After reading over these laws I believe that for the most part these laws (with exceptions like the 10 commandments) are not consistent moral ideas. In order to examine this assertion more closely, I want to discuss the first law discussed in Exodus 21: the law concerning slaves and the first law of Exodus 22: dealing with thieves.
This law lays out clearly how one is supposed to deal with owning slaves. It states that you are to own a slave for a specific amount of time and then free them and their family. This clearly is not a consistent moral idea since it allows for slavery. Instead, this law is meant more to cause obedience and submission. By having this law, I feel that the Israelites are commanded to treat their slaves better (as opposed to getting rid of the institution) and give them respect. This seems to be a sort of compromise (one that clearly wouldn’t happen if these were a set of moral standards) that allows for the Israelites to continue their practice, but to do it in a more organized, fair way.
This law states that one’s punishment depends on the time it was committed. Since theft is not morally just, the time of day shouldn’t affect the punishment—thus furthering the idea that this is not a consistent moral code. By saying that a thief’s blood cannot be avenged if the crime is committed at night makes the law very specific and rather contradictory. Because of this the law only seems to be meant to cause the Israelites to be obedient to God.
John Seida 
It’s important to consider the historical and sociocultural context of the time that these passages in Exodus were written before making value judgements about them. Realizing that slavery was a social norm– and fully accepted as moral and just by even the most devout Christians– can help us re-examine these passages in a different light. I would argue that the laws about slavery actually are “morally consistent” given this context. Abolishing slavery was simply not conceivable at the time because it was a truly integral part of social and political life. Demanding treatment of slaves, however, is a clear demonstration of respect for the dignity of all life, even those considered to be at the nadir of society.
LikeLike
While I agree with you that slavery was a social norm and that it may have been ‘accepted’ as moral and just–it is not. Because of this I do not think it qualifies as a morally consistent law. This law gave a way for slavery to happen in a more just way. We can draw parallels regarding this with what Jesus said about divorce. Under Moses divorce was legal but Jesus said,”Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning (Matthew 19:8).” I think it is the same with slavery–we were not created to enslave each other because each of us is created in the image and likeness of God.
LikeLike
Slavery is in no defensible way morally consistent. It violates the natural law God instilled in us definitionally. God was most definitely commanding them in the sociohistorical context the Israelites lived in.
LikeLike