If you truly believe that knowing an action will incidentally result in some deaths makes it morally identical to premeditated killing, you just criminalised the entire modern world.
By your logic, there is no difference between a doctor knowing a certain percentage of patients will have a fatal allergic reaction to a life-saving vaccine, and a doctor intentionally injecting a patient with poison. You are saying those two things are morally the same.
By your logic, there is no difference between a doctor knowing a certain percentage of patients will have a fatal allergic reaction to a life-saving vaccine, and a doctor intentionally injecting a patient with poison. You are saying those two things are morally the same.
if they have informed consent, then yes it is the same. and if they fail to get informed consent, then yes it is the same.
That is not a moral philosophy; that is the total destruction of morality.
If your logic holds, that knowledge of a potential outcome makes the outcome morally equivalent to intentional harm, then everything is a crime.
If you drive a car to work, you know with statistical certainty that your presence on the road contributes to the probability of a fatal accident. By your definition, you are ‘intentionally’ killing someone every time you get behind the wheel, regardless of whether you are a safe driver or a reckless one.
If a parent gives birth to a child, they know with 100% certainty that the child will eventually die. By your logic, having a child is a premeditated act of murder.
Whether or not a doctor obtains consent is entirely irrelevant to whether it is ethical to kill a sentient being for sensory pleasure. You are creating a false analogy because you can no longer defend your position on the original topic.
I used those analogies as reductio ad absurdum to show that your stated logic leads to absurd conclusions. I didn’t raise them to debate medical ethics; I raised them to demonstrate that if we held people responsible for any foreseen probability of harm, society would be impossible.
The fact that you are hyper-focusing on the mechanics of a doctor’s consent rather than addressing why your own logic makes parents ‘murderers’ and drivers ‘killers’ proves that you are incapable of defending your actual position.
If you drive a car to work, you know with statistical certainty that your presence on the road contributes to the probability of a fatal accident. By your definition, you are ‘intentionally’ killing someone every time you get behind the wheel, regardless of whether you are a safe driver or a reckless one.
this is a terrible analogy. we know that clearing a certain number of acres during harvest kills a certain number of animals. regardless of the ratio or number, it is non-zero. most people drive without ever being involved in a fatal crash.
The car analogy was about the distinction between intentional killing and unintended risk. You are now trying to make this about the statistical frequency of death to avoid the moral reality of your choices.
But if you want to use ‘crop deaths’ as your yardstick, you are concerned about animals killed during harvest, however, livestock consume vastly more grain and soy than humans do. Every time you eat a burger, you are demanding the harvest of more crops than if you had simply eaten the plants yourself. If you are worried about the ‘non-zero’ number of animal deaths during harvest, then by eating meat, you are directly increasing that number.
If a parent gives birth to a child, they know with 100% certainty that the child will eventually die. By your logic, having a child is a premeditated act of murder.
i think you are the one arguing that second and third order effects impose moral responsibility. i have been arguing against that.
I have never argued that all second or third-order effects impose moral responsibility. I have argued that directly funding a service that has the killing of a sentient being as its primary purpose creates moral responsibility.
A parent giving birth knows their child will die, but the death is not the purpose of the act, nor is it the service they are paying for. A person buying meat is paying a corporation specifically to ensure an animal is killed. You are paying for the service of slaughter.
Having a child is a biological reality; it is not a market transaction. A grocery store purchase is a direct, bilateral contract. You give money; they give you a product that required a killing. You are the direct, primary financier of that specific act.
You haven’t been arguing against second-order effects; you have been dodging the fact that your purchase is a first-order effect. You are the reason the animal was slaughtered. If you weren’t there to pay for it, the slaughterhouse would have no reason to exist.
This debate has become a circular exercise where you redefine terms whenever you are backed into a corner.
if you know your actions will result in killing, even if it is incidental instead of the intention, the morality is the same. it’s not an accident.
If you truly believe that knowing an action will incidentally result in some deaths makes it morally identical to premeditated killing, you just criminalised the entire modern world.
By your logic, there is no difference between a doctor knowing a certain percentage of patients will have a fatal allergic reaction to a life-saving vaccine, and a doctor intentionally injecting a patient with poison. You are saying those two things are morally the same.
if they have informed consent, then yes it is the same. and if they fail to get informed consent, then yes it is the same.
That is not a moral philosophy; that is the total destruction of morality.
If your logic holds, that knowledge of a potential outcome makes the outcome morally equivalent to intentional harm, then everything is a crime.
If you drive a car to work, you know with statistical certainty that your presence on the road contributes to the probability of a fatal accident. By your definition, you are ‘intentionally’ killing someone every time you get behind the wheel, regardless of whether you are a safe driver or a reckless one.
If a parent gives birth to a child, they know with 100% certainty that the child will eventually die. By your logic, having a child is a premeditated act of murder.
if a doctor gets informed consent, what do you think they’re doing that’s criminal?
Whether or not a doctor obtains consent is entirely irrelevant to whether it is ethical to kill a sentient being for sensory pleasure. You are creating a false analogy because you can no longer defend your position on the original topic.
you’re the one who raised this particular analogy
I used those analogies as reductio ad absurdum to show that your stated logic leads to absurd conclusions. I didn’t raise them to debate medical ethics; I raised them to demonstrate that if we held people responsible for any foreseen probability of harm, society would be impossible.
The fact that you are hyper-focusing on the mechanics of a doctor’s consent rather than addressing why your own logic makes parents ‘murderers’ and drivers ‘killers’ proves that you are incapable of defending your actual position.
but they’re bad analogies
since you seem to be admitting that’s not a good analogy, do you want to try another?
this is a terrible analogy. we know that clearing a certain number of acres during harvest kills a certain number of animals. regardless of the ratio or number, it is non-zero. most people drive without ever being involved in a fatal crash.
The car analogy was about the distinction between intentional killing and unintended risk. You are now trying to make this about the statistical frequency of death to avoid the moral reality of your choices.
But if you want to use ‘crop deaths’ as your yardstick, you are concerned about animals killed during harvest, however, livestock consume vastly more grain and soy than humans do. Every time you eat a burger, you are demanding the harvest of more crops than if you had simply eaten the plants yourself. If you are worried about the ‘non-zero’ number of animal deaths during harvest, then by eating meat, you are directly increasing that number.
no, i’m not.
humans eat about 2/3 of global crop calories, so this just isn’t true
no i’m not.
i can easily concede that your argument from analogy was a bad one.
only when i’m trying to point out to people that argue against animal deaths for food
i think you are the one arguing that second and third order effects impose moral responsibility. i have been arguing against that.
I have never argued that all second or third-order effects impose moral responsibility. I have argued that directly funding a service that has the killing of a sentient being as its primary purpose creates moral responsibility.
A parent giving birth knows their child will die, but the death is not the purpose of the act, nor is it the service they are paying for. A person buying meat is paying a corporation specifically to ensure an animal is killed. You are paying for the service of slaughter.
Having a child is a biological reality; it is not a market transaction. A grocery store purchase is a direct, bilateral contract. You give money; they give you a product that required a killing. You are the direct, primary financier of that specific act.
You haven’t been arguing against second-order effects; you have been dodging the fact that your purchase is a first-order effect. You are the reason the animal was slaughtered. If you weren’t there to pay for it, the slaughterhouse would have no reason to exist.
This debate has become a circular exercise where you redefine terms whenever you are backed into a corner.
no, they’re paying for a product that has already been produced.
fortunately i don’t do that. most people don’t.
impossible. the person who did the killing was already paid, and paid by someone who isn’t me.