Quote:
|
In this statement, I assume you mean that if Jimmy The Nose (a fictional "gangster" for this construct) has been running a slavery ring and one day figures, "Screw it, I would rather sell smack, " and just up and "frees" all the people he had been holding in bondage without anyone making arrangements for housing and feeding and educating and employing them, then that would be more harmful to them because they would be dead within a short period of time and effectively no more free than they had been when he was "providing" for them as a master. Would this be your point? Or, would you be making the point that in some time and place, slavery would be a good option for both master and slave simply in and of it's own nature?
|
Well, not exactly representational of some of the things I am trying to show, but it does capture the most important point, which is that the act of freeing slaves is not necessarily a moral one -- whether or not it was moral depends on whether the reasoning behind the act was sound, and that depends on all parts of the situation that can be associated with the act.