Luxury Yacht Company Offers Pirate-Hunting Cruises

[Letum]

Aren't "the experience of stopping pirates" and "the experience of killing pirates" interchangeable in this case?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Letum

Aren't "the experience of stopping pirates" and "the experience of killing pirates" interchangeable in this case?

No. I'm sure there would be quite a few people on the cruise - more than will have a chance to actually kill a pirate. But by paying their fare, they will have in fact empowered others to kill a pirate.

But at least you finally acknowledge that this isn't just about killing "people", as you've stated - it's about killing "pirates". Indeed, pirates are people. But people aren't necessarily pirates.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Aramike

pirates are people. But people aren't necessarily pirates.

....you thought that I thought that people are necessarily pirates??

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Letum

....you thought that I thought that people are necessarily pirates??

Of course not. But you weren't making the distinction, and it IS an important distinction to make.

Naturally, saying that someone wants to kill people versus that someone wants to kill pirates changes the moral equation somewhat.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Naturally, saying that someone wants to kill people versus that someone wants to kill pirates changes the moral equation somewhat.

How does it?

Assuming the tour host asks you to only shoot at pirates and not fishermen,
what does it matter if you came to shoot anyone, so long as you only shoot
pirates?

[Letum]

Aramike, would you find anything objectionable in selling the chance to carry
out state executions?

Perhaps an auction. The highest bidder gets to administer the lethal injection,
throw the switch or open the trap-door for a death-row inmate.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Letum

How does it?

Assuming the tour host asks you to only shoot at pirates and not fishermen,
what does it matter if you came to shoot anyone, so long as you only shoot
pirates?

So wait - you're saying that killing an ARMED ATTACKER is the moral equivolent of killing a fisherman?

Huh?

Aramike, would you find anything objectionable in selling the chance to carry
out state executions?

Perhaps an auction. The highest bidder gets to administer the lethal injection,
throw the switch or open the trap-door for a death-row inmate.

That would absolutely be objectionable. It's a good point you make, but it is off the mark.

The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime when he's executed, whereas the pirate is. Furthermore, the deathrow inmate isn't in a position to make the choice whether or not to commit the crime - the pirate is.

These are vast differences.

[Max2147]

The annoying thing is that a lot of people who support this human-hunting expedition call themselves "pro-life" on other issues.

[Letum]

[quote]

Assuming the tour host asks you to only shoot at pirates and not fishermen,
what does it matter if you came to shoot anyone, so long as you only shoot
pirates?

So wait - you're saying that killing an ARMED ATTACKER is the moral equivolent of killing a fisherman?[\quote] ed: wish the multi-quote system still worked


? No.
I'm asking why you think it is ok to go on a pirate hunting cruise to kill
pirates and then kill pirates,

but not ok to go on a pirate hunting cruise to kill any people, pirates
included and then kill pirates (and only pirates).

The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime when he's executed, whereas the pirate is. Furthermore, the deathrow inmate isn't in a position to make the choice whether or not to commit the crime - the pirate is.

These are vast differences.

I don't follow your reasoning here. I don't see how you get from the
points you make to your conclusion. Perhaps you can clear it up...

1. The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime
2. ???
3. Therefore I object to the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions.

1. Deathrow inmates are not in a position to make the choice whether
or not to commit the crime
2. ???
3. Therefore I object to the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions.



There are other bits there I could take issue on, but I would rather wait
until I understand your argument against the sale of 'the chance to carry
out state executions' first.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Max2147

The annoying thing is that a lot of people who support this human-hunting expedition call themselves "pro-life" on other issues.

Sure, I make a disctinction between unborn children and murderous pirates It doesn't take much effort on my part, either.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Max2147

The annoying thing is that a lot of people who support this human-hunting expedition call themselves "pro-life" on other issues.

The apparent contradiction says more about the inappropriate use of
"pro-life" as a slogan than it does about any contradiction of concepts or
ideals.


There is no real contradiction, as Neal points out.

[Onkel Neal]

Right. And if someone wants to start a "Help Somali pirates becomes legit fishermen" organization*, I would contribute. But once they show up with a gun pointed at me, all bets are off, time to open the season on pirates.



*Oh yeah, we have that, it's called the Red Cross and UN, doesn't always work though.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Max2147

The annoying thing is that a lot of people who support this human-hunting expedition call themselves "pro-life" on other issues.

That's why I hate the term "pro-life", as well as I hate the term "pro-choice". Both are disengenious.

[Aramike]

I'm asking why you think it is ok to go on a pirate hunting cruise to kill
pirates and then kill pirates,

but not ok to go on a pirate hunting cruise to kill any people, pirates
included and then kill pirates (and only pirates).

I have no idea what the hell this means.

I don't follow your reasoning here. I don't see how you get from the
points you make to your conclusion. Perhaps you can clear it up...

1. The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime
2. ???
3. Therefore I object to the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions.

I don't understand how you cannot understand my reasoning considering that you summarized it perfectly.

I do object to selling outright the chance to kill a deathrow inmate because that inmate is doing nothing to cause himself to be at risk at the moment one would be killing him.

However, these cruises offer the opportunity to combat pirates WHO ATTACK, and I have no problem killing the aggressor.

Again, I do not understand how you fail to understand this simple point.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I don't understand how you cannot understand my reasoning considering that you summarized it perfectly.

I don't see how you get from stage 1. to stage 3. Your conclusion can
not be logically deduced from stage 1. alone.

Your (unspoken) stage 2. might be:

1a. The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime
2a. It is wrong to kill people who aren't in the process of committing a crime.
3a. Therefore I object to the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions.

but that makes it an argument against the death penalty altogether and
I assume that is not your intention. (Can you confirm that you are
pro-death penalty?)

You could get round it by saying something like:

1b. The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime
2b. It is wrong to pay to kill people who aren't in the process of
committing a crime.
3b. Therefore I object to the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions.

but in this case it isn't clear why 2b. is true and not 2a.; you are obliged
to explain/justify 2b. without justifying 2a. or leave it as an arbitrary
premise.