Specifically, their act of killing that person has brought about something good, therefore, it cannot be condemned in terms of its *particular* consequence.
Show this thread
If you celebrate somebody's death then presumably you think it's a moral good they are dead. If it's a moral good they are dead then the grounds for condemning somebody if they had killed that person shrink considerably.
-
-
-
That's not the end of the story, of course. A rule utilitarian might plausibly talk about the (disastrous) consequences of introducing a rule that says kill people if their death is a moral good.
Show this thread -
And epistemic humility is a good reason to think that killing people if their death is *seen* as a moral good will result in lots of mistakes being made. (Of course, this also applies to celebrating somebody's death).
Show this thread -
So if you celebrate somebody's death you could still consistently condemn their murder. But consistency is going to take some fast talking, and it cannot rely on the claim that their death, in and of itself, is a moral wrong.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You could celebrate someone's death for other reasons than moral good. For example, if your only significant business competitor died, you might celebrate because you thought you stood to gain a lot more business.
-
Yes, that's true, but it would make the celebration extremely suspect. Maybe my first tweet should have said if you think celebrating somebody's death is morally justified...
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.