Give me something juicy

  • YappyMonotheist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    I understand “not taking risks” as a morally correct stance if you don’t have enough information (you could mistake the victim for the offender, for instance), but I understood these scenarios as something you’re present for, understand clearly and are capable of acting upon. I know this goes way beyond the original question, but, would you say that “the right thing to do” remains obvious, it’s just that it’s not so easy to be self-sacrificial? I mean, if you could singlehandedly stop a genocide from taking place, but you were gonna be somewhat traumatised for it, or someone in your family had to pay the price, I think stopping it remains the right thing to do, regardless of how willing we would be to do it, right?

    • greenskye@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Oh yeah, totally agree with that take. My ability to execute is separate from the moral good or bad of the situation.

      Through that lens, then I’d consider most of these scenarios a moral good. I’m not really someone who holds with ‘all life is sacred’ or ‘everyone can be redeemed’, at least in scenarios where they have actively sought to kill others. For whatever reason, some humans are just bad people and need to be eliminated for the safety of others.

      If they were easily neutralized, I’d prefer going through a proper justice system, but if not, then that’s merely a consequence of their own actions that they were taken down.

      • YappyMonotheist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I like the cut of your jib, greenskye. ✌️

        And I wish I could say something else regarding the topic but we agree too much on it, hehe. Take care, and thanks for the chat!!