What false evidence? The most he did was not tell them that he was the very man they were wanting to kill.
And that's not lying. That's just omission of the truth.
Besides, if these people have murder in their heart how good could they have been to have around? Don't you think that's evidence enough of their being a threat?
The man never took away their willpower. They made a choice of their own free will, yes?
If it wasn't for the man's actions nothing would have happened either. At least, there is no proof it would have.
I'll put what I said before another way. If he needed to tempt them into making an attack, that means they would not have done it of their own accord; ergo, not a threat.
Firstly, both free will and responsibility are not black and white, and there is no definite dividing line between responsible and not. It is situation dependent. The other person had free will not to kill Spike, just as you had free will not to tell him or her to kill Spike. Therefore, responsibility is equal. And you're a bad dog owner, not fit to own a dog, just as the man is bad at caring for his people, and not fit to hold power.
Secondly, whether responsible or not the man could not have known if the group would attack their enemy before he provoked them. He must have had another reason to suspect them or else he would not bother, so why not give that reason? Why instead rely on provoking an attack from them unless he's being untruthful?
Thirdly, it does not prove that the whole group is dangerous; only the small minority of volatile members of the group. Every group has its extreme fringes, but not every group is dangerous as a whole.
Justice outside the moral good
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
What false evidence? The most he did was not tell them that he was the very man they were wanting to kill.
And that's not lying. That's just omission of the truth.
Besides, if these people have murder in their heart how good could they have been to have around? Don't you think that's evidence enough of their being a threat?
The man never took away their willpower. They made a choice of their own free will, yes?
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Let me put it another way-
If not for their own actions, nothing would have happened. Everything was in their court.
If anything, the whole situation is their fault.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
If it wasn't for the man's actions nothing would have happened either. At least, there is no proof it would have.
I'll put what I said before another way. If he needed to tempt them into making an attack, that means they would not have done it of their own accord; ergo, not a threat.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
So you're saying that if I get someone riled up and they kill my sweet old grandma, then they're not a threat?
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm saying that it was your intention for them to kill your sweet old grandma. So you must be at least an equal threat to them.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Okay that's a decent point, I'll give you that.
But let me rephrase.
If you rile someone up and give them a rubber knife and say, "Go kill my dog Spike!" and he tries it...doesn't that make him a threat?
How are we to take responsibility for the actions of others?
He had free will. No ifs ands or buts.
I just can't see how you showing the world that that person wanted to kill your dog Spike makes you as bad as him.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Firstly, both free will and responsibility are not black and white, and there is no definite dividing line between responsible and not. It is situation dependent. The other person had free will not to kill Spike, just as you had free will not to tell him or her to kill Spike. Therefore, responsibility is equal. And you're a bad dog owner, not fit to own a dog, just as the man is bad at caring for his people, and not fit to hold power.
Secondly, whether responsible or not the man could not have known if the group would attack their enemy before he provoked them. He must have had another reason to suspect them or else he would not bother, so why not give that reason? Why instead rely on provoking an attack from them unless he's being untruthful?
Thirdly, it does not prove that the whole group is dangerous; only the small minority of volatile members of the group. Every group has its extreme fringes, but not every group is dangerous as a whole.