Well, so far I think there has been some productive discussion.
Some comments bring in consideration of intent, utility, and other possible consequences, beyind the destruction of the house. All good adds to the scenario.
In general, I'd say that one unifying point to thoughts like these is that it isn't necessarily as simple as deciding that one of people or property is always more morally valuable than the other. Context (like intent, utility, and other possible consequences) weigh in. In the quote below, I take the word "psychopath" to be a reference to intent. IE Why would someone spare the bomber if the bomber is just blowing up the house for no good reason?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendone
It this a trick? Why would I give a second thought to the life of some psychopath attempting to blow up my house? I think there is some additional context missing here, like if they don’t blow up the house someone will murder their family?
|
Maybe the discussion can continue with some intent ascribed to the bomber:
In one scenario let's say the bomber is being forced to blow up the house, in order to save his own house so that the bombers' family isn't forced into living on the street.
In another scenario, let's say the bomber just hates the design of the house, and wants it gone, and chosen a time to bomb it, when they know no one will get hurt.
Does either intent change what's right?
What pushes the moral scales one way or the other?