It's 1840 in the U.S. and there is a slave who kills a man who claims to own the slave [along with the slave's wife and his children] as chattel.
The slave, having liberated himself, then takes flight along with his family.
The killing may have been against the laws in force in 1840. But was it morally unsound?
@fmf saidThe killing may have been against the laws in force in 1840. But was it morally unsound?
It's 1840 in the U.S. and there is a slave who kills a man who claims to own the slave [along with the slave's wife and his children] as chattel.
The slave, having liberated himself, then takes flight along with his family.
The killing may have been against the laws in force in 1840. But was it morally unsound?
I remember some of my college classmates having these moral / ethical discussions long ago. Some of the conclusions they came up with were:
* Not in any implied scheme of perception.
* I would argue his ethics, but admire his morals
* It was a means to an end.
...and the list goes on. The fact is, there is no, one final answer here.
@fmf saidProbably not.
It's 1840 in the U.S. and there is a slave who kills a man who claims to own the slave [along with the slave's wife and his children] as chattel.
The slave, having liberated himself, then takes flight along with his family.
The killing may have been against the laws in force in 1840. But was it morally unsound?
But, if the slave could have gotten free and kept his family safe thereafter without killing the owner, then maybe.
Of course, the 'keep family safe' bit is a judgment call. Difficult to say what is 'reasonable' on that score.
1 edit
@fmf saidDid he kill the owner in the process of escape or was it an act of revenge before fleeing the scene.
It's 1840 in the U.S. and there is a slave who kills a man who claims to own the slave [along with the slave's wife and his children] as chattel.
The slave, having liberated himself, then takes flight along with his family.
The killing may have been against the laws in force in 1840. But was it morally unsound?
I mean did he have to kill the slave owner in order to free himself and his family?
@kevcvs57 saidGood questions
Did he kill the owner in the process of escape or was it an act of revenge before fleeing the scene.
I mean did he have to kill the slave owner in order to free himself and his family?
- Did he kill the owner in the process of escape
Answer: while acting like a free man, i.e. while walking down the driveway to leave, and the ownner pulled out a bull whip and was carrying a sidearm.
- or was it an act of revenge before fleeing the scene.
No, I didn't have this in mind.
- I mean did he have to kill the slave owner in order to free himself and his family?
Yes
@fmf saidWell then in so far as I consider self defence a moral as well as legal defence I’d say he was well within moral bounds to kill this threat to him and his family.
Good questions
- Did he kill the owner in the process of escape
Answer: while acting like a free man, i.e. while walking down the driveway to leave, and the ownner pulled out a bull whip and was carrying a sidearm.
- or was it an act of revenge before fleeing the scene.
No, I didn't have this in mind.
- I mean did he have to kill the slave owner in order to free himself and his family?
Yes
He could surely make the same moral case as someone trying to escape a sociopath who had kidnapped him and his family and held them against their will for who knows what purpose.