Quote:
Originally Posted by Nage Waza
If one can burn the Mona Lisa and walk away, then pretty much everything is up for game and at risk of crime. So yes, at some point lethal deterrence has a role.
What if instead of the Mona Lisa, it was the electric system? Or your water?
|
That’s a slippery slope fallacy though because nothing indicates that the destruction of the Mona Lisa would lead to the destruction of other works of art, and especially no indication that it would open everything else up for greater risk of crime. There’s just zero logical argument to support that. You’re also suggesting that the two options are “lethal deterrent” and “walking away” which, in reality, is obviously not the case, so the argument makes zero sense.
The electrical system or the water system are different cases, but the question would be: can you reasonably expect (based on the extent of the damage) that people will die as a result of either of these being destroyed? Than the answer is yes, you kill the bomber, because two lives are inherently more valuable than one. Do you know no one die? Then no, because these problems can obviously be mitigated, so you revert back to the value of life over property.
If you consider the suffering element that might be caused by either of these things, you could ask another way: Is it ethical to kill 10,000 people to improve the quality of life of 10,000,000 people? Or is it more ethical to leave the people alone, knowing their quality of life will not be optimal?