3 ms·

It does seem so, doesn't it? But I couple it with a duty to always seek a better understanding of the right, and to a humility that appreciates you might be wr

It does seem so, doesn't it? But I couple it with a duty to always seek a better understanding of the right, and to a humility that appreciates you might be wrong. Moral principles are absolute and unchanging. But their _application_ is always subject to a context, and that context is often full of many different considerations of various weights. You may be of some Nudist religion but appreciate that your other duties require a prudent respect for the social requirement of clothing when earning the money required to meet those duties. If you believe something wrong and dangerous I will try to persuade you that you are _wrong_. I will try to persuade you to change your principles to better ones, or at least doubt yours enough to do nothing while you figure things out. But I won't try to persuade you to not live with integrity. If you believe in shooting people you disagree with, and I think you're actually likely to act on that, then I will act to stop you. Because I have a duty to the just and the innocent to protect them from people who believe stuff that crazy. But just because I oppose you doesn't mean I don't think you mean well, just that you're wrong and must be stopped.

EGreg 14y ago
I think if you tried to name moral principles that are absolute and unchanging, you would mostly name principles from logic. For example, we should not punish an innocent man. But that's because it's a contradiction in terms.
wnight 14y ago
What if the potential shooter was a parent on their way to rescue a child from a kidnapper? What if the shooter was a police officer and had merely lost their uniform in a comic mishap while chasing a vicious killer? If you try to stop someone who is looking to shoot someone they disagree with (regardless of their reasoning), presumably by calling in the police or other agents employing lethal force, you're ultimately just shooting people you disagree with by proxy. If you believed words were a better solution than violence you'd need to talk, and accept the results of that discussion, instead of drawing lines and deciding to perpetrate your own violence. Pacifists can't call the police or they're merely cowards.

EGreg 14y ago

I think if you tried to name moral principles that are absolute and unchanging, you would mostly name principles from logic. For example, we should not punish an innocent man. But that's because it's a contradiction in terms.

wnight 14y ago

What if the potential shooter was a parent on their way to rescue a child from a kidnapper? What if the shooter was a police officer and had merely lost their uniform in a comic mishap while chasing a vicious killer? If you try to stop someone who is looking to shoot someone they disagree with (regardless of their reasoning), presumably by calling in the police or other agents employing lethal force, you're ultimately just shooting people you disagree with by proxy. If you believed words were a better solution than violence you'd need to talk, and accept the results of that discussion, instead of drawing lines and deciding to perpetrate your own violence. Pacifists can't call the police or they're merely cowards.