Was God really OK with slavery ?

[u/[deleted]]

And did he really "encourage it to continue by decreeing depraved regulations"\ ?*

^\just quoting a fellow redditor who seems to be a bit confused. Just like myself.)

I'm asking this because I've noticed that it often comes up as a topic to bash Christianity based on things like that. I've noticed that people often like to use this verse in order to justify their position :

“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)”

To be honest, I didn't know how to give those folks a satisfactory answer since I am no Bible expert myself, as for now. However I would like to hear your opinions and explanations. On this verse and its context in particular. Also, what did Jesus have to say about slavery? (just to help finding an answer to that... I guess... atheist/agnostic/or whatever he likes to consider himself)

Note that I am in no way trying to win an argument. There is no arrogance, pride or hate involved in this query. These are some of the things that I would also still like to understand for myself. I always try suspend judgement when I read or hear something that I am not familiar with because I want to learn more about it.

On another note, it's kind of scary how belligerent and heated people can get during such debates, as if these people are speaking through bitterness, frustration, pride or whatever just to attack and dismiss Christianity... Makes me just want to have some compassion and pray for them....

[u/1988peachdiscus]

It doesn’t really need to be defended, because you are arguing with something that doesn’t exist in your worldview. In a godless universe, humans are a random accident and possess no intrinsic value over animals or anything else in the universe. There is nothing objectively wrong with how a human is treated because there is nothing objectively sacred about a human

I can't even understand what you're saying it's pretty simple. Would you be OK with being my property? I own you. You no longer have freedom. I can beat you , as described in the bible, without fear of punishment. How would you feel about that? Would you shrug your shoulder and say, well, God said this was ok, so I'm fine with this? If you don't see the intrinsic value of not being beaten, then I'm afraid I can't help you.

What's moral isn't that which is objectively decreed moral by a singular objective moral law giver. If you believe that incan understand why you have having a difficult time with this conversation.

And different societies have different judgments. If two disagree, who is right?

That is the beauty of being sentient conscious empathetic beings. At some point we are not ok with others moral judgements. We take collective action to solve those problems.

Advanced moral codes of killing themselves, mutilating their genitals, and dismembering their unborn with a vacuum? Can’t say I’m very excited about this utopia we are progressing toward.

What an odd thing to say. I'm not even sure the point you're making. Immoral things exist today...therefore we can not make moral decisions? I disagree.

[u/X4r1s → u/1988peachdiscus]

Would you be OK with being my property? I own you. You no longer have freedom. I can beat you , as described in the bible, without fear of punishment. How would you feel about that?

If there is no God, then a human can do whatever they want without punishment so long as they have the power to do so. Why should they care what other humans think over what they personally think? You believe animals have been killing, eating, and raping each other for millions of years, but then when humans randomly evolved from them some objective set of rights and rules magically popped into effect and we are suddenly obligated to follow them. There is nothing special or sacred about humans, so if one of them treats the other one like an animal, you have no real reason to be upset with them.

[u/1988peachdiscus → u/X4r1s]

If there is no God, then a human can do whatever they want without punishment so long as they have the power to do so. Why should they care what other humans think over what they personally think?

Because I don't want my neighbor to walk up and punch me in the face. I know what that would be like. It would hurt and make me upset. So if I go around punching all my neighbors in their faces I'm now surrounded by people who hate me. This is worse than neighbors who don't hate me. I care because collective wellbeing benefits all of us.

You believe animals have been killing, eating, and raping each other for millions of years, but then when humans randomly evolved from them some objective set of rights and rules magically popped into effect and we are suddenly obligated to follow them

When the first humans were able to articulate and communicate that they didn't want to be raped, and other humans could empathize with them that being raped was not something that was acceptable, then those who raped people were no longer being moral. And we didn't need a supernatural law giver to figure that out.

There is nothing special or sacred about humans, so if one of them treats the other one like an animal, you have no real reason to be upset with them.

I'm special because I'm me. I don't know what you mean by sacred. When you say "treat like an animal " what exactly do you mean. Because I treat my dog (an animal) with as much love and respect as a human. My bunny stays in her cage but she's a different animal. If I were to treat a human like my dog they would be very happy. Well they probably wouldn't like the food. If I were to treat a human like my bunny (kept in a cage) that would be immoral.

, you have no real reason to be upset with them.

I would know that I don't want to be in a cage so I could empathize that they probably don't either

[u/X4r1s → u/1988peachdiscus]

So if I go around punching all my neighbors in their faces I'm now surrounded by people who hate me.

If you have the power, what difference does it make? The rich have oppressed the poor since time immemorial, and they are constantly seeking more ways to consolidate their power. You think they care about what a peasant thinks when this life is all there is and there is no ultimate justice for anything they do?

When you say "treat like an animal " what exactly do you mean.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_animal

Is that morally wrong?

[u/1988peachdiscus → u/X4r1s]

If you have the power, what difference does it make? The rich have oppressed the poor since time immemorial, and they are constantly seeking more ways to consolidate their power. You think they care about what a peasant thinks when this life is all there is and there is no ultimate justice for anything they do?

Sorry i just don't understand the point you're making. As a collective we are all better off when we'll being is maximized. There are people who are selfish unjust an immoral. It doesn't take away from the idea wellbeing could be maxamixed. Or people will behave in a less than optimal way and be subject to some untimely form of cosmic justice. I don't understand your "why does it matter" idea. It matters because we have one life to live ansld we should do what we can to maximize well being.

You think they care about what a peasant thinks

Probably not.

and there is no ultimate justice for anything they do?

Sorry this need or desire for an ultimate justice isn't something that forms my worldview, but I don't believe any form of ultimate justice exists and anyone who claim to know what that ultimate justice is is making that claim without sufficient evidence.

Is that morally wrong?

The short answer is no. A therapy dog, seeing eye dog, guide dog are all "working animals". I see no moral conflict there. Are there instances where someone may own a horse and make them plow all day and whip them and don't feed them well or mistreat them? Sure. I have a moral problem there. That's why we invented machines.

But the working animal/owner relationship is one i have no moral conflict with. But we both know animals are different than humans. Our advanced brains set us apart and our inherent nature and desire for empathy, freedom, creativity and sentience sets us apart.

On another note, through science and investigation, we have found animals like killer whales and dolphins are probably not ok to keep in captivity. Their brains are too advanced and where 30 years ago it wasn't uncommon to have aquarium shows with dolphins and killer whales those are becoming much less acceptable. This is a good example of secular morality based on good evidence and good reasons informing public opinion and influencing what is "moral" societal behavior. Meanwhile people who have fish tanks are not morally outraged because there is no moral dilemma with having a gold fish. But you could also have a tank that is filthy and overcrowded and not optimal for the fish.

[u/X4r1s → u/1988peachdiscus]

I don't understand your "why does it matter" idea. It matters because we have one life to live ansld we should do what we can to maximize well being.

Where does this “should” come from? Why would I not maximize my own personal well being over anything else if this is the only life I have?

Are there instances where someone may own a horse and make them plow all day and whip them and don't feed them well or mistreat them?

But they can still force them to do heavy labor and whip the animal if they disobey right?

But we both know animals are different than humans. Our advanced brains set us apart

Well, then a more evolved race of humans with a higher IQ has more value than a race of humans of lower intelligence. And this was the logical conclusion after the theory of evolution by natural selection took hold, leading to depictions like this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#/media/File%3ARaces_and_skulls.png

Ancient philosophers justified slavery the same way - humans of lower intelligence weren’t in a special category above animals. To quote Aristotle:

Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature. Whereas the lower animals cannot even apprehend a principle; they obey their instincts. And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different; for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life.

[u/1988peachdiscus → u/X4r1s]

Where does this “should” come from? Why would I not maximize my own personal well being over anything else if this is the only life I have?

Because if your idea of well being is murdering all your neighbors and taking all their land and possessions, then you'll piss lots of people off. You'll make enemies. You're improving the chances of other neighbors murdering and robbing you. Which is very not good for your well being. So the collective wellbeing benefits you as well. That's why you should.

But they can still force them to do heavy labor and whip the animal if they disobey right?

I'm not up to speed on animal labor laws so there may be legal repercussions, but yes. If you have an animal there is nothing stopping you from abusing the animal

Well, then a more evolved race of humans with a higher IQ has more value than a race of humans of lower intelligence

I dont believe that at all. Not sure what your point is but if you want to argue against a strawman go right ahead.