What if someone had killed Hitler?
Wouldn't that have been the right thing despite it obviously harmed him?
I think you should consider something like this :)
RE: What is Morally Right is What Doesn't Cause Harm to Other Beings
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
What is Morally Right is What Doesn't Cause Harm to Other Beings
Was Hitler someone who didn't harm anyone first? You need to understand the non aggression principle first... and the difference between force and violence: https://steemit.com/philosophy/@krnel/force-vs-violence-is-force-the-same-as-violence
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thank's for the link, a very interesting article.
Sure he did harm other people first, and one obviously would have the moral obligation to forcefully stop him, but you say yourself that that would harm him: "[...]and this may also result in "damaging" effects to stop them forcefully, to "harm" the violator who is engaging in violence."
Now this makes perfect sense of course, but it's in contrast with the fundamental "inflict no harm whatsoever" - idea of THIS post. Or did I miss a point?
I'm not criticizing your work, it's great, i just thought that there might be a small sidenote missing :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit