Sorry, I don’t understand, could you clarify the c. f. part?
I mean it as an observation. When Pat Robertson died it was not a murder, so the moral problems with encouraging violence are not involved. His death objectively made the world less hateful. His propaganda stopped and other people with less skill and less of a following stepped in to replace him, but it was an overall reduction. I think it is fair to say that in that situation his death was good for society. That doesn’t mean we should not fund gerontology and research how to keep older people healthy, we should be trying to prevent harm wherever we can. He died of natural causes at 93 so nobody shortened his life, it is morally empty.
When Kirk died the same change in the world occurred. His death meant the removal of the propaganda he was spewing. In the same way as with Pat Robertson we should not cause more of this type of death, in fact we should avoid and prevent as many as we reasonably can. That said, his death reduced harm and that reduction of harm can be celebrated.
i was confused for quite a bit until i realized Pat Robertson was an actual person and not some placeholder name with a ring to it lol
by the c.f. part i meant the moral prohibition loses its power because, in the ideal world created by your conditions of which one is right, there would be no repercussions for violation. as seen in what i'm c.f.-ing against, this has a significant chance of leading to a world where some people go out to hunt and kill those whose deaths they think make the world objectively less hateful.
Sorry, I am not understanding what the "c. f. " part means. Is it an abbreviation for something? I mean not understanding like not knowing that etc means etcetera. Thanks
rowinxavier@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Sorry, I don’t understand, could you clarify the c. f. part?
I mean it as an observation. When Pat Robertson died it was not a murder, so the moral problems with encouraging violence are not involved. His death objectively made the world less hateful. His propaganda stopped and other people with less skill and less of a following stepped in to replace him, but it was an overall reduction. I think it is fair to say that in that situation his death was good for society. That doesn’t mean we should not fund gerontology and research how to keep older people healthy, we should be trying to prevent harm wherever we can. He died of natural causes at 93 so nobody shortened his life, it is morally empty.
When Kirk died the same change in the world occurred. His death meant the removal of the propaganda he was spewing. In the same way as with Pat Robertson we should not cause more of this type of death, in fact we should avoid and prevent as many as we reasonably can. That said, his death reduced harm and that reduction of harm can be celebrated.
Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 5 days ago
i was confused for quite a bit until i realized Pat Robertson was an actual person and not some placeholder name with a ring to it lol
by the c.f. part i meant the moral prohibition loses its power because, in the ideal world created by your conditions of which one is right, there would be no repercussions for violation. as seen in what i'm c.f.-ing against, this has a significant chance of leading to a world where some people go out to hunt and kill those whose deaths they think make the world objectively less hateful.
rowinxavier@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Sorry, I am not understanding what the "c. f. " part means. Is it an abbreviation for something? I mean not understanding like not knowing that etc means etcetera. Thanks
Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 4 days ago
it means “compare to”. i searched it up and apparently it’s spelt cf. not c.f.—huh.