"Morally" justified murder?

[techs]

Yesterday was the 150th anniversary of the execution of John Brown.

"John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry was an attempt by white abolitionist John Brown to start an armed slave revolt by seizing a United States Arsenal at Harpers Ferry in Virginia in 1859. Brown's raid was defeated by a detachment of U.S. Marines led by Col. Robert E. Lee"


Morality questions:

1) Is a slave morally justified in killing his owner?

2) Is a slave morally justified in killing an employee of the government whose job it is to enforce his slavery, e.g. police, army, etc?

3) Is a slave morally justified in killing someone who actively works to keep him in slavery, e.g. a politician?

 

[sourceninja]

I say yes. I can't fault any man from fighting to free himself and others from slavery.

 

[weflyhigh]

1. No.
2. No.
3. No.

It is only morally acceptable to "violate" the 5th commandment under extreme circumstances, and being a slave (as defined by a 1800s U.S. slave) is not one of those.

And legally, the slave owners were within their rights. Them to be murdered under that condition is inexcusable.

 

[PokerGuy]

1) No.
2) No.
3) No.

IMO, killing a person can only ever be justified if it is in direct defense of yourself or another person, or if it's been sanctioned by the law as punishment for a specific crime, or if it's sanctioned as part of one's duty to defend the country.

 

[Kirby]

1) No.
2) No.
3) No.

IMO, killing a person can only ever be justified if it is in direct defense of yourself or another person, or if it's been sanctioned by the law as punishment for a specific crime, or if it's sanctioned as part of one's duty to defend the country.

Fuck that, I ain't picking cotton.

 

[IronWing]

Yes or no, depending on your own moral code. Morals codes are an individual choice and responsibility, there is no objective moral code, only personal moral codes.

In my moral code, yes to all three questions.

 

[Bignate603]

1) No.
2) No.
3) No.

IMO, killing a person can only ever be justified if it is in direct defense of yourself or another person, or if it's been sanctioned by the law as punishment for a specific crime, or if it's sanctioned as part of one's duty to defend the country.

The whole revolutionary war was to get freedom. If we were justified to rebel against England, the slaves would be justified to rebel against their owners. The injustices that the founding fathers were fighting against were nothing compared to those that slaves endured.

 

[Beev]

The point is moot because slavery no longer exists and none of us were alive when it did, so imo it's hard for us to accurately say anything about it except that it... sucked.

With that said, moral killings are "right" to me. Dexter has the right idea

 

[edro]

I tend to think higher level orchestrators should have less severe punishment than the people who did the act.

Ex. Charles Manson and mob bosses should not be charged with the same level of crime they influenced people to perform.

Also... freedom is life. So if someone takes your freedom, they are also taking your life. So yes, I believe slaves can kill their owners.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Morality questions:

1) Is a slave morally justified in killing his owner?

2) Is a slave morally justified in killing an employee of the government whose job it is to enforce his slavery, e.g. police, army, etc?

3) Is a slave morally justified in killing someone who actively works to keep him in slavery, e.g. a politician?

Morally justified to kill them? No way to give black and white answers (d'oh, puns). Some slave owners raped and tortured their slaves on a regular basis, and some were much better.

The real question, should be, is there any way, short of killing the people permitting and partaking in slavery, to stop it? I'm going to have to say that history gives a pretty definitive no. With that in mind, does that change your opinion? A further question. Does someone who commoditizes human life in such a manner essentially make themselves expendable as well?

An interesting note. Frederick Douglass in his autobiography, noted that slaveowners were often enslaved much like their slaves, just in a different manner. He made a specific point, about a time when one of the sons (I believe that's right) of a plantation owner was being trained to manage the slaves, and that meant learning to punish them with a whip, which as you'd expect was difficult for a teenage boy (especially when having to do it to a woman or child).

 

[Regs]

Morals and values change over time.

 

[IronWing]

Time to read John Brown's Body again. Great poem.

 

[skace]

I say yes to all 3. Mainly because I disagree with the assholes that said no to all 3.

 

[Schadenfroh]

John Brown was a terrorist. He is from the same vein as modern day abortion clinic bombers. They both feel that their murders are "morally" justified.

 

[Leros]

By the matter, the early American revolutionaries were also terrorists. They were burning down governor's houses and stuff like that.

 

[IronWing]

No

John Brown was a terrorist. He is from the same vein as modern day abortion clinic bombers. They both feel that their murders are "morally" justified.

And to him they were justified and in his eyes his was a great crusade to free America of the evil of slavery. To you, apparently not. Again morals are personal so it makes arguing whether an act is moral or not kind of pointless. We can certainly agree that his acts were criminal but arguing morals is like arguing color schemes.

 

[surfsatwerk]

I don't care if it's moral or not. If I was a slave, I'd be looking to kill some bitches.

 

[waggy]

yes to all 3. slavery is never justified.

 

[Miramonti]

Being accused and convicted of a crime someone didn't commit, and sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison isn't justified either. Ok to kill?

 

[Chryso]

No, however, some people were slaves by choice. (Not in the US.)

 

[dawp]

1) No.
2) No.
3) No.

IMO, killing a person can only ever be justified if it is in direct defense of yourself or another person, or if it's been sanctioned by the law as punishment for a specific crime, or if it's sanctioned as part of one's duty to defend the country.

the slave owners had the power of life and death over their slaves and could do anything they wanted because they were considered property and not humans, and given the options afforded to slaves at the time, which were pretty slim, I would kill the slave owner and not look back. the owners could kill and rape the slaves on a whim and many did.

let me ask you this, If you were a slave, would you just take it or would you fight for your freedom by any means necessary, even if that means killing someone.

 

[irishScott]

the slave owners had the power of life and death over their slaves and could do anything they wanted because they were considered property and not humans, and given the options afforded to slaves at the time, which were pretty slim, I would kill the slave owner and not look back. the owners could kill and rape the slaves on a whim and many did.

Seriously. Screw slavery, if some guy raped my SO and not only got away, but was completely immune to any repercussions, I'd kill him the first chance I got if I could do it without negating repercussions. If he did it repeatably, those repercussions would start to matter less and less...

 

[JulesMaximus]

Is it morally right to own slaves?

Is it morally right to oppress people and treat them as second class citizens?

 

[Gooberlx2]

I say Yes to all 3.

 

[destrekor]

Modern day, when your a POW in enemy hands, the US says, and more importantly the Geneva Conventions say, you will try to escape and aid in the escape of others at any time.
What does this have to do with the OP? Not much.

BUT, slaves were a form of prisoners, if you want to describe slavery in such a way.
Back then, it was lawful, so law-based ethics it would unquestionably be unjustifiable. But on a personal morality basis, those subject to human trafficking have every right to defend themselves. They don't have to be suffering at the hands of abuse right at that moment, but rather they are constantly at high risk of abuse in some way, and over the long haul many suffered greatly - killing in order to escape is permissible and I would totally agree with it. But escape without physical action is more ideal, but if the difference between a high chance of escape and being caught is the slave owner being incapacitated versus not, then harm is justifiable.
Human trafficking still occurs today, they aren't slaves in the african sense of the word, but they are still slaves. And I'd applaud them for killing their "owners".