Can A Human Being Truly Be Owned ?

February 27, 2010

Slaves do not act of their own will, but rather of the will of their master. If we truly are either slaves of sin and death or of God and righteousness, none of our actions would have any moral weight - good or bad. It would undermine all of Paul's salvific theology if man were truly and mostly explicitly a slave. What difference is it who are master is, if we are still slaves nonetheless? Yet, Paul states that we "offer" ourselves to sin and death. Slaves hardly have this capacity.

This passage must be taken metaphorically. Paul himself states a few verses beforehand that he is writing in human terms to illustrate a point.

-Kerplunk

Yeah, interesting, but hopelessly irrelevant. The reality of it is, that God's Will prevails in all things. And besides, none of our actions have any moral weight anyways. Those aren't the criteria for the Judgement. Only submission to the Will of God and Jesus. Where have you been ?

God is our outright Master. Totally. Self-autonomy ? An intriguing idea, but about a million Christians would beg to differ. Islam requires total submission as well. That's where they get the word. Total submission isn't much difference than being "owned".

Besides, there is a difference between "slave" and "zombie". We become a slave to something when we are reluctant, or powerless, or afraid to challenge it or revoke it's control.

I'm certain you can drum up a philosopher or two who might elaborate on that.

I can't fault you on the master-slave relation in Islam, I'm having a difficult time defending that. Luckily, I'm not a Muslim, so I don't have to.

I think the image of Jacob wrestling with the angel highlights a key difference between Judaism, and as an extension Christianity - to Islam. Jacob did not submit.

As a reward for his struggle, the angel said to him, "You shall no longer be spoken of as Jacob, but as Israel, because you have contended with divine and human beings and have prevailed."

If God wanted us to submit like slaves, why would he have rewarded Jacob?

-Kerplunk

February 27, 2010

Franko,

You make a lot of good points in your posts here. However, it seems that you are painting all religious concepts of "God" or "Gods" with one broad brush, which I think is inaccurate.

Why must I be reduced to a helpless child, at the mercy of mysterious god-beings, just for the sake of wanting to believe in something greater than myself ? Why must I become worthless in such a process ? That is what religion dictates, every time. Why can't I have value as well as the God ?

Many of us here (including me) have experienced firsthand this kind of religious thinking about "the human place" relative to the Christian God, especially in conservative churches. But this is not necessarily true in more liberal forms of Christianity (esp. those incorporating process theology), or in other religions.

One of the most profound religious experiences I've ever had -- which was in a Pagan context -- directly countered the kind of religious philosophy you refer to above (which I grew up with, too).

This is one of the major criticisms I have of religion, the fact that it tries to demote if not demoralize the the humanistic element. If I don't have autonomy, even in a universal sense, if I do not own myself, then I have no rights. It matters little how benevolent the "god" may be. There use to be a sense of philosophy within theology that was about Man meeting God "half-way". Now, it seems, more and more, it's about the individual being worth "nothing" without some kind of approval by their God. In some ways, radical Islam and Christianity (fundamentalism) have regressed this concept right back into the middle ages.

Again, I agree with you with respect to conservative Christianity and the other forms of religion with a "master/slave" mentality.

My point is that there are religious ways of thinking of the "human place" which are very different than this. Since you put this thread in the "ex-Christian theism or spirituality" section I thought you might want to know that.

A very insightful post, MB Lady. I agree that there are distinctions throughout Christianity itself regarding these issues; I did actually want to be challenged a bit in this thread since I start with quite a "generalization".

February 27, 2010

I can't fault you on the master-slave relation in Islam, I'm having a difficult time defending that. Luckily, I'm not a Muslim, so I don't have to.

I think the image of Jacob wrestling with the angel highlights a key difference between Judaism, and as an extension Christianity - to Islam. Jacob did not submit.

As a reward for his struggle, the angel said to him, "You shall no longer be spoken of as Jacob, but as Israel, because you have contended with divine and human beings and have prevailed."

If God wanted us to submit like slaves, why would he have rewarded Jacob?

-Kerplunk

An interesting example. I'm beginning to realize in retrospect that my contentions here apply to what is a diverse aspect of Christian thought; I suppose that a lot of this depends upon the "adherent" or follower of a faith; how you regard your status and being in the context of one's relationship with a Super Being.

I suppose I'm operating off of the idea that even if we create a life form, or a self-aware intelligence, does it follow that we can do with it as we please just because we have "creator" status ? I wouldn't mind kicking that dilemma around, if anyone's interested.

February 27, 2010

I suppose I'm operating off of the idea that even if we create a life form, or a self-aware intelligence, does it follow that we can do with it as we please just because we have "creator" status ? I wouldn't mind kicking that dilemma around, if anyone's interested.

Oh, that's Good!

There are several science fictions stories/movies/books about the creator/created relationship. I won't be able to give exhaustive examples, but Bladerunner comes to mind, and the movie Short Circuit, Some books by Isaac Asimov, The movie "The Island", Bicentenial Man, etc.

Many such books and films touch upon the problems of autonomy versus purpose. Robots and clones would be "created" for a purpose and may be considered to be at the disposal of the creator.

Almost everything I have read or seen suggests that an autonomous being would be deserving of some consideration that we would normally afford humans created the usual way. The lines get blurry with robots which we may not recognize as sentient even though they may act autonomously. Many such stories indicate that robots, in particular, seem to be thought of as "tools" rather then "beings." Except for a possible moment of loss, we don't think much about destroying a computer.

How......about....a nice.....game...of...........chess?

February 27, 2010

A very insightful post, MB Lady. I agree that there are distinctions throughout Christianity itself regarding these issues; I did actually want to be challenged a bit in this thread since I start with quite a "generalization".

Do you want more along these lines? Are alternate examples part of what you were hoping to get in response?

February 28, 2010

A very insightful post, MB Lady. I agree that there are distinctions throughout Christianity itself regarding these issues; I did actually want to be challenged a bit in this thread since I start with quite a "generalization".

Do you want more along these lines? Are alternate examples part of what you were hoping to get in response?

Actually, I understand that in other religious and spiritual practices, this relationship is seen differently. I just maintain that in most monotheistic cases, "God" is given complete autonomy and ownership over the human individual. There may be the odd Bible incident where for a brief moment God shows some respect for a specific individual, such as the example Kerplunk made, but for the most part, I don't think so.

It's pretty well His show, His rules, and His whim. And that goes for our temporal existence, as well as the afterlife. In a way, I think this gives rise to the popular meme that Christians and other monotheists have spoken for quite some time, which is:

"Without the Lord, I am Nothing". It's a continous meme/theme, that I've heard a million times.

Again, many Christians have easily accepted their worthlessness and irrelevancy unless recognized by this "God".

February 28, 2010

How......about....a nice.....game...of...........chess?

Yes, my computer waxed me at chess all afternoon, but didn't fair so well when we turned to a little "kickboxing".

While still a ways off, the idea of creating a self-aware AI will eventually happen. There will be some interesting ethics to be dealt with, but for the moment I don't think my toaster, even with it's digital little brain, should have any "rights".

February 28, 2010

It's pretty well His show, His rules, and His whim. And that goes for our temporal existence, as well as the afterlife. In a way, I think this gives rise to the popular meme that Christians and other monotheists have spoken for quite some time, which is:

"Without the Lord, I am Nothing". It's a continous meme/theme, that I've heard a million times.

Again, many Christians have easily accepted their worthlessness and irrelevancy unless recognized by this "God".

Well, I can't argue with any of this. I've certainly heard all that, too.

February 28, 2010

It is ontologically contradictory to say that a person can be owned.

Eh? How?

Why did Plato and Aristotle not argue against slavery if that's the case?

Persons, by their very nature, ought to be a law unto themselves, treated always as an end, and never merely a means.

That's from Kant, 18th century. So how can slavery be ontological contradictory without any philosopher recognizing it as such until 200 years ago?

Man is not meant to be a slave. Any religious group which says so is either gravely mistaken, or merely using metaphorical language.

That's right.

February 28, 2010

Slaves do not act of their own will, but rather of the will of their master. If we truly are either slaves of sin and death or of God and righteousness, none of our actions would have any moral weight - good or bad. It would undermine all of Paul's salvific theology if man were truly and mostly explicitly a slave. What difference is it who are master is, if we are still slaves nonetheless? Yet, Paul states that we "offer" ourselves to sin and death. Slaves hardly have this capacity.

My understanding of slavery during the Roman empire was that people could sell themselves as slaves to pay for a debt. And it was more like a contract, which after completion was dissolved.

February 28, 2010

It is ontologically contradictory to say that a person can be owned.

Eh? How?

Why did Plato and Aristotle not argue against slavery if that's the case?

Persons, by their very nature, ought to be a law unto themselves, treated always as an end, and never merely a means.

That's from Kant, 18th century. So how can slavery be ontological contradictory without any philosopher recognizing it as such until 200 years ago?

Man is not meant to be a slave. Any religious group which says so is either gravely mistaken, or merely using metaphorical language.

That's right.

Aristotle did argue against slavery, or at least the common practice of one nation conquering another nation and then taking the conquered nation's inhabitants, regardless of intellect, as slaves. Aristotle speaks of natural slaves - it's unclear however what he meant by it. But it clear that a person who has right reason and the capacity to order his own life should not be enslaved.

-Kerplunk

February 28, 2010

People are willing to be slaves. I do genealogical research for my family and I have seen on occasion where someone indentures one's self to someone in order to obtain what they cannot afford without some type of servitude. For instance, I had an ancestor that indentured herself to a family for five years, at the end of the first three years the family was to give her a milk cow. I can think of many reasons I would want to indenture myself but obtaining a milk cow is not one of them. However, a milk cow was important in the 1600s. I believe a person can be owned when a person is willing to be a slave. They accept whatever rewards and punishment go along with being a slave. One who becomes a slave because he has been captured in battle is not as much a slave as one who has been born into servitude because all they know is being a slave. After leaving the religion as a former slave, I can see how mentally one is manipulated into becoming a slave to the religion.

February 28, 2010

Aristotle did argue against slavery, or at least the common practice of one nation conquering another nation and then taking the conquered nation's inhabitants, regardless of intellect, as slaves. Aristotle speaks of natural slaves - it's unclear however what he meant by it. But it clear that a person who has right reason and the capacity to order his own life should not be enslaved.

If I remember correctly from class, Aristotle only argued against slavery of the fellow Greek, not other people. Or perhaps I'm mixing up Plato and Aristotle. Do you perchance have a quote exemplifying Aristotle's view?

Yet I fail to see how it is an ontological absolute, unless we define the value of human liberty and self-governance in absolute terms.

March 1, 2010

I believe a person can be owned when a person is willing to be a slave. They accept whatever rewards and punishment go along with being a slave. One who becomes a slave because he has been captured in battle is not as much a slave as one who has been born into servitude because all they know is being a slave. After leaving the religion as a former slave, I can see how mentally one is manipulated into becoming a slave to the religion.

You have outlined three methods of becoming a slave.

1. Voluntarily

2. By Capture

3. Born into slavery

I think that, for anyone that could be considered a slave, there are benefits and punishments. For the relative who wanted a milk cow, she risked losing the cow if she failed to do the bidding of her "owners." For the one captured, they might risk their life or the lives of their family if they seek to escape. For those born into slavery, they may not have any other options and they would likely starve even if they could escape (and I'd bet there would be punishments for attempting to escape).

In the end, slavery is a real phenomenon, not an ontological impossibiilty. Perhaps those who work for a salary are slaves in a sense; my family and I would starve if I didn't do what I am trained to do to get the rewards I am promised for my labor.

If the punishments exceed the rewards for not doing another's bidding, we are effectively slaves to another. In my case, the rewards exceed the punishments, so I do not consider myself a slave.

That is perhaps the distinction. Do you consider yourself to be a slave?

March 7, 2010

No, a person cannot be owned nor is a person a resource. That's why I can't stand collectivist ideologies. They're no different than religion in my opinion. They try and program people into that "greater good" "serve the community" type bullshit. I don't owe the community or anyone else anything. No has any rights over me.

March 17, 2010

People willing allow the government to dictate what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. Then they try to force their enslavement on others. This is a form of slavery in that your control over your own body is abdicated to the will of the government.