The reason I am exploring the possibility that killing (by a
near-death victim) a carefully chosen tobbaco spokesperson would be
justified is simply that when I think through what would happen as a
result I almost always come to the conclusion that it would mean a net
saving of lives.
I would also advocate the killing of a random member of the
public if it was sure to lead to the same net saving of lives. Before
you dismiss this as lunatic rantings I suggest you consider exactly what
it would mean, you act to make the world a safer place for everyone.
>If I shoot someone dead, that's direct; if I hire someone else to do it,
>that's indirect. Same culpability, IMHO. Legal labels may vary, but in
>my moral landscape they're equivalent.
Same here.
>
>But attempting to convince someone to do something that is against his or
>her own best interests, including even suicide, is not the same thing as
>doing it or getting someone to do it for you. Memetic influence, even
>when used in the service of sleazy causes like cigarette advertising or
>encouraging murder, is not deadly force.
I disagree, just because you cant pin down direct irrefutable
cases doesnt mean that they dont exist, its a simple statistical outcome
that certain key personell working on pro tobacco memes will cause a
number of deaths greater than one in their career.
Tony