With that in mind, what it seems to come down to really is the question that while he is certainly helping individuals in the short term, is he in any way unintentionally harming the long term.

Which is an interesting moral dilemma – do you let individuals suffer for the hope of a stronger stance in the long term?

In this specific case, I would just reiterate that Aaron is not creating the market, so the question is simply is he contributing to it. It might also be worth noting that such missions happen very in frequently, maybe once a year.

Again, I believe that in the long term goal for Sudan is and infrastructure with enforceable laws that would change the whole slave trade equation, but with that future uncertain at best the question becomes what is really in the Sudanese people’s best interest at the current time vis a vis slavery redemption.

It’s really not a question I am qualified to answer. I’ll see if I can ask some of the people I know in that field who might know more.

It wasn’t totally misguided but the questions were intedned to rely upon one another. What Muffti was thinking is that the slave trade is ongoing because it is profitable, and people are held responsible for a practice insofar as they either profit from it or help it be profitable. Muffti was asking whether or not Aaron fell into the latter category since he is technically participating in the economy of slave trade by adding funds to its overall economy. Muffti agrees that this would nto be a bad thing to do if we had any hope that the conditions under which slave trading can occur are on the way out: but Muffti sees no reason whatsoever to think so: world indifference is a sad thing to see but its clearly visible.

So, yeha, Muffti would like to hear what Aaron has to say. No doubt the situation is much more complex and intricate both physically, economically and morally than any of us are making out. All Muffti meant to suggest is that, given that Aaron is a willing buyer, he woudl seem to be creating a market for slave taking: himself. Muffti supposes that utilitarian reasoning would then lead one to want Aaron to spend his money in ways that it woudlnt’ be pumped back into the slave trade economy. otherwise he’s not really convinced that Aaron is helping so much as hindering.

Even though it is not the slave redeemers introducing the financial game, you raise an excellent point that I wish I could consult Aaron or someone else in the field on, as I really don’t know enough details to answer.

I think that the hope is that situation in Sudan is temporary. Slavery is an easy crime to perpetuate given the fact that there is no law enforcement, no legal recourse, and no options for many individuals. If we can work to change the current situation, it would naturally change the nature of slavery in the area. It would then have to be addressed acourting to the new reality.

In the mean time, while rallies and sanctions can help tackle the big picture, people like Aaron are just trying to help from the bottom up, one person at a time.

As for your atrocious typos, I can’t help you there.

On the other hand, one should operate to ensure a structural change, so that such payments won’t provide incentive for further capture of slaves.

As for the ethics of the matter, I tried to deal with the general question on obligation versus future-oriented-decision-making on BlogsofZion–but here you present a different issue which is just as interesting: is it ethical to help someone do a bad thing in order to do a greater good? I think so. But it deserves a bit more thought.

You ask if it is a good idea to redeem slaves in Sudan, given that they might just become slaves again. Let me ask you this – If you had cancer, would you want to go through treatment, even though the risk of the cancer returning away is there? Should a child be taken out of an abusive foster care situation, even though there is a possibility that the next home the child is in might beat or molest him too?

I think the answer is yes. Threats to our lives and our safety are always present, but who would not opt for the chance at a better life, even though there are no guarantees.

So, Muffti puts it out there as a genuine puzzle that he’s confused about: a) is it a good idea to redeem slaves in Darfur and if (a) gets a no, is it b) morally unacceptable to do what Aaron is doing since it injects cash into a system of abuse, making such a system profitable financially.