But you said slavery is not as bad because some slaves are released. Which would mean murder (and thus murderers) is not as evil and wrong for every would-be murderer who has last-minute second thoughts. Some owners deciding to free slaves does not make slavery any less wrong. Also, some victims escape assailants. Still doesn't make murder any less heinous.
There are no crime worse than murder. People might think rape, slavery and robbery as worse.. People also took light of murder, because how badass they look in fiction.. But in reality, its not even close.
I never said it wasn't heinous, I just said it's a lesser evil compared to murder. For the sole reason that a slave has the possibility of regaining freedom, while a person who is murder has no way to regain life.
So were you to be the judge, with the power to inflict any punishment whatsoever, your sentence for both would be life in prison?
Whether one is more or less evil is not something for an outsider to decide. This is a question that can only be answered by the victim — only they can decide whether they feel if it is worse for them to be alive or enslaved — and the response may vary depending on the particular victim asked. Forcing your beliefs into the victim is completely counterproductive and ignores the agency of the victim. Even if “you” may believe slavery is worse than death, concluding that it is better for someone else to die is just wrong (and is practically murder at that point, especially if the victim’s desire is to live at all costs). Similarly, if “you” believe that it is better for someone to experience endless torture/suffering and should forcibly prevented from choosing death in that situation, that is also morally apprehensible. In the end, it is only the perspective of the victim that matters. Everything else is irrelevant. Imposing third party beliefs doesn’t help. Both murder and slavery/torture are bad.
Here is the rough draft of an old essay i wrote about racism.I dont want to write so ill just copy and paste it. Just in case source: DDS(me) and Between the World and Me Throughout the letter Coates goes over the theme of black bodies, arguing that living in a black body is harsh. He shows how racism works through the oppression, manipulation, and exploitation of black bodies which results in the fragility of black bodies within racist America. Coates traces this fragility back to the commodification of black bodies during colonialism and slavery, the period in which black people were turned into objects with a monetary value. He urges Samori to remember history through “You must always remember that the sociology, the history, the economics, the graphs, the charts, the regressions all land, with great violence, upon the body.”(Coates 10). This theme helps explain how black people came to be treated – both when slavery existed and then beyond into the present-day – as disposable bodies within American society. Because of the tradition of treating black people as objects or animals whose value lay in their ability to make profit for white people, the very idea of what it means to be black in America is rooted in the constant danger of “losing” one’s body. Although slavery has ended, the legacy of racism remains a kind of “terrorism” inflicted on black people’s bodies, and Coates is keen to stress that racism is a visceral experience—that it “…that racism is a visceral experience, that it dislodges brains, blocks airways, rips muscle, extracts organs, cracks bones, breaks teeth.” (Coates 10) The most obvious theme of the letter is the racial divide that exists in America. Extending from early American history when blacks were enslaved to the present day in which black bodies are under constant surveillance and threat, white society has consistently denied the humanity of blacks to maintain its "Dream." One of the main distinctions Coates makes is “But race is the child of racism, not the father.” (Coates 7). Race is a construct; it is something to which an absolute is, but in reality is blurry. White people are not actually white but rather they think they are white because it gives them their power and privilege. Racism is thus so subtle because the people that think they are white also do not think they are racists. They claim disparities of wealth and education and treatment by the police are differences that just exist; they are more like natural forces than specific ideals Racism is primarily enforced through the plundering and subjugation of the black body. One of the most noticeable components of the text is that the black body is constantly under threat. Throughout American history, black men and women were shackled, beaten, tortured, lynched, raped, and sprayed with high-power firehoses. Now, they experience police brutality and senseless shootings - being shot for holding a toy gun, shot for listening to loud music, put in a chokehold for selling cigarettes, arrested and restrained for trying to enter their own home. It is the subtle ways in which a black body must comport itself in public. As Coates describes “…I knew that Prince was not killed by a single officer so much as he was murdered by his country and all the fears that have marked it from birth,” (Coates 78) it shows that it is the natural instinct of white people to deprive black people of their bodies.
I agree, but this is not about the victim, but about the criminals. Not about forcing beliefs but giving your own to compare, it's a discussion. Who do you think is more evil, a murderer or a slaver. Were you to have the power to judge, and Im asking your opinion, not anyone elses, not a victim, but yours, who would you judge with a harsher punishment? What would you teoricly prefer? to be enslaved and sold, or to be killed? They are harsh questions that have no validity on an actual situation. Were a person to be in such a situation it would be infinitly hard to think rationally.
Can't we just agree that it's all somewhat context dependent? Under certain circumstances it is good to kill and evil to spare Under certain circumstances it is good to enslave and evil to be free And while it is clear that under most circumstances it is not good to enslave or kill, there will be times when an exception will occur. Which doesn't slide the moral scale to neutral, its just, you can always come up with a scenario where murder or slavery are the lesser evil. somewhat related Source: Here
I say, both are worse but the most worst of them all is the victim. Why? The victim keeps tempting them to commit crime in the first place! I think the victim is the worst one in all situations, because it drives the ego's of both criminals into thinking they can get away with it in the moment.
No, I looked it up in the US penal code due to someone else making vague mentions of the prison sentences.
And I'm trying to convince you of why that's a logical fallacy. I might not have succeeded, but not for lack of trying.
I've seen some reports of people that were actually enslaved, and even the ones that are raped, tortured and lost family members seemed to have hope, to build a new life, do things etc (although not uncommon that while suffering they wanted to die). But "people die if they are killed", and death is the end of everything (or not, who knows). Sometimes people underestimate how much they really want to live, so they readily say "better die than do this or that, or it to be done to me" without thinking enough, lol.
I still think murder is da worst destroy all potential~ physical punishment and mind breaking at some point will make a person dull both mentally and physically~ IMO that's why on history there exist slave who not wanna rebel cuz either they accept their fate, too scared or become dull~ both are bad still killing is worse~ each person have their own circumance so it can be helped~
In my opinion, serial traffic offending human is the bigger evil. A serial killer is sick in the head, so although they are responsible for their actions, they can't be considered evil, as that's simply how their mind works. A human trafficker is indeed evil, but they are governed by motivation, whether it be greed, power or influence. Following this, they are just like every normal human, except they go above and beyond to be the worst kind of human. These two pale in comparison to serial traffic offender. Why so? Because a serial killer is mentally ill, while a human trafficker has a purpose in doing what he did. A serial traffic offender has no reason or purpose in offending traffic laws, except maybe 'it's fun'. More people has died from traffic accidents than either serial murder or human trafficker, and even more people have been rendered comatosed or disabled from traffic accidents. Therefore, I deem that in from the scale of least to most evil: serial killer < human trafficker < serial traffic offender. But then again, this is very relative. A person who lost a family member due to a serial killer will certainly consider serial killers as the most evil. Same with people who lost family members to human traffickers. But considering that a lot more people lost family members in traffic accidents, I'd say serial traffic offender is the most evil.
Really? You'd want your friends and family to be straight up murdered over being enslaved so there is chance to save them? I wonder how those who have someone who was a slave in their ancestry would feel? Knowing they are a live today because the slavers where evil enough to enslave the ancestors instead of having the decency of just murdering them?
Africans would not have been so valuable, so they would of never been targeted in the first place. Your hypothetical sucks. And also don't put words in my mouth. I do very well for myself, thank you very much.
Ok, let me rephrase. In a hypothetical situation where you where forced to chose between having your family/friends murder or enslaved. Which would you choose? and why? And um africans and value what is that about?