• HalfSalesman@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    The incompatibilitist consequentialist in me says no but the cathartic revenge hedonist in me says yes.

    • P1k1e@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      I dunno what them big words mean, but I see a yes in there and thats all I need to hear

      • HalfSalesman@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Breaking it down, the ‘no’ comes basically from “Free will doesn’t exist so no one can justly be punished and violence just causes pain and a cycle of more violence”

        The ‘yes’ comes from "We’re all dead one day anyway and it is intrinsically pleasurable to harm/kill people who have wronged me, my loved ones, or any innocent people. "

        The latter is actually a more unethical embrace of pleasure.

        On a broader scale though I’m against both the death penalty and revenge/vigilante killing, but I actually think the latter is comparatively less unethical in a vacuum. At least in the case of revenge/vigilante killing someone is getting something out of it.

        • P1k1e@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Ethics are for those who can afford them, catharsis is a tune we can all dance to