Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

RM Americano

Regulars
  • Posts

    1
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • State (US/Canadian)
    NewYork
  • Country
    United States
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

RM Americano's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Your original argument is flawed in that you take two separate contexts and attempt to combine them into one argument. It is immoral to hold a slave. A slave owner would have complete control over the life and death of his slave. The slave would be morally right to live his life for the lone purpose of obtaining freedom. It is immoral to rob someone. Robbery is theft through the use or threat of force. It is different from stealing, or thievery. In no context would a robber, or your highwayman, ever be moral. Nor would a slave owner. One would use his powers of reason to survive being enslaved or being robbed, but that would never justify the event. The robber or the slave owner would not be a moral person. This is because there is no value being traded, the mugger or slaver is only taking, or looting, by force, because they have no ability to produce, no desire to give something they have earned for something they need or want, and no moral value, in any sense.
×
×
  • Create New...