3 ms·

When we want to consider who he would have targeted, that's not a moral question. What you’re missing here is empathy. When he considered his targets for murd

When we want to consider who he would have targeted, that's not a moral question. What you’re missing here is empathy. When he considered his targets for murder that is indeed a moral question for him. He could have considered anyone driving an automobile. Why do I say this? Because for me the relationship between someone who buys gasoline and someone who sells gasoline is mutual and a PR executive is even farther removed. Perhaps it isn’t for you. Perhaps someone else would consider all people of a certain ethnicity a target for murder and based on statistical evidence. The point is that when you allow for individuals to come up with their own personal reasons for murdering a member of a certain group that you allow for an infinity of reasons and targets. At least a few people picked up on this thread based on my original pithy comment.

Dylan16807 3y ago
> When he considered his targets for murder that is indeed a moral question for him. But it's using his moral system, which was relative when it comes to murder. It's not how you and I think about murder that matters. > The point is that when you allow for individuals to come up with their own personal reasons for murdering a member of a certain group that you allow for an infinity of reasons and targets. If you allow anyone to do so, then across all of them you'll see an infinity of reasons, yes. But this isn't about allowing, and this is about a specific murderer. A specific murderer won't use an infinity of reasons. > for me the relationship between someone who buys gasoline and someone who sells gasoline is mutual Let's just assess harm here and not talk about murder or anything. I don't think Ted K had much reason to disagree with this statement. But you're missing a crucial factor. The consumer buys one lifetime supply of gas. The producer sells a million. If we split the blame equally for each transaction, then each consumer has .5 blame units and the producer has 500 thousand blame units.

Dylan16807 3y ago

> When he considered his targets for murder that is indeed a moral question for him. But it's using his moral system, which was relative when it comes to murder. It's not how you and I think about murder that matters. > The point is that when you allow for individuals to come up with their own personal reasons for murdering a member of a certain group that you allow for an infinity of reasons and targets. If you allow anyone to do so, then across all of them you'll see an infinity of reasons, yes. But this isn't about allowing, and this is about a specific murderer. A specific murderer won't use an infinity of reasons. > for me the relationship between someone who buys gasoline and someone who sells gasoline is mutual Let's just assess harm here and not talk about murder or anything. I don't think Ted K had much reason to disagree with this statement. But you're missing a crucial factor. The consumer buys one lifetime supply of gas. The producer sells a million. If we split the blame equally for each transaction, then each consumer has .5 blame units and the producer has 500 thousand blame units.