3 ms·
Then 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 im
by koenigdavidmj 11y ago
Then 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.