Although, of course, you just did.
You are free to whine about it in ATMB, but if I have to read your games, you get to see what I think of them. Do not continue either your hijack or your complaint in this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
Since there seems to be or have been some confusion, I’ll state (as the OP) that I was looking to hear people’s opinions about the morality of the actions that we have been discussing.
I’m of the persuasion that taking a human life is always ethically wrong. However, there are many circumstances in which it may well be the least wrong option, providing the greatest good and preventing further abuses. Because of that, taking a human life can be perfectly acceptable ethically, though something that should be regretted.
So to the OP, I would say that yes it is murder, but falls into an ethically acceptable reason for committing it. If the slave did not kill the master, they would still be held in an abusive situation against their own will. If the master remains alive then it is logical that he or she will seek out the slave to punish or kill them, and will continue to abuse and enslave others.
Would you prefer that I move this thread to the In My Humble Opinion forum? Is there a reason you posted this thread in Great Debates?
[ /Mod question ]
It just seemed more appropriate here, because I expected people to debate back and forth. But I’m pretty new to the forums, maybe IMHO is a better place. If you think it needs to move, I’m fine with it… if not, then I’m fine keeping it here.
Dude, seriously. Why would you write something like that on a public message board where law enforcement might find it? Suppose that one of these people dies in a way that looks, by chance, as though you could have murdered them. Admitting to wanting to kill them is just asking for trouble, even if a sympathetic reading makes it clear that you wouldn’t really.
I can easily justify not killing them given the chance. If I (the hypothetical slave/badass Skald of 1852) have just escaped from the plantation in the Deep South and am making my way north, and en route I come across my putative and erstwhile master sleeping in the woods while on a hunting trip, I may not kill him.
I generally agree, unless killing your putative and erstwhile master will be likely to result in freedom for your fellow slaves. Which it almost certainly wouldn’t under the scenario as you describe it.
I can’t see how it possibly would in that scenario. BadAss!1852!Skald mayn’t break into his oppressor’s bedroom while he is sleeping and slit his throat, either, though robbing him is permitted, I think.
As part of an escape, I can’t think of a way either. If you are heading North and he sees you, killing him to stop him telling the slave catchers where you are is OK as far as I can see. Seeking out slave owners to kill as part of a general slave insurrection also doesn’t seem to be a major problem to me at all.
And robbing him just strikes me as akin to reclaiming your own property.
I on the other hand in that scenario would feel guilty about leaving him alive even if I had no practical choice in the matter.
When someone says “slave” I always think of Rome rather than the southern US. At that time slavery was so common I doubt many people even considered the alternative.
The master believes, I’m sure, that it would be immoral for the slave to act against his owner. In general the slave probably thought along the same moral lines as his master, as if they are a team with the master at the head. But, considering that the master/slave system was set up to use deadly force to enforce its rules the slave is hardly immoral for using deadly force in return.
Why on Earth would you feel guilty about not killing him when you need not do so? Killing one slave-owner is not going to summarily free his other slaves or magically cause slavery to be outlawed. Your desire for revenge is understandable, but it still isn’t moral.
I disagree that Badass!Skald would be reclaiming his own property; otherwise I would have used a verb other than robbing to describe it. But since Badass!Skald is in a situation in which he can reasonably consider himself surrounded by enemies who deny his personhood, he may take reasonable actions that would ordinarily be immoral.
[del]Taking[/del] Stealing provisions, supplies, and money that will be needful or useful in escaping enemy territory: allowed.
Killing or assaulting adults who attempt to prevent his escape, if there is no reasonable hope of doing otherwise or if they are threatening or using violence to restrain him: allowed.
Binding bystanders to prevent their raising a hue & cry, or using non-lethal violence: allowed.
Killing or assaulting persons NOT ina position to directly or indirectly threaten him, out of revenge, frustration, anger, lust, etc: not allowed.
Well he (and the other slaves) created the wealth for that slave owner and were not paid. Taking the candelabra is sort of back pay.
Definitely - but that extends to taking anything, if it can be sold.
I don’t think there has to be such an absence of hope for it to be justifiable. I don’t think the escaping slave has any responsibility not to harm those seeking to prevent his escape.
I’d go further - killing them is permissible. Assisting in the capture of a fugative slave places an individual in the enemy camp. I don’t know to be honest if Fugitive Slave Laws created an affirmative duty to assist in recapture. Whether they did or not, the laws are so abhorrent they do not deserve obedience, and I would look at a person who assisted the militia in recapturing a slave in much the same light as a person who would tell the Nazis of the location of hidden Jews.
Agreed. Unless as part of a slave uprising, but then it isn’t out of revenge, frustration, anger or lust.
When you start regretting the people you didn’t kill, it’s usually a bad sign.