3 ms·

> "hiring people to commit murder on your behalf is morally wrong." No, unjustifiably murdering people is wrong. Killing someone for the "right" reasons, eithe

> "hiring people to commit murder on your behalf is morally wrong." No, unjustifiably murdering people is wrong. Killing someone for the "right" reasons, either by yourself or by proxy, is morally right. > > Clearly the rightness of evading law enforcement and shooting blackmailers depends on the rightness of the law the enforcers are enforcing. > That's not exactly clear, no. Sure it is. You never taken a history class, or watched current events on TV, if you think all laws are equal and that all rulers have a right to be obeyed. Without recognizing a bad law you can't recognize good law. > In fact it's less than clear, to me, that hiring a hitman is anywhere near the same moral level as "evading law enforcement." Soldiers are hit men. Sending them some places results in war crimes, sending them other places prevents war crimes. Overall, I'd rather have and use soldiers than not. For a meaningful comparison with "law enforcement", first specify which legal system and which laws.

emodendroket 10y ago
> Killing someone for the "right" reasons, either by yourself or by proxy, is morally right. Avoiding the consequences for running your large criminal enterprise, through which you are enriching yourself, doesn't strike me as a good case for justifiable homicide.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  > through which you are enriching yourself Red Herring. > Avoiding the consequences The invented consequences, yes. But the consequences of the crime itself (ie hitting someone while drunk driving) have to be bad in and of themselves for the concept of crime to be distinct from angering the king. > doesn't strike me as a good case for justifiable homicide. Being threatened with having your life ruined for actions that don't hurt anyone actually seems like the only reasonable justification for killing someone. Especially in the case of a blackmailer where they aren't attempting to right any (theoretical) wrongs.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    I simply do not agree with you.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      No, you refuse to put yourself in the shoes of someone breaking an unjust law and being persecuted for it. You may never agree with a drug dealer killing an informant, but the concept of killing your blackmailer is much broader. The fact is that our law. (You and me. We paid for it.) Doesn't help us, and was used to hurt (blackmail) someone. You might not think the hit was "Fair" or in proportion but it was a consequence of our useless law - making someone defend themselves. As long as we have bad law we'll have its unintended consequences. Silk Road was the best public-safety advancement in drugs in the last millennium. It was impossible for someone to stumble into unaware, it wasn't near a school, church, rehab clinic, etc. And our useless laws treated it like he was shoving crack cocaine into a toddler's mouth, and denied him the protection of the police. And useless isn't just a term of dislike, it's that our drug laws don't increase safety for anyone, dealers, users, or bystanders.
      - emodendroket 10y ago
        Hard to see a guy who made himself rich in the process as a martyr.
        EdHominem 10y ago
        Your empathy is contingent on someone's wallet? Not a martyr, that's a silly religious concept. He's just not served by the law and neither are we. He was denied protection despite not hurting people, and yet we are no safer because of the actions of law enforcement. Anyways, as long as we create this class of people (criminals whose crimes don't hurt anyone) and deny them protection, they will protect themselves. That's not further criminality, it's humanity. You would defend yourself, and so do they. We can stick our heads in the sand and say "It's wrong, they're criminal" or we can stop with the ridiculous laws.

emodendroket 10y ago

> Killing someone for the "right" reasons, either by yourself or by proxy, is morally right. Avoiding the consequences for running your large criminal enterprise, through which you are enriching yourself, doesn't strike me as a good case for justifiable homicide.

EdHominem 10y ago
> through which you are enriching yourself Red Herring. > Avoiding the consequences The invented consequences, yes. But the consequences of the crime itself (ie hitting someone while drunk driving) have to be bad in and of themselves for the concept of crime to be distinct from angering the king. > doesn't strike me as a good case for justifiable homicide. Being threatened with having your life ruined for actions that don't hurt anyone actually seems like the only reasonable justification for killing someone. Especially in the case of a blackmailer where they aren't attempting to right any (theoretical) wrongs.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  I simply do not agree with you.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    No, you refuse to put yourself in the shoes of someone breaking an unjust law and being persecuted for it. You may never agree with a drug dealer killing an informant, but the concept of killing your blackmailer is much broader. The fact is that our law. (You and me. We paid for it.) Doesn't help us, and was used to hurt (blackmail) someone. You might not think the hit was "Fair" or in proportion but it was a consequence of our useless law - making someone defend themselves. As long as we have bad law we'll have its unintended consequences. Silk Road was the best public-safety advancement in drugs in the last millennium. It was impossible for someone to stumble into unaware, it wasn't near a school, church, rehab clinic, etc. And our useless laws treated it like he was shoving crack cocaine into a toddler's mouth, and denied him the protection of the police. And useless isn't just a term of dislike, it's that our drug laws don't increase safety for anyone, dealers, users, or bystanders.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      Hard to see a guy who made himself rich in the process as a martyr.
      - EdHominem 10y ago
        Your empathy is contingent on someone's wallet? Not a martyr, that's a silly religious concept. He's just not served by the law and neither are we. He was denied protection despite not hurting people, and yet we are no safer because of the actions of law enforcement. Anyways, as long as we create this class of people (criminals whose crimes don't hurt anyone) and deny them protection, they will protect themselves. That's not further criminality, it's humanity. You would defend yourself, and so do they. We can stick our heads in the sand and say "It's wrong, they're criminal" or we can stop with the ridiculous laws.