The morality of Slavery in History and Natural Law

Status
Not open for further replies.
It appears that Creation always has a pecking order and a food chain. Monkeys, dogs and all pack animals establish an order. THerefore, looking at the natural world would only lead us to believe that slavery was natural and endorsed by reason. Scripture differs, but nature is very Darwinian looking, and slavery fits into this nicely. It seems that natural law would permit slavery.

But I do not put much stock in natural law.

I think Caddy meant "Natural Law" in the opening question of this thread to mean the original manifestation of the Moral Law in creation as many Divines used that terminology. It is confusing terminology since we also call the order we see in nature "the laws of nature."
 
Can you define Natural Law again?

"...The original manifestation of the moral law in Creation?"

What's that?

Only Adam knew that, and we cannot remember this. As we look around we only see a fallen world.

Sorry, I am unfamiliar with this technical term. If it does not come from revelation than it must come from reason or seeing how nature works and nature is bloody in tooth and claw.
 
Essentially he means something like "Ten Commandments written on the heart." Usually advocates appeal to Romans 2.15 and think that is the same thing as the ten commandments.
 
OH, thanks. Anything written on the heart post-fall really is not much use, is it? It can guide fallibly somewaht, but I wouldn't trust it much.
 
OH, thanks. Anything written on the heart post-fall really is not much use, is it? It can guide fallibly somewaht, but I wouldn't trust it much.

I would tend to agree with you, somewhat. I denied natural law at one point and this Reformed theologian in California kept calling me a Barthian. I hve no theological problem with saying the ten commandments are written on the heart. I think it undercuts teh purpose of natural law, though. It explicitly begs the question in favor of Christianity, which the natural law theorist doesn't believe we should do.
 
And also black people were enslaved by *Africans.* The slaves didn't just magically appear on the slave ships. The Africans (and some profiteering Europeans) were the kidnappers.

And that gets white slave owners off the hook???

I know that's not your point, but just because the African tribes that sold the slaves were sinning doesn't mean that the white slave owners weren't culpable for slavery.
 
From J.Budziszewski

The Foundational moral principles are not only right for all, but at some level known to all.
Once upon a time it was possible for a philosopher to write that the foundational moral principles are "the same for all, both as rectitude and as to knowledge"--and expect everyone to agree. To say that these principles are the same for all "as to rectitude" means that they are right for everyone; in other words, deliberately taking innocent human life, sleeping with my neighbor's wife, and mocking God are as wrong for me as they are for you, no matter what either of us believe. To say that there are the same for all "as to knowledge" means that at some level, everyone knows them; even the murderer knows the wrong of murder, the adulterer the wrong of adultery, the mocker the wrong of mockery. He may say that he doesn't, but he does. There are no real moral skeptics; supposed skeptics are plaing make-believe, and doing it badly.

As I say, once upon a time a thinker who wrote such words could expect nearly everyone to agree. And nearly everyone did. The Christian agreed, the Jews agreed, and the Muslims agreed. Moreover, they could call to their support the consensus of the rest of the human race. One might search the wide world over for a people who did not know the moral basics, but one would fail.

To be sure, the wide world over people also carved out excuses for themselves. I must not take innocent human life--but only my tribe is human. I must not sleep with my neighbor's wife--but I can make my neighbor's mine. I must not mock deity--but I can ascribe deity to a created thing instead of The Creator. And so, not only was moral knowledge universal, but the determination to play tricks on moral knowledge was universal, too. A law was written on the heart of man, but it was everywhere entangled with the evasions and subterfuges of men. Even so that law endured; and even so it was seen to endure.

This is the Natural Law, I am talking about.​
 
That natural law is the grounds for slavery is bunk.
I know that I do not want to be enslaved, and therefore I know it is wrong to enslave others.

Slavery was invented by liberals, commonly called "progressives" today. The first liberal, Killary Hinton, came along (who was very "progressive") and said, "We should help these inferior people by feeding them and housing them and in return they will be 'justly' forced to pay for our benevolence. So we are really helping them."

Don't blame that on natural law, Please!
 
Obviously my plea in my first post was disregarded.
Man's dignity as God's image bearer should never be misplaced, regardless of ethnicity, creed or inherent factors. And please, don't turn my statements into some endorsement of slavery (I've experienced this irresponsible overreaction before). I simply made biblical and historical observations.

I didn't disregard it or ignore it. I appreciate the statement! :up:
 
That natural law is the grounds for slavery is bunk.
I know that I do not want to be enslaved, and therefore I know it is wrong to enslave others.

Slavery was invented by liberals, commonly called "progressives" today. The first liberal, Killary Hinton, came along (who was very "progressive") and said, "We should help these inferior people by feeding them and housing them and in return they will be 'justly' forced to pay for our benevolence. So we are really helping them."

Don't blame that on natural law, Please!

I agree wholeheartedly! It just seems to be one of those things that "We Can't Not Know" -- to steal Budziszewski's phrase. We can supress it. We can accept it as normal after a period of time in which we know of nothing else but our own enslavement ( which has spiritual implications as well), but given the choice and taste of one verses the other, it would seem we would always choose Freedom. ;)
 
Last edited:
And also black people were enslaved by *Africans.* The slaves didn't just magically appear on the slave ships. The Africans (and some profiteering Europeans) were the kidnappers.

And that gets white slave owners off the hook???

I know that's not your point, but just because the African tribes that sold the slaves were sinning doesn't mean that the white slave owners weren't culpable for slavery.

No, it doesn't get them off the hook. But it is equally hypocritical to blame white Southerners when there are other people involved who don't get blamed at all.
 
Can you define Natural Law again?

"...The original manifestation of the moral law in Creation?"

What's that?

Only Adam knew that, and we cannot remember this. As we look around we only see a fallen world.

Sorry, I am unfamiliar with this technical term. If it does not come from revelation than it must come from reason or seeing how nature works and nature is bloody in tooth and claw.

Sorry if I was unclear. I was using the time reference to contrast the moral law that we know naturally from the moral law as it is explained in scripture later, say the 10 commandments. I didn't mean to imply that it was only something around pre-fall, I believe all know this naturally moral law. It is, as I simplify for my children, "love God and love others." Or to explain it another way, it is simply saying that deep down humans know the difference between morality and immorality. In past days puritans and others called this the Natural Law.

If you believe all humans are accountable for their actions toward God, whether they've read the Bible or not, then you believe in what they called Natural Law.
 
The first liberal, Killary Hinton, came along (who was very "progressive") and said, "We should help these inferior people by feeding them and housing them and in return they will be 'justly' forced to pay for our benevolence. So we are really helping them."

:lol: Was she related to Gal Ore and Ked Tennedy?
 
And also black people were enslaved by *Africans.* The slaves didn't just magically appear on the slave ships. The Africans (and some profiteering Europeans) were the kidnappers.

And that gets white slave owners off the hook???

I know that's not your point, but just because the African tribes that sold the slaves were sinning doesn't mean that the white slave owners weren't culpable for slavery.

No, it doesn't get them off the hook. But it is equally hypocritical to blame white Southerners when there are other people involved who don't get blamed at all.

I don't think it's hypocritical to blame white slave owners (be they Southerners or Northerners who also owned slaves). It might be hypocritical to blame ONLY white slave owners, but they do deserve a lot of blame.
 
The first liberal, Killary Hinton, came along (who was very "progressive") and said, "We should help these inferior people by feeding them and housing them and in return they will be 'justly' forced to pay for our benevolence. So we are really helping them."

:lol: Was she related to Gal Ore and Ked Tennedy?

Ked Tennedy! :rofl:


He's probably introduced himself that way many a time, especially later in the evening.....
 
The first liberal, Killary Hinton, came along (who was very "progressive") and said, "We should help these inferior people by feeding them and housing them and in return they will be 'justly' forced to pay for our benevolence. So we are really helping them."

:lol: Was she related to Gal Ore and Ked Tennedy?

Ked Tennedy! :rofl:


He's probably introduced himself that way many a time, especially later in the evening.....

What seems to be occifer problem?
 
That natural law is the grounds for slavery is bunk.
I know that I do not want to be enslaved, and therefore I know it is wrong to enslave others.
!

<Playing Devil's Advocate>

How do you know you are using your reason correctly? Me personally, I think that slavery is obvious from looking at the created order. I claim natural law on my side. What makes your counter-claim better?

Perhaps you feel it is wrong to enslave others, but I can use the same structure of the argument for exactly the opposite conclusion. For example, I might want to be enslaved; therefore, it is right to enslave others. Perhaps I am a masochist or something. Why doesn't that follow?

End playing advocate
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top