@fmfsaid 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?
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.
@fmfsaid 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?
Probably not.
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.
@fmfsaid 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?
1) Murder is still against the laws of 2022, so the year is legally irrelevant. It is also morally irrelevant.
2) Wether or not he “takes flight” is mortally irrelevant.
3) Morality is difficult to measure via legal frameworks.
4) The slave owner could have been a (relatively) benevolent person who provided good living and labour for a fair return of work, social free time and expression of self.
Too many unknowns for me to make a judgment.
However if we are interested in relating it back to Christianity, then scripture talks about slaves not seeking to be free…I think.
@fmfsaid 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?
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?
@kevcvs57said 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?
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?
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
Well 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.
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.
1840: a slave kills his "owner"
28 Sep '22 11:39
Back to Top