If we condone violence as an effective means to achieve political results, we’re literally supporting terrorism, because that’s what that is:
I never said “political ends”. I was reasonably specific “fewer people dying in the long run”.
Do you take issue with terrorism because of the results (immediate deaths + chilling effects) or because it is unvirtuous? Because I don’t care about virtue at all.
I also don’t put powerful people on the same level as a regular “civilian”. When you take on a powerful position and then proceed to abuse the position so thoroughly that you cause mass deaths you might as well be a military general. In Trump’s case, he’s now literally the commander in chief of the US military.
I also want to point out that I don’t even believe in free will and my ethical frame work here isn’t that I simply want to “take out the trash” or seek vengeance. On a purely rational level I want the harm to stop, not to make Trump or Brian Thompson suffer or die. If there is a reasonable means to achieving that without killing them I would be in favor. But failing to find a pacifistic alternative I actually would say it is an ethical failure not to.
Do you take issue with terrorism because of the results (immediate deaths + chilling effects) or because it is unvirtuous? Because I don’t care about virtue at all.
Closer to virtue, but more on the practical end that it’s not a sustainable model. If you recognize terrorism an an effective political tool, where does it end? That’s a rabbit hole that should not be explored IMO, and the only form we should get anywhere close to supporting is a popular revolution, which isn’t terrorism because it’s popular, and even so it should be used incredibly rarely.
I also don’t put powerful people on the same level as a regular “civilian”.
The difference between a powerful person and a “regular” person is in the amount of responsibility they have, and responsibility should come with penalties if it’s not used properly. Execs that break the law should be jailed, not shot.
I don’t even believe in free will
As in predestination? Or as in, we’re all automatons/there’s nothing “special” about humanity?
I want the harm to stop
Assassination rarely inspires reflection, it usually inspires draconian measures to protect the targets. The healthcare industry isn’t reflecting on how they should treat their subscribers, they’re reflecting on how they can protect their CEOs. The US government isn’t reflecting on Trump’s policies, they’re reflecting on how they can protect the President.
Real change comes from getting the quiet majority on the same page and energized to do something about it. A lone gunman isn’t that.
I never said “political ends”. I was reasonably specific “fewer people dying in the long run”.
Do you take issue with terrorism because of the results (immediate deaths + chilling effects) or because it is unvirtuous? Because I don’t care about virtue at all.
I also don’t put powerful people on the same level as a regular “civilian”. When you take on a powerful position and then proceed to abuse the position so thoroughly that you cause mass deaths you might as well be a military general. In Trump’s case, he’s now literally the commander in chief of the US military.
I also want to point out that I don’t even believe in free will and my ethical frame work here isn’t that I simply want to “take out the trash” or seek vengeance. On a purely rational level I want the harm to stop, not to make Trump or Brian Thompson suffer or die. If there is a reasonable means to achieving that without killing them I would be in favor. But failing to find a pacifistic alternative I actually would say it is an ethical failure not to.
Closer to virtue, but more on the practical end that it’s not a sustainable model. If you recognize terrorism an an effective political tool, where does it end? That’s a rabbit hole that should not be explored IMO, and the only form we should get anywhere close to supporting is a popular revolution, which isn’t terrorism because it’s popular, and even so it should be used incredibly rarely.
The difference between a powerful person and a “regular” person is in the amount of responsibility they have, and responsibility should come with penalties if it’s not used properly. Execs that break the law should be jailed, not shot.
As in predestination? Or as in, we’re all automatons/there’s nothing “special” about humanity?
Assassination rarely inspires reflection, it usually inspires draconian measures to protect the targets. The healthcare industry isn’t reflecting on how they should treat their subscribers, they’re reflecting on how they can protect their CEOs. The US government isn’t reflecting on Trump’s policies, they’re reflecting on how they can protect the President.
Real change comes from getting the quiet majority on the same page and energized to do something about it. A lone gunman isn’t that.