4 ms·

If they do, it will be a case of no good deed going unpunished.

joseph_grobbles 6y ago
It's a good deed that they broadcast this message? Why a rational human would broadcast this message- a) The penalties if there were deaths would be much, much more severe. The manpower involved in the hunt would be exponentially larger. b) They have some other goal that would be sabotaged if there were deaths. c) They have morality and can rationalize bombing buildings, but not killing people. This isn't a "good deed". It's a presumably rational person playing the situation.
- mckirk 6y ago
  Isn't acting out of a sense of morality the definition of a 'good deed'? Granted, bombing stuff hardly classifies but if you decide it's necessary to bomb something, preventing unnecessary harm for moral reasons could still be seen as a 'good deed'.
  - artificialLimbs 6y ago
    No. Some people think killing Jews is moral, for instance.
    - takeda 6y ago
      Yep, as long as you can explain that someone is a bigger monster than you are you can justify yourself killing anyone.
    - mckirk 6y ago
      Indeed, but isn't that actually an argument for what constitutes a 'good deed' being highly subjective, since moral frameworks seem to be?
    - Symmetry 6y ago
      Most violence that gets carried out is for purposes the perpetrator considers moral whether it's "snitches get stitches" or "They cheated on me" or "His friend killed one of my friends and this is just vengeance."
- swirepe 6y ago
  >This isn't a "good deed". It's a presumably rational person playing the situation. Why not both? A deed can be both good and rational.
  - joseph_grobbles 6y ago
    Reducing the harm of a purposeful, voluntary action -- maybe just to make it personally palatable to your own morality or mission -- doesn't seem to meet the threshold for a "good deed". Less of a bad deed, sure. But given that they still did the very dangerous thing, no not a good deed. The context I replied to implied that tracking a bomber by a warning they gave would be "punishing" a "good deed". That seems dubious.
    - swirepe 6y ago
      >The context I replied to implied that tracking a bomber by a warning they gave would be "punishing" a "good deed". That seems dubious. Oh yeah, sorry, I missed the context. It's a good deed, but not good enough to outweigh, you know, bombing. The recording should be traced like any other part of the bomb.
ct520 6y ago
Lol Feel sorry for the dude on fiverr about to get his loft tossed by alphabet boys

It's a good deed that they broadcast this message? Why a rational human would broadcast this message- a) The penalties if there were deaths would be much, much more severe. The manpower involved in the hunt would be exponentially larger. b) They have some other goal that would be sabotaged if there were deaths. c) They have morality and can rationalize bombing buildings, but not killing people. This isn't a "good deed". It's a presumably rational person playing the situation.

mckirk 6y ago
Isn't acting out of a sense of morality the definition of a 'good deed'? Granted, bombing stuff hardly classifies but if you decide it's necessary to bomb something, preventing unnecessary harm for moral reasons could still be seen as a 'good deed'.
- artificialLimbs 6y ago
  No. Some people think killing Jews is moral, for instance.
  - takeda 6y ago
    Yep, as long as you can explain that someone is a bigger monster than you are you can justify yourself killing anyone.
  - mckirk 6y ago
    Indeed, but isn't that actually an argument for what constitutes a 'good deed' being highly subjective, since moral frameworks seem to be?
  - Symmetry 6y ago
    Most violence that gets carried out is for purposes the perpetrator considers moral whether it's "snitches get stitches" or "They cheated on me" or "His friend killed one of my friends and this is just vengeance."
swirepe 6y ago
>This isn't a "good deed". It's a presumably rational person playing the situation. Why not both? A deed can be both good and rational.
- joseph_grobbles 6y ago
  Reducing the harm of a purposeful, voluntary action -- maybe just to make it personally palatable to your own morality or mission -- doesn't seem to meet the threshold for a "good deed". Less of a bad deed, sure. But given that they still did the very dangerous thing, no not a good deed. The context I replied to implied that tracking a bomber by a warning they gave would be "punishing" a "good deed". That seems dubious.
  - swirepe 6y ago
    >The context I replied to implied that tracking a bomber by a warning they gave would be "punishing" a "good deed". That seems dubious. Oh yeah, sorry, I missed the context. It's a good deed, but not good enough to outweigh, you know, bombing. The recording should be traced like any other part of the bomb.

ct520 6y ago

Lol Feel sorry for the dude on fiverr about to get his loft tossed by alphabet boys