4 ms·

> It is hard to feel sorry when... I don't need to feel sorry for anyone to assert that murder is wrong. Morals (and laws) don't depend on how sympathetic the

by bigstrat2003 2y ago

> It is hard to feel sorry when... I don't need to feel sorry for anyone to assert that murder is wrong. Morals (and laws) don't depend on how sympathetic the victim is or isn't. The fact that there's a sizable chunk of American society which doesn't see this is scary as hell, and speaks very poorly of those people.

maeil 2y ago
Were you actively telling everyone you thought the murder of Bin Laden was wrong when it happened? I definitely don't remember seeing a single person doing so in the West.
- josephcsible 2y ago
  A lot of people did exactly that: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...
  - maeil 2y ago
    Thank you, going on my reading list! Definitely not the best example then. Nevertheless, the person I was replying to has 100% voted for murderers assuming they live in the US, unless they never voted for anyone who won. They consume products by businesses who murder. I strongly doubt they're a pacificism absolutist, given how extremely rare those are nowadays, as most people understand how quickly that falls apart when someone shows up with a big stick who can't be reasoned with.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  There is a huge difference between killing someone who is actively organizing terrorist attacks versus killing a bureaucrat who is in the unfortunate position to catch heat no matter what because he has to say no to some people. Acts of war are seldom considered murder, even by religious people. Vigilantism against someone who didn't even break any laws is definitely murder.
  - immibis 2y ago
    Both of the examples referenced were the killing of someone who killed tens of thousands (at least) of innocent civilians at random. The only reason one doesn't get called terrorism is that there weren't any action movie fireballs involved.
somenameforme 2y ago
I'm curious if you'll indulge a hypothetical. Imagine executives could be held responsible for deaths proven to be reasonable caused by their actions (or inactions) with penalties comparable to normal penalties for murder/manslaughter. And now this man was found responsible for a countless number of deaths, and thus himself sentenced to death, or lifetime solitary confinement if you happen to unconditionally oppose the death penalty. Would your view change? I assume the answer is yes, but I'm sure you see the issue with letting laws define one's own personal code. This isn't a 'gotcha' or anything. I myself have lots of cognitive dissonance on this issue, and am just genuinely curious what your take would be.

maeil 2y ago

Were you actively telling everyone you thought the murder of Bin Laden was wrong when it happened? I definitely don't remember seeing a single person doing so in the West.

josephcsible 2y ago
A lot of people did exactly that: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...
- maeil 2y ago
  Thank you, going on my reading list! Definitely not the best example then. Nevertheless, the person I was replying to has 100% voted for murderers assuming they live in the US, unless they never voted for anyone who won. They consume products by businesses who murder. I strongly doubt they're a pacificism absolutist, given how extremely rare those are nowadays, as most people understand how quickly that falls apart when someone shows up with a big stick who can't be reasoned with.
wakawaka28 2y ago
There is a huge difference between killing someone who is actively organizing terrorist attacks versus killing a bureaucrat who is in the unfortunate position to catch heat no matter what because he has to say no to some people. Acts of war are seldom considered murder, even by religious people. Vigilantism against someone who didn't even break any laws is definitely murder.
- immibis 2y ago
  Both of the examples referenced were the killing of someone who killed tens of thousands (at least) of innocent civilians at random. The only reason one doesn't get called terrorism is that there weren't any action movie fireballs involved.

somenameforme 2y ago

I'm curious if you'll indulge a hypothetical. Imagine executives could be held responsible for deaths proven to be reasonable caused by their actions (or inactions) with penalties comparable to normal penalties for murder/manslaughter. And now this man was found responsible for a countless number of deaths, and thus himself sentenced to death, or lifetime solitary confinement if you happen to unconditionally oppose the death penalty. Would your view change? I assume the answer is yes, but I'm sure you see the issue with letting laws define one's own personal code. This isn't a 'gotcha' or anything. I myself have lots of cognitive dissonance on this issue, and am just genuinely curious what your take would be.