Counterfactual Conditionals in a Controversial Debate

This is going to be controversial indeed, so please read everything. AND I MEAN, EVERYTHING. It's prone to misinterpretation.

Human beings are weird. Like, really weird. They expect honesty, but also expect courtesy, which sometimes comes in the form of "white lies". They relish asking questions they already know the answer to. And you get situations like this at times:

Jared: If slavery were rational, would you be inclined to do it?

Martha: If it were rational then there'd be a good, objective case for pursuing it. I'd certainly give it a look in.

Audience: (gasping) (looks at Martha funny)

Jared: You racist, horrible person! How dare you say something so offensive?! Don't you know there are people of colour in the room! 

Martha: ...

the next day

University of Cumtown Student Newspaper: "Controversy erupts after conservative firebrand, Martha O'Donnell, defends slavery in volcanic race debate!"

OK, OK, the long story part is over. But you all saw that right?

• Jared offered Martha a conditional. In the real world, we know that slavery, and by extension the slave trade, is deeply irrational and morally offensive. However, the scenario he offers up takes place on a parallel universe where it is rational.


• Martha answers by stating that, as it is rational in this situation, she'd consider doing it (where it is inconceivable in the real world).


• Everyone in Cumtown Uni now thinks she's racist and defended slavery.

However, part me is irritated - this is an irrational response to a rational response. In the real world, we see slavery as irrational, because it is immoral, and comes with a plethora of complications for the humans involved. But in this alternate timeline - the one in which the conditional takes place - these moral concerns are allayed (not merely handwaved away, as in, they don't actually apply because things are different there). Therefore, although it's the same concept - "slavery" - it's not the same thing across timelines. Yet, when Martha uses the non-problematic concept in her answer, she's treated as if she supported the problematic concept.

Here's another example, using medicine - hopefully less controversial.

• Medicine heals people when they are sick.


• Therefore, it is rational to take medicine.


• However, if it is irrational to take medicine, then it no longer heals the sick - let's say for example, it hurts them instead.


• In those circumstances, I wouldn't take the medicine.

Wouldn't it be foolish to act as if I did wrong there? In this scenario, it doesn't help, so I wouldn't take it. It's not the same as real-life medicine, where it does work. So running off to everyone, saying I claimed I wouldn't take medicine, sounds dishonest and wrong.

This stinks of Equivocation, and a rhetorical trap from Jared. What do you guys think?