Quote:
Originally Posted by magnuskn
Because, as far as I know, nobody outside of the people Naofumi can trust will know that the nobleman slaver and his guys are dead, if they execute them on the spot. It's not as if a silent alarm is triggered somewhere because some noble died somewhere else.
Because it perpetuates the cycle of slavery. Now that other nobles will, inevitably now, know that Naofumi sold one of their kind as a slave, they will feel more motivated in taking revenge, best done in their mind by, big surprise, making more slaves out of beastfolk.
|
Really? A man closely associated with the nobility like this dies within his home country, and "no one" will know? I honestly find that highly doubtful. Especially since they were spotted by a knight who clearly has a moral code that won't exactly allow her to fail to report the situation, along with her entire squad. The man himself might have been making some mistaken assumptions when he said his execution would ruin the village: they might have been able to make it so that he and all his numerous men were never there, avoiding the retaliation, but once everyone else showed up it became honestly impossible.
And as for the "it perpetuates the cycle of slavery" bit, that's a much more complicated issue. It takes a lot of assumptions on all sides to say whether nobility will feel more motivation or justification in retaliating after one of their kin's execution versus selling them into slavery. But honestly I sincerely doubt that any action will make them less inclined to express their animosity by enslaving the beastkin. This is what they've been doing, it's the most profitable, and it's the most satisfying path for them as it allows them to commit atrocities on the race that they hold so much resentment toward. Ultimately though, punishment is often more about what will deter others. And that's where there's room for debate. Sure there might be some who will take from this "these monsters commit the atrocities of enslaving our kin, we must destroy them and enslave the survivors". But there will also definitely be those who say "these monsters were able to wipe out this force, and instead of just chopping their heads off, they sent them off to a lifetime of pain". A swift death may for many be much easier to accept than the horror of being turned over to an enemy that worships the one they just crossed and harbors all the same prejudices toward them that they themselves hold.
Honestly, this falls too easily into the same nonsense that'd been going on until now: interpreting anything that could have an outcome that increases slavery as "the story is perpetuating/leaning into slavery". It's very easy to say such things, but honestly I find it rather pointless. It's not such a simple thing that any choice will really have a completely positive outcome or completely demonstrate the evils of slavery. Ultimately though, I'd say that punishing people who would break the law and try to enslave innocent children by making them experience the exact future they intended to subject those kids to is a fair demonstration of where it stands morally. Just like executing a murderer isn't "perpetuating the cycle of killing" but just demonstrating what some moral systems would deem a fitting punishment and making it clear to those that would do it again what they'd risk if they tried.
Similarly, I find it kind of ridiculous when people say stuff like "Naofumi should annihilate the slave trade" or "Naofumi should free every slave he encounters". He's revered as a god by a foreign country, yes. But he's still really just a man, with limited funds and plenty of limits to what he can do without crippling himself. He has to be practical and do what he can with what he has. Don't condemn him for not risking the survival and of his people every time he sees someone else who might suffer. It wouldn't be practical for him to be able to do anything, and if he did pull that much off it'd make him far too unbelievable and perfect.