Similarly slavery in the bible is not the same as what we think of as slavery. Of course over thousands of year slavery didnt look the same as other parts in the bible. We probably would consider it to be more similar to indentured servants.
This is pretty much about Aristotle btw. I’m tired of bringing up points he made just to be met with “bUt wHaT aBoUt AriStOtLe’S NaTuRaL sLaVe ArgUmEnT?!??” If you understand that our concept of slavery was drastically changed by classical liberalism (because the average citizen used to be more subjugated) and chattel slavery (because slaves used to be treated better before America), then you’ll realize that Aristotle’s argument really boils down to “some people are meant to be workers.” This had nothing to do with subjugating people based on skin color. It is only offensive in that it insinuates a person can be born “incomplete,” but, otherwise, yeah, tough pill to swallow, some people are never going to be anything else but grunts.
Similarly slavery in the bible is not the same as what we think of as slavery. Of course over thousands of year slavery didnt look the same as other parts in the bible. We probably would consider it to be more similar to indentured servants.
This is pretty much about Aristotle btw. I’m tired of bringing up points he made just to be met with “bUt wHaT aBoUt AriStOtLe’S NaTuRaL sLaVe ArgUmEnT?!??”
If you understand that our concept of slavery was drastically changed by classical liberalism (because the average citizen used to be more subjugated) and chattel slavery (because slaves used to be treated better before America), then you’ll realize that Aristotle’s argument really boils down to “some people are meant to be workers.”
This had nothing to do with subjugating people based on skin color.
It is only offensive in that it insinuates a person can be born “incomplete,” but, otherwise, yeah, tough pill to swallow, some people are never going to be anything else but grunts.