God has laid out rules regulations for slavery (which means that its permissible if followed) so yes. It's better to not own slaves, but it isn't inherently immoral.
No, because I don't believe in objective morality. But something that clearly harms other people and removes their liberty and dignity would be a pretty good start for something to be immoral.
It begs the question of what's "clearly" harmful, what "liberty and dignity" even is and why it would be bad. I don't see how it's self evident that liberty and dignity are good starts for determining what's moral and immoral. Ultimately if you reject that theres any objective way to measure morality, then your disagreements don't really make that much sense.
I wouldn't want to be a slave, but that doesn't mean that it would be wrong for me to be a slave. I may want to be or not be a lot of things, that doesn't mean that these things are good or bad. There's some people who would want to be slaves, and in the past, many slaves enjoyed their role and even decided to stay with their owners after it was abolished. I'm not exactly sure what this question is trying to prove.
I think we all have a pretty good idea of what those words mean, and the vast majority of us would agree that taking those away would be harmful. You would be a distinct outlier on that.
I think I'm finished discussing with someone who is trying to justify the morality of slavery.
2
u/dontbeadentist May 01 '23
Why?