3 ms·
- Drugs: Not designed to be harmful. Can be dangerous. - Guns: Designed to be harmful. Can be safe. I'm not saying that you can't argue that drugs are so dang
by talles 11y ago
- Drugs: Not designed to be harmful. Can be dangerous.
- Guns: Designed to be harmful. Can be safe.
I'm not saying that you can't argue that drugs are so dangerous that they should be prohibited or that guns can be safely used and should be allowed. The topic is the same but the starting point is not.
Your examples are of things that are dangerous, not of things that are designed to be harmful.
- harshreality 11y agoWhat does their being designed by humans to be dangerous and hurtful have to do with anything? Is it not allowable to hurt others in self defense? Is it not allowable to hurt animals for food? There are other things that are hurtful and dangerous, and whether something is designed that way by humans or not has no bearing on the utilitarian calculus. Particularly so when there's no categorical imperative against the thing they're designed to do (unless you're against all self defense and hunting).
- talles 11y ago> Is it not allowable to hurt others in self defense? Is it not allowable to hurt animals for food? I fail to see how such general and silly questions foster a debate. No one said or implied those. > has no bearing on the utilitarian calculus That's why we need to (wait for it) debate! > no categorical imperative against the thing You know what's the problem of the categorical imperative? It's very subjective. You know how we overcome such subjectivity? (wait for it) debate! --- My point is simply that in one the harm is direct (designed to) and the other is indirect (can be used to). Due to that the debate between those should be different. I made no "quantifiable" comparison pal.