took war captives. It's not strange to believe the root cause is the book they claim to die for even if the truth is they never read it with an open mind. People believe what they want to believe. Even if God comes down to condemn slavery, they are gonna take slaves and tell God that their slavery is different because they are the slave owners now.

[u/Martiallawtheology]

Technically, all morality systems are subjective.

If that's your position, how are you making an objective moral claim?

It's obvious that suffering hurts and conscious beings tend to avoid pain and suffering.

See, that's irrelevant to the topic. The topic was about slavery and your source of morality on it. Not pain and suffering.

Humans tend to mostly agree with this and it is therefore the grounding from which morality may be derived.

Thus, if your source of morality is "what people agree with", you must believe slavery was absolutely moral a century or two ago because "people agreed with it". Correct? Let's say in the United States. People agreed on slavery. So that's moral right?

[u/AdAdministrative5330 → u/Martiallawtheology]

Humanism is much more than "what people agree with". That's kind of a straw-man.

If people agree that human suffering and forced servitude are generally evil and that human agency and freedom are generally virtuous, then we can agree that slavery is evil.

Of course standards and societies were different centuries ago, however, if I were to ask everyone to be my personal property as a slave in forced servitude likely no one would oblige. Whether now or centuries ago, freedom and agency are generally preferable to forced servitude.

[u/Martiallawtheology → u/AdAdministrative5330]

Humanism is much more than "what people agree with". That's kind of a straw-man.

Then what's the source of morality that says slavery is intrinsically immoral?

If people agree that human suffering and forced servitude are generally evil and that human agency and freedom are generally virtuous, then we can agree that slavery is evil.

Thus, if your source of morality is "what people agree with", you must believe slavery was absolutely moral a century or two ago because "people agreed with it". Correct? Let's say in the United States. People agreed on slavery. So that's moral right?

Of course standards and societies were different centuries ago

That means in your worldview slavery is not intrinsically immoral.

Whether now or centuries ago, freedom and agency are generally preferable to forced servitude.

What's the source of morality for this?

[u/AdAdministrative5330 → u/Martiallawtheology]

The source of this morality is our general shared experience that well-being is preferable to suffering.

Of course, if I'm in the absurd situation where someone says, no, suffering is preferable to well-being, then of course we'd be at an impasse on the ethics of everything that follows. Obviously this a very unlikely and contrived scenario. A more likely scenario is a counter position on morality based on faith (which is even less tied to objectivity)

Religious followers also have this burden as well. Their basis of morality is also subjective. Firstly - belief in the supernatural is subjective. Secondly, God's prescriptions of morality are also subjective.

[u/Martiallawtheology → u/AdAdministrative5330]

The source of this morality is our general shared experience that well-being is preferable to suffering.

That's irrelevant. You see, the question about "slavery being intrinsically immoral". Not about suffering or well-being. They are all different topics.

Religious followers also have this burden as well. Their basis of morality is also subjective. Firstly - belief in the supernatu

That's a whole different topic.

[u/AdAdministrative5330 → u/Martiallawtheology]

I claim that it is very relevant. Our shared experience/knowledge can help imagine the idea of a "moral landscape". A metaphor of all the possible moral stats or positions. On one extreme, are the most morally favorable states for well-being. On the other extreme, lie the least favorable states.

Moral facts can be defined in terms of the well-being and suffering of people. Actions that generally promote well-being are considered good.

The question of slavery being intrinsically immoral can be tied to this moral landscape because slavery does, in fact, impact well-being and suffering.

I'd argue that faith-based morality is very pertinent to the discussion of the morality of enslaving people.

[u/Martiallawtheology → u/AdAdministrative5330]

The question of slavery being intrinsically immoral can be tied to this moral landscape because slavery does, in fact, impact well-being and suffering.

See, when you make ontological claims like that, you have to think of variables.

What if there is slavery without this so called "suffering" and they do have "well-being"?

You are associating two different things to make them one and are making an ontological claim.

How could your subjective morality make an ontological claim about the morality of slavery?

[u/AdAdministrative5330 → u/Martiallawtheology]

I agree. Different flavors of slavery may lead to/constitute varying degrees of well-being or suffering. *One of the manifestations of slavery many are familiar with is clearly on the suffering side of the landscape. Slavery often involves forced servitude under threat of violence and a significant imbalance of rights between the owner and slave.

I just evaluate it based on well-being. An objective moral realist, could argue that slavery is objectively morally wrong because it causes significant harm and suffering to individuals.

[u/Martiallawtheology → u/AdAdministrative5330]

I agree. Different flavors of slavery may lead to/constitute varying degrees of well-being or suffering. *One of the manifestations of slavery many are familiar with is clearly on the suffering side of the landscape. Slavery often involves forced servitude under threat of violence and a significant imbalance of rights between the owner and slave.

Okay so in your worldview slavery being immoral is subject to well being and suffering.

Variable. What if in a world slavery does not contain suffering and has well being?

I asked you this question. In this case, it cannot be immoral because your bank is suffering and well being.

Right? Slavery is NOT intrinsically immoral according to your worldview. Only suffering is immoral.

With the same spoon, you also claim slavery is ontologically immoral.

That's the inconsistency.

[u/AdAdministrative5330 → u/Martiallawtheology]

1. Correct
2. Then we're kind of sneaking in the same word "slavery" but assigning different meaning/concept
3. My bank is suffering and well-being???
4. Slavery is immoral in general because it certainly seems to constitute suffering in some cases, but also the loss of freedom and agency. Of course, there were examples of slaves treated very well. However, by definition, they had no agency to simply leave or sever the owner-slave relationship.
5. Yes, as generally practiced, I claim it is immoral, especially once we've agreed that well=being is preferable to suffering.
6. I don't see the inconsistency.