3 ms·
> the role of an actor [is] irrelevant to the morality of the action [carried out by the state] That's precisely what I'm saying. You disagree, but that does n
by bklaasen 11y ago
> the role of an actor [is] irrelevant to the morality of the action [carried out by the state]
That's precisely what I'm saying. You disagree, but that does not render my argument invalid.
- koenigdavidmj 11y agoThen we're back to the beginning. Here is a syllogism that you just said you agree with: 1. An action is immoral without regard to the actor. 2. Killing is immoral for a regular joe on the street. 3. Therefore, killing is immoral for the government. However, you don't seem as comfortable with: 1. An action is immoral without regard to the actor. 2. Demanding someone's money by force (e.g mugging) is immoral. 3. Therefore, it is immoral for the government to issue a fine. Or this one: 1. An action is immoral without regard to the actor. 2. Kidnapping someone and holding them for years is immoral for a regular joe. 3. Therefore, imprisonment is immoral for the government. You could also remain consistent by saying that armed robbery and kidnapping are moral. It's up to you. EDIT: Typo and punctuation.