4 ms·

All it means is that we consider intentional killings worse than accidental ones and that biases our priorities accordingly.

• natrius 17y ago
  Which is screwed up. A premature death is a premature death. Preventability is independent of intention. I think it'd be easier to prevent a few thousand car accident deaths a decade than it would be to eliminate terrorism. A rational society would focus its effort on saving the lives that minimize effort per remaining productive lifespan.
  • joeyo 17y ago
    Whether it is rational or not, I don't know. It very well may be that society is optimizing an objective function quite different from the one that you claim it should. Consider the emphasis that our legal system places on the criminal mind (mens rea) which is often necessary for something to be a crime. If we really weighed all deaths/crimes equally than we could dispense with intent and only consider the act itself.
    • natrius 17y ago
      "It very well may be that society is optimizing an objective function quite different from the one that you claim it should." What is it optimizing for? Shouldn't it be intentional, and therefore apparent? If we're willing to throw so much money at saving so few lives, I don't see how it can ever make sense to allow lives to be lost that could be saved more cheaply. Sure, defending against terrorism helps to prevent property losses as well, but I still don't think we come out on top.