Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-2804:431:B700:3599:D022:2FE7:358A:6D2-20180523202338/@comment-27713488-20180525223627

DukeLeto7 wrote: Likewise, there was an immediate proximate moral justification for the invasion of Yhilin. It's strongly implied that our intervention preempted a popular uprising that would have caused a protracted civil war with much more civilian death. Sure, sure. But you know, if you had significantly more funding, you could end the battle more decisively and with less damage to life and property. Is a bit of rough sex avoided really worth the loss of even one life? Or if things only matter to you if they're cute and you interact with them personally, maybe we can ask Rick how he feels when no one can find his mommy and daddy?

See, you missed the point. The point wasn't to "invoke the noncentral fallacy" by asserting deontology over utilitarianism. The point wasn't even to point out the skulls and argue that Simon's group is the baddies. It was that you can't kill people for money and power, let alone start a bloody war, then turn around and say you're above some pimping because that's the part that makes you an "amoral psychopath." You've got to take the same calculating approach to it all. You've got to ask whether it was worth it in the end.