Now if you where a Frankish warrior that was defeated by the Romans
which is an argument never made by the antebellum south.
The point being, the philosophical position was used to justify continuing to do something awful, a certain type of profiteering at the expense of others, with all sorts of explanations and excuses of how moral this exploitation was/is.
> Now if you where a Frankish warrior that was defeated by the Romans
which is an argument never made by the antebellum south.
---
The point being, the philosophical position was used to justify continuing to do something awful, a certain type of profiteering at the expense of others, with all sorts of explanations and excuses of how moral this exploitation was/is.
No .... because for me, in my current position, they obviously don't outweigh the negatives.
Now if you where a Frankish warrior that was defeated by the Romans (historical perspective) and you got the choice Death or slavery what would you choose?
edit:
this question has nothing to do with the whole balancing thing btw, i dont know why you are pressing it to try and make a point.