Well, something like 700,000 people were killed in freeing the slaves. So I guess it’s ok.
Are you sure about this?
Let’s think about war for a minute. Soldiers fight not just for the sake of their families, but for their country. Their fellow citizens. If a bunch of Martians landed in the United States and started eating us one by one, are you saying it would be morally questionable for a soldier unrelated to you to shoot the Martian actively tearing you to bits, but that it would be absolutely moral for that soldier to save his sister from the same creature?
Or let’s say you and I are taken hostage by two lunatics. Are you saying it would be moral for my father to bust in and kill the hostage taker holding the gun to my head, but that it wouldn’t be as righteous for him to kill your hostage taker?
(If so, we can just leave ya’ll be).
Let’s go with another wacky example. All the Jews in the concentration camps were freed by people who were probably 99% not Jewish. Many Nazis were killed by these people. Would their deaths have been more justifiable if it had been Jews who had killed them rather than of non-Jews?
I agree totally with Der Trihs. It’s actually more noble to save people who are unrelated to you than it is to save only those who are. And when that saving requires killing powerful people, then it just increases the bravery factor. Can you understand what we’re saying?
Suppose a slave has an opportunity to escape but to use it he has to kill some random white stranger. Is he justified? Suppose his opportunity to escape required him to kill another slave? Is he justified then?
If it’s truly necessary then yes. It’s collateral damage; the slave isn’t the person who set up the system that makes killing third parties necessary, the blame is on the people who did set it up. Especially since if it’s truly necessary to kill them, then the person in question is actively collaborating with the slavers. Killing collaborators is pretty much the norm.
I dunno if anyone will agree with me, but I personally think that killing to defend your life is morally justifiable, even for a convicted and and actually guilty murderer being taken to the death chamber for execution. Why should society expect anyone to go passively and without resistance to their own death?
I’m going to have to give some thought to the idea of whether it is equally justifiable to kill on behalf of a convicted and and actually guilty murderer being taken to the death chamber for execution. I’m thinking it’s not, but I can’t quite articulate why.
I do not agree with you. The only moral thing such a murderer can do is turn himself in and walk peacefully to his death, or just kill himself to save us the trouble. He cannot murder more innocent people to avoid the just punishment for his initial murders.
They were the minority, though, right? Most slaves didn’t escape or try to.
I don’t entirely know what my point is. It’s just that we’re talking about a thing that’s existed across societies throughout most of human history, and still does today. There are more slaves today than there ever have been. And it just seems like people in this thread are sort of carelessly oversimplifying with absolute statements that killing a slaveholder is always justifiable.
But that’s a question – is it murder if you’re defending your life?
If you want, I could think up several scenarios which might make the initial murder legitimate in some people’s eyes. What if you killed the person who killed your wife or molested your child? Yet, for various reasons, you are still convicted and sentenced to death. Would that change anything? You’re still guilty of murder, you did actually kill the guy.
It is if the only reason your life is in danger is because of your own monstrous behaviour. An assassin is not justified in killing the bodyguard of the man he murdered, just because the bodyguard is fighting back.
As for your aside, I do not feel that it is justifiable to kill someone who is doing a job they can rightfully claim is legitimate just because they get in your way. You would be justified in trying to escape, but not, IMO, at the expense of the life of an innocent person.
So you’re saying that one slave’s freedom is worth more than another slave’s life.
This is really a no brainer.
Like Der Trihs, I’d even go as far as to say that I think a slave has every right to kill anything that stands in their way to gaining freedom. It isn’t even a matter of dead person’s level of sainthood or whatever… If they, legitimately, pose a threat to a slave’s escape from slavery then they’re ‘fair game;’ be them man, woman or child.
Sick situation, but that’s not the slave’s fault.
But if this was true, the slave is standing in the way of the innocent bystander’s right to freedom, and he’s doing it on purpose. “Commander/Slaver X will kill/enslave me if I don’t!” is not a valid justification for killing Innocent Bystander Y.
If someone puts a gun to your head and says that if you don’t kill “person x” he will kill you; you are no longer responsible for your actions, the guy with the gun is.
A slave is someone who has a gun to their head; they have every right to kill to insure their freedom.
In my view anyone who would do such a thing is not only evil but also an idiot. Not only are you murdering an innocent bystander for your own benefit, you are also trusting someone who has explicitly stated they’re willing to kill innocent people. There’s no sane reason to take him at his word that he won’t simply kill you, too.
Jeez, it’s not a matter of trust or whatever; it’s a simple scenario: Through no fault of your own, you are under an immediate threat to your life. Thus, you are not responsible for reasonable actions taken to safeguard your life.
There is no ‘run away’ choice or whatever. Someone has a gun to your head, you either obey him or not. Under such a scenario you are not responsible for his commands. A slave is in a similarly messed up scenario. They are under the threat of slavery (this even counts torture/death), they have every right to kill anything that stands in their way to gaining freedom.
There is no ‘third’ option; it’s Slavery or Freedom.
Yes, it is: assuming you cannot escape, your survival is dependant on your captor’s choice to let you go. This is not the same thing as being dependant on your willingness to follow his commands. Once you are no longer of use to him (either because you won’t obey his commands or because you already did his dirty work for him), it’s entirely up to him whether he lets you go or kills you.
I agree, but murdering innocent people isn’t a reasonable action to take to safeguard your own life.
You are responsible for your decision to follow his commands.
Yes, but all of that doesn’t matter. Right now he has a gun to your head and tells you that if you don’t obey him he will shoot you. Your final choices are still: Obey or not.
Under such a situation, I’d say yes it is, and ‘innocent-ness’ doesn’t even come into the equation.
Not if the other option is death/slavery.
Losing that job cost me my financial freedom until I was able to find another job. Losing that job caused me to leave South Dakota, which I did not want to do-----jobs like the one I lost are non-existent in South Dakota except in one place. Losing that job did, in fact, put my life in danger as I became clinically depressed with suicidal ideation. Losing that job arguably resulted in ending a nineteen year marriage.
But I shouldn’t have posted my bitterness in this thread or anywhere else, I’ll grant that.