According to the book Slavery and Human Progress
Chapter four's reaction to slavery in medieval and early modern thought is more theoretical and tangible as a result of its abolition in the European community. This results from the early Christians' association of slavery with the original sin theory. In addition to claiming that slavery was against nature, Davis and John (34) also proposed that slavery is a segment of nature's trend of administration.
In the Middle Ages
Canonists and early Christians both believed that captives should be manumitted and reborn. Not only was slavery justified when exercised to Moors or other infidels but also the church went ahead to punish the enslavement of Christians. According to the authors' understanding, slaves were not denied some rights such as having sexual relations with other slaves. But on the matters of marriage, it was supposed to be a contract.
A huge paradox emerged between the ideal of freedom and mercantilist enslavement policies
The argument on slavery was that it was not meant to be sanctioned by natural law, but rather slavery is veered towards necessity as authorizing concepts. Davis and John (36) defends the rights masters have over their slaves by believing that slaves have the rights to bolt out from the cruel masters.
Davis and John (47) justify that slavery is inevitable in systems of power relations
However, the authors argue that mixing labor with nature leads to property rights, although his prospects did not arrive in the abolitionism phenomenon. Slavery existed apart even from social contract theory. No legal basis prevented slaves to revolts from their bureaucratic masters. Therefore, the concept of abolitionism did not get its firm root to comport with the natural law of slavery.
Work Cited
Davis, David Brion, and John T. Noonan. "Slavery and human progress." (1986). Print. p. 32-51
