And no one here is telling Trump, Putin or Netanyahu that they wish they would die because chances are no one here would be able to get close enough to them to do it. And if they did, they’d be the ones who would die.
So you can keep bringing up Kant, but you’re being both inconsistent and bringing up something irrelevant.
It is some magical thinking that they want to participate in. Most of us would agree it’s not okay for the government to punish people for no reason. Therefore it is unethical to punish any criminals, per Kant. Lunacy.
No worries! Just frustrating to read them and wanted to point out how little sense it makes to pretend deliberate choices shouldn’t factor in to how we treat people.
You didn’t say the method of death mattered.
And no one here is telling Trump, Putin or Netanyahu that they wish they would die because chances are no one here would be able to get close enough to them to do it. And if they did, they’d be the ones who would die.
So you can keep bringing up Kant, but you’re being both inconsistent and bringing up something irrelevant.
It is some magical thinking that they want to participate in. Most of us would agree it’s not okay for the government to punish people for no reason. Therefore it is unethical to punish any criminals, per Kant. Lunacy.
Sorry, misunderstood your reply and deleted my previous comment. You’re absolutely right.
No worries! Just frustrating to read them and wanted to point out how little sense it makes to pretend deliberate choices shouldn’t factor in to how we treat people.
deleted by creator
That’s not how it works.
I like Kant because it provides for this:
All humans should have the right to marry who they want to.
Because trans and gay people are people, it’s unethical to deny them the right to marry because it would be an exception to the rule.
The rule you would advocate for would be:
People should not harm others.
That rule would mean that harming people is unethical.