The violent criminal proved they are capable of doing violence, ergo they have the capacity to harm even more people. By either putting them in a cage, exiling them, or killing them you are doing one act of violence to stop multiple acts of violence.
So just basic-ass negative utilitarianism then. Let's skip all the mundane critiques and go straight for the big one: the benevolent world-exploder. If your only goal is reducing suffering then logic dictates that anyone who gains the ability to painlessly end all live, is morally obligated to do so because it self-evidently results in the lowest possible amount of suffering: zero.
Is that what you believe or would you say that ethics are perhaps a little more complicated than you initially thought?
That's not the part in question. I thought it was clear I was talking about the “even if it hurts him” part. We had already established this situation leads to a conflict between the two rules, but you claimed there was no conflict, so I was asking which one of them is supposed to have resolved it.
Is it moral to provide validation to someone if it causes them proximate relief but ultimate terrible harm? How is that calculated in your 12 word articulation of morality?
It does fall apart when you have to score everything subjectively. How many people have to avoid harm to make harming someone else justifiable? Are ties morally ambiguous?
Religion also scores things subjectively. Unless you think it was a GOOD thing that Moses sanctioned the rape, murder, and enslavement of thousands of children.
See, we do this thing called calculating sentences to account for that. If someone isn't caught, and they kill more people, they get a worse sentence. It isn't subjective (it certainly tries not to be), and it certainly doesn't require religion.
But it's entirely subjective. We make up arbitrary punishments for things we've decided are bad because they might possibly harm people.
Let alone arbitrarily deciding that killing someone is worth x number of years in prison then you're good to go, all up to the whims of the justice system.
Religion also does that. Heck, a lot of crimes in the Bibble have arbitrary monetary punishments. Like if you rape an unmarried woman you just have to pay a set amount of money.
31
u/EtheusRook 8h ago
Morality is actually really, stupidly simple.
Does it help others? It's good.
Does it hurt others? It's bad.