There is no plausible theory under which the record of the Pentagon Papers can be interpreted as relating to the national defense.
When you look at a corporation, just like when you look at a slave owner, you want to distinguish between the institution and the individual. So slavery, for example, or other forms of tyranny, are inherently monstrous. The individuals participating in them may be the nicest guys you can imagine.
Interpretation
What this quote means
The quote highlights the distinction between an oppressive system and the individuals within it, emphasizing the morality of institutions versus personal character.
Noam Chomsky's quote draws a parallel between corporations and slave owners, arguing that while both represent oppressive institutions, individual behaviors can vary greatly. It suggests that the actions and character of individuals involved in such systems can be vastly different from the immoral nature of the institutions themselves, inviting reflection on how personal morality can exist within oppressive contexts.
Themes
In practice
Example use cases
In a discussion about corporate ethics, you might say this quote to illustrate that corporate policies can be ethically questionable while individuals may not reflect those values.
More from Noam Chomsky
All quotes →The 'free-floating intellectual' may occupy himself with problems because of their inherent interest and importance, perhaps to little effect.
If you're teaching today what you were teaching five years ago, either the field is dead or you are.
There are very few people who are going to look into the mirror and say, 'That person I see is a savage monster;' instead, they make up some construction that justifies what they do.
The Republican Party has become overwhelmingly so extreme that it's hardly a traditional political party anymore.
There is still much debate about whether torture has been effective in eliciting information - the assumption being, apparently, that if it is effective, then it may be justified.
Similar quotes
Somewhere along the line we started misinterpreting the First Amendment and this idea of the freedom of speech the amendment grants us. We are free to speak as we choose without fear of prosecution or persecution, but we are not free to speak as we choose without consequence.
Remember that rights are moral principles which define and protect a man's freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other men.
The sight of snow made her think how beautiful and short life is and how, in spite of all their enmities, people have so very much in common; measured against eternity and the greatness of creation, the world in which they lived was narrow. That's why snow drew people together. It was as if snow cast a veil over hatreds, greed, and wrath and made everyone feel close to one another. -- Snow pg 119
For he who has died has been freed from sin...14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual's right to self-defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder - is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?
It seems entirely possible to me that horrible things can be going on without us becoming horrible people.