Small sins to Stop Large ones?

[corvidae]

First let me tell you two things

1. I am from the State of Kansas
2. Our State hero is John Brown. The same John Brown who wished to free slaves by violence. The same John Brown who was hung for treason several months before the Civil war for trying to arm slaves, and free them from their masters.

Now, my question is, is what John Brown did morally acceptable. It seems to have followed Just War theory. If He armed the slaves, he had a reasonable chance of winning, All other avenues toward peace (by changing laws) had been tried, and the destruction caused would not be greater than the destruction he was trying to prevent.

The only thing is, John Brown was not a government, and did not have a duty to protect these people.

Is it only the responsibility of the government to defend people or is it the responsibility of everyone.

Basically, was John Brown morally right, or morally wrong

Have at it.

A lone Raven

 

[didymus]

First let me tell you two things

1. I am from the State of Kansas
2. Our State hero is John Brown. The same John Brown who wished to free slaves by violence. The same John Brown who was hung for treason several months before the Civil war for trying to arm slaves, and free them from their masters.

Now, my question is, is what John Brown did morally acceptable. It seems to have followed Just War theory. If He armed the slaves, he had a reasonable chance of winning, All other avenues toward peace (by changing laws) had been tried, and the destruction caused would not be greater than the destruction he was trying to prevent.

Brown’s attack on Haper’s Ferry and planned slave rebellion had exactly zero chance of succes and even he knew it. As ignorant and illiterate as their masters kept them, the slaves knew enough to avoid Brown’s rebellion.

The only thing is, John Brown was not a government, and did not have a duty to protect these people.

Is it only the responsibility of the government to defend people or is it the responsibility of everyone.

Basically, was John Brown morally right, or morally wrong

Have at it.

A lone Raven

Sorry to denigrate your state hero, but John Brown was a complete psychotic so the best you can say is that maybe he wasn’t morally responsible for his crimes.

 

[Andrew_11]

Brown’s attack on Haper’s Ferry and planned slave rebellion had exactly zero chance of succes and even he knew it. As ignorant and illiterate as their masters kept them, the slaves knew enough to avoid Brown’s rebellion.

Perhaps the actually attack had zero chance. But in the long run, it can be argued that his attack was a factor in the events leading to the abolishion of slavery. I am not saying that I would agree or disagree with this argument, but it is certainly a possibility, and could possibly justify the attack on Harper’s Ferry.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Perhaps the actually attack had zero chance. But in the long run, it can be argued that his attack was a factor in the events leading to the abolishion of slavery. I am not saying that I would agree or disagree with this argument, but it is certainly a possibility, and could possibly justify the attack on Harper’s Ferry.

Hitler hated Communism, & banned it, & sent Communists to concentration camps.​

Pius XI called Communism a “revolting plague”.

The Pope’s condemnation of a cause which was hateful to the Nazis does not even begin to justify Nazism, though they were able to pose very effectively as defenders of Europe against Stalinism - Nazism remains repulsive, even though it was (savagely) anti-Communist. “Two wrongs do not make a right” - it is never permissible to do evil that good may result; what John Brown did was both criminal and immoral: that in no way justifies the selling of human beings, but there are means which are not appropriate for purging it from society. A dose of cyanide is a very effective way of curing a headache - but that is not a reason to take it. ##

 

[wjp984]

Brown’s attack on Haper’s Ferry and planned slave rebellion had exactly zero chance of succes and even he knew it. As ignorant and illiterate as their masters kept them, the slaves knew enough to avoid Brown’s rebellion.

Sorry to denigrate your state hero, but John Brown was a complete psychotic so the best you can say is that maybe he wasn’t morally responsible for his crimes.

I really can care less about John Brown but your post displayed absolutely no intelligence at all. Anyone can call someone psychotic.

 

[didymus]

I really can care less about John Brown but your post displayed absolutely no intelligence at all. Anyone can call someone psychotic.

I wasn’t simply name-calling. I’ve read a lot on the Civil War & related topics. There was a history of madenss in his family and the authorities in Virginia actually considered committing him rather than putting him on trial. That might have been the wiser course as it would have denied Brown “martyr” status.

 

[corvidae]

You still have not given any reason for the just war theory not to apply.

Unless you say he had no chance of success. But chance of success is something that can be judged personally. I mean, who would have said the viet cong had any chance of success against the most powerful military in the world, and yet they succeded. So I think that there could have been a chance of success, but the fact is, he did not succeed.

A lone Raven

p.s.- my big question is, can just war be applied to individuals rather than nations.

pps- I know I kinda changed my question, but just because we were getting into the character of John Brown rather than his action

 

[whiteyacht]

So, off-topic, but being from Kansas I had to post…

Since when is he our state hero?! Because when they built our Capitol they painted a mural with him on it?

Just because he was based in Kansas doesn’t mean he was a good guy and we all love him. I remember learning what an AWFUL guy he was in PUBLIC school. He’s only on the mural because he was a significant figure in history.

You may now all go back to regularly scheduled on-topic posts…

 

[corvidae]

I believe that somewhere in Washington there is a sculpture of one person from every state. Kansas is John Brown. Hawaii is Father Damian.

Perhaps I am wrong, it is hearsay I am basing this on.

 

[Eileen_T]

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

III. TO CHOOSE IN ACCORD WITH CONSCIENCE

1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.

1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;