4 ms·
Ok so was her act of protection a net saving of life or simply a different form of violence?
by what-imright 4y ago
Ok so was her act of protection a net saving of life or simply a different form of violence?
- whythre 4y agoThe first one. If you are trying to prevent loss of life, that is admirable. Even if the people you save choose to commit violence later, that is on them; the responsibility is not on everyone who had previously helped or healed a (potentially) violent actor.
- what-imright 4y agoBut you’re saving a soldier, in an active warzone. You can’t pretend to be naive and say maybe they’re going to have a change of heart and become a flower farmer. By saving that life, you’re executing the future victims of that killer/soldier. That you don’t actually pull the trigger on those victims is neither here nor there.
- phantom_of_cato 4y agoThat's probably very hard to say. But consequentialism/utilitarianism [1] isn't the only form of moral reasoning. By most forms of deontological [2] morality, saving someone's life is a good act by itself, even if the fella goes on to become a murderer later. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism [2]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/