Prev: An inconsistent theory
Next: > ... my cat gets the best nutrition available.
From: Rupert on 8 Jul 2008 20:34
So, Ball, somehow or other I got the idea that you believed in the
following proposition:

(p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
right against a set of moral
agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
financially complicit in them
acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or commiting
any comparable moral
wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
that moral agent is a moral
bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite.

But maybe I was wrong, maybe you don't believe that.

You tell me. True or false?
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: An inconsistent theory
Next: > ... my cat gets the best nutrition available.