wrong, it is possible to hold a moral position which condemns bestiality whilst also being ok with some if not all forms of using rabbits for dietary consumption. no, i will not explain. the vegan struggle session is tiresome af and i need at least another hour of drinking before work tomorrow.
that is correct, there are no circumstances where murder is okay. there are various reasons you might need to kill, but I wouldn't describe any of them as murder.
The words we use for non-consensual killing are entirely context based. there is no meaningful difference between any of them except whether the person choosing what word to use thinks it was justified. Also, killing an innocent person in cold blood is murder period. there are still circumstances where this ok because it causes more good\prevents more harm than not doing so.
killing an innocent person in cold blood is murder period. there are still circumstances where this ok
I do not agree. You will never in your life be faced with a circumstance where you need to murder someone to save 2 other people unless you actually live in a trolley problem comic strip. It's fun to think about, but it has nothing to do with the real world.
even if it does not happen does not mean it can't theoretically happen. If there is a non-zero chance of it happening, the consideration of the moral implications involved in it are real and due to our inability to know the future the consideration of real possibilities is completely valid no matter how unlikely.
wrong, just wrong. Would insert evil adult of your choice be doing evil things they do if they had been murdered as an innocent infant? no. greater good achieved.
inb4 response about how we wouldn't know they would turn out evil part one: the morality of a thing is entirely determined by outcome.
4: real life trolley problems do exist. Additionally, They don't need to save two lives to exist. You are faced with saving a child or an elderly person: who do you save? Unless said elderly person is valuable to humanity on a significant level the child is the only moral answer on who to save because death costs them significantly more.
to be faiiiiiiirrrrrrr, fucking an actual rabbit is bad and you should feel bad if you do.
this view is only consistent if you also condemn eating rabbits
wrong, it is possible to hold a moral position which condemns bestiality whilst also being ok with some if not all forms of using rabbits for dietary consumption. no, i will not explain. the vegan struggle session is tiresome af and i need at least another hour of drinking before work tomorrow.
that would be like holding the moral position that its wrong to rape people but not to murder them
its just poorly thought out.
Implying there are not circumstances where murder is ok.
I think it's okay to murder as long as you intend to eat the victim.
that is correct, there are no circumstances where murder is okay. there are various reasons you might need to kill, but I wouldn't describe any of them as murder.
The words we use for non-consensual killing are entirely context based. there is no meaningful difference between any of them except whether the person choosing what word to use thinks it was justified. Also, killing an innocent person in cold blood is murder period. there are still circumstances where this ok because it causes more good\prevents more harm than not doing so.
I do not agree. You will never in your life be faced with a circumstance where you need to murder someone to save 2 other people unless you actually live in a trolley problem comic strip. It's fun to think about, but it has nothing to do with the real world.
deleted by creator