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.
Show this thread
-
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
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.
-
-
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 -
-
-
Well.. surely the principle already exists in English law of 'justifiable homicide' apart from 'self defence' or 'lawful authority' but "l killed them 'cos they deserved to be killed"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.