clearspira wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2019 12:39 am
Did you miss the part where he used ''killing kittens'' as an example as to why the lawful thing to do is by no means the same as ''the correct thing to do?'' You have just explained exactly what he was talking about just in a more long-winded way.
No, I explained why his argument that Archer should have started with the moral viewpoint on slavery was immaterial.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Slavery-in-the-21st-Century-715992
Slavery is alive in the 21st century despite the fact that it's been illegal for around a century pretty much everywhere. Even places that still had in on the books as it were haven't been practicing it officially, which is why it was still on the books, nobody was a slave so nobody cared to have the law changed. And the people that are slaves, well, they're being kept that way illegally.
Slavery has been driven underground, and yet, despite that the estimated number of slaves alive today is larger then the total number of slaves estimated to have left Africa, and not just for the colonial US or even the Americas but throughout the continent's entire history.
Making something legal or illegal doesn't stop something from happening if the people don't want to fallow or respect the law. If people didn't want to "kill kittens" then they wouldn't, except, you know, if you had somebody with a gun at the back of your head with the options of getting shot or killing the kittens - in that case most people would kill the kittens, law or no law. The thing about morality though is that if you have an immoral law that is being enforced, it doesn't matter what the moral position is, similarly, if you have a moral law that is not being enforced that law might as well not be there - as is the case for the anti fox hunting law in the UK. It's been illegal to organize and partake in a fox hunt for over a decade, that hasn't stopped them from happening. Why? because most people don't really care about fox hunts.
The morality of the issue only matters if Archer is pro slavery and the law forbids it or if the law permits it but he's against it. Since the episode wasn't discussing Archer's viewpoint on slavery the legality of the matter is, well, all that matters. Those women were free the moment they stepped on a Starfleet ship... or is it Terran in that era.
The first thing should have been informing them that they were now free, the second why - Starfleet/Earth doesn't recognize the institution of slavery, and then third, if you must, the moral question behind why Earth no longer recognizes slavery as a valid legal institution. But again, the morality of the issue doesn't really factor in, not like Chuck wants it to factor in. Basically, there are two ways to view this: slavery is illegal because it's immoral, and slavery is immoral so it's illegal. It's all a matter of what you think should be more important, and on a military ship I'm afraid the first view should be more important - desertion, gun behind the back of the head and whatnot.