3 ms·
If you take an action and know that there is a direct consequence that will kill people who have not done anything that could justify death (i.e. almost anythin
by hyperpape 10y ago
If you take an action and know that there is a direct consequence that will kill people who have not done anything that could justify death (i.e. almost anything short of murder), you can't ignore that consequence. The only way to justify it is to say that for some reason, not acting would be unacceptable. And that is a high bar to clear, one that is obviously not met by the prohibition policy.
- vintermann 10y agoBut it's not a direct consequence, that's the point. It's an indirect one, completely dependent on other people trying to renature it and drink it - ignoring warning labels like this one: http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/warning-label-from-a-pharmacy-bottle-of-denatured-alcohol-news-photo/146438213 http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/warning-label...
- hyperpape 10y agoI should have avoided the word 'direct', because of that potential for confusion. What I meant is predictable.
- vintermann 10y agoBut there's a big difference between consequences that are predictable because of nature (i.e. if I kick this rock it will hurt) and consequences that are predictable because of people's decisions. The redistillers' resolve to keep selling even if they couldn't renature their product and it would be deadly - should that be treated the same as a force of nature? When should people's decisions be treated as a fact we just have to adapt to? In my experience, people mostly want their own decisions, or the decisions of the people they agree with, to be treated as facts of nature. But the decisions of people they disagree with, they want to treat as their own free decisions.