Fuck, I want to continue this, but I need to head out..

I only make a distinction between life and death, not between numbers of dead people.

Every single death is bad. More dead people are not more bad, they're just equally bad. It doesn't add up, it stays level.

so killing 1 baby is equal to killing a hundred?🤔

That’s what I was just typing

Yes, in my opinion it's the same. If you kill one, you could just as well kill a hundred, so you should be tried the same either way.

bruh

thats... an intresting way of looking at things

If that one death was violent and painful, would it be any different from the 100 deaths which may have been peaceful in their sleep?

If you deserve death for killing 100 babies, then you also deserve death for killing one.
If you don't deserve death for killing one baby, then you also don't deserve death for killing 100.

Makes communist death stats irrelevant

There's a difference between a murderer and a serial killer...

I know there's a difference, and I've thought about that

But to me it's purely numerical

A utilitarian sees added moral value in numbers, I don't

If you kill one person that's life, if you kill hundreds that's a death sentence

In this instance it might just depend on the person. I mean to you or me, we'd see the baby's death as a bad thing. To the parent, it's so much more devastating

I think if you murder 100 people, and you deserve death for that, then you should also deserve that for only murdering 1 person.

No I don't believe in death for killing one person as that's an eye for an eye territory which is morally questionable

That's the utilitarian morality

My morality is anti-utilitarian

Each individual counts

Surely it'd be better to make that person spend the rest of their life living with the consequences of their actions?

Death is too easy an escape

Well, that's how we've handled it so far

I see it more like this:

A serial killer is more likely to kill again, and that's why it makes pragmatic sense to kill him

True

But from a purely moralistic standpoint, there's no difference in my opinion

And since the world isn't purely moralistic, and utility matters, anti-utilitarian views are irrelevant.

Well, no I think it's not about utility

Or rather

I don't think it should be

I think it should be about pragmatism instead

Well, people shouldn't starve, but they do.

Morality and pragmatism, not uility

I see what you're saying, a murderer can only become a serial killer by killing again but if the murderer is in prison for life then only a murderer not caught early enough can become a serial killer

That's the pragmatic side of the argument, yes

The only difference between the two is how quickly justice is brought down

Morally speaking, I'd either kill both, or none, unless I have a pragmatic reason to differ

For example I'd kill Hitler, but not a one-time murderer, because I think pragmatism is important