I was having a debate with my zone partner (QUESTION INSIDE)

[DMS]

Originally Posted by seth

@DMS here’s a philosophical question for you to answer

no problem my guy. This seems pretty fucking simple tbh. Actions should be punished according to the action. the poor decision by the mother doesn't change what he did, and he's still a possible threat to society. he probably won't be a good father or husband, so there's no reason to pardon him on the child's behalf. This argument doesn't make sense from a utilitarian view or a Kantian view.

[Zaddy]

Originally Posted by DMS

no problem my guy. This seems pretty fucking simple tbh. Actions should be punished according to the action. the poor decision by the mother doesn't change what he did, and he's still a possible threat to society. he probably won't be a good father or husband, so there's no reason to pardon him on the child's behalf. This argument doesn't make sense from a utilitarian view or a Kantian view.

Ok, so if the woman said no no don’t take him I want to be with him (stock Holmes syndrome)

[DMS]

Originally Posted by Zunto

Ok, so if the woman said no no don’t take him I want to be with him (stock Holmes syndrome)

I'll interpret this as a question.


Whether you want him or not doesn't change whether he's husband material or if he did a moral evil. still a public threat, whether those threatened recognize it as so. Like I said, neither Kantian nor utilitarian rules work here.

[Zaddy]

Originally Posted by DMS

I'll interpret this as a question.


Whether you want him or not doesn't change whether he's husband material or if he did a moral evil. still a public threat, whether those threatened recognize it as so. Like I said, neither Kantian nor utilitarian rules work here.

So if it were a drug dealer

[DMS]

Originally Posted by Zunto

So if it were a drug dealer

that's honestly even worse from a deterrence view, since they're more likely to repeat the offense if pardoned.