3 ms·
You could argue against any rule enforcement by saying "what if they do the opposite eventually".
by AgentME 6y ago
You could argue against any rule enforcement by saying "what if they do the opposite eventually".
- tomcam 6y agoYes. That’s precisely how I structure my thinking. It is incumbent on me to imagine the results of policies that I support going wrong. For example, I tend to be slightly on the side of the death penalty. That means I have to imagine that a loved one of mine could be falsely accused of a crime and be executed for it. It would be morally reprehensible for me not to imagine all consequences of something I believe in. Likewise, anyone against the death penalty should imagine the case, for example, where their own children are killed and the murderer isn’t punished similarly. There are usually principle of arguments on both sides and I feel it’s important for me to account for them.
- tomcam 6y ago"principled arguments", not "principle of arguments", sorry.