The fact that you are still refusing to answer the simple question "would you want your body to be treated with respect and care if you ended up in a vegetative state?" suggests that the hypocrisy isn't "hypothetical" in the slightest, and that you know full well your answer to …
The fact that you are still refusing to answer the simple question "would you want your body to be treated with respect and care if you ended up in a vegetative state?" suggests that the hypocrisy isn't "hypothetical" in the slightest, and that you know full well your answer to this question doesn't help your argument.
As I said before, you can totally bite the bullet and say "of course I would want my body to be treated with respect and care if this happened, but I still think the state should euthanise anyone who's in a vegetative state from which they are unlikely to recover". If you were to say something to that effect, I would be more than happy to admit that my assumption of hypocrisy on your part was misplaced.
Oh wow, Rawls had a thought experiment about how souls exist prior to the body -- this means that souls obviously exist prior to the body!
And yes, if I were under suspicion for a serious crime -- whether rightly or wrongly -- then I would obviously want to get off for it, even though I would strongly prefer a much harsher justice system. I just think you'd have to be severely intellectually disabled to be unable to understand this.
>Oh wow, Rawls had a thought experiment about how souls exist prior to the body -- this means that souls obviously exist prior to the body!
You are being a petulant, obnoxious child. You know full well the insight offered by the veil of ignorance does not presuppose a belief in mind-body dualism, stop pretending you do.
>And yes, if I were under suspicion for a serious crime -- whether rightly or wrongly -- then I would obviously want to get off for it, even though I would strongly prefer a much harsher justice system.
Well that's where we differ, as if I committed a serious crime then I would want to be punished appropriately. I believe this is called "having a conscience", although apparently you consider such a thing a severe intellectual disability.
I can't get over how surreal it is, being lectured about the deficiencies in my moral worldview by a guy who more or less owns up to having no consistent moral principles at all - whose worldview is based entirely in self-interest and "fuck u got mine".
It's called Rawls' veil of ignorance.
>hypothetical hypocrisy
The fact that you are still refusing to answer the simple question "would you want your body to be treated with respect and care if you ended up in a vegetative state?" suggests that the hypocrisy isn't "hypothetical" in the slightest, and that you know full well your answer to this question doesn't help your argument.
As I said before, you can totally bite the bullet and say "of course I would want my body to be treated with respect and care if this happened, but I still think the state should euthanise anyone who's in a vegetative state from which they are unlikely to recover". If you were to say something to that effect, I would be more than happy to admit that my assumption of hypocrisy on your part was misplaced.
Oh wow, Rawls had a thought experiment about how souls exist prior to the body -- this means that souls obviously exist prior to the body!
And yes, if I were under suspicion for a serious crime -- whether rightly or wrongly -- then I would obviously want to get off for it, even though I would strongly prefer a much harsher justice system. I just think you'd have to be severely intellectually disabled to be unable to understand this.
>Oh wow, Rawls had a thought experiment about how souls exist prior to the body -- this means that souls obviously exist prior to the body!
You are being a petulant, obnoxious child. You know full well the insight offered by the veil of ignorance does not presuppose a belief in mind-body dualism, stop pretending you do.
>And yes, if I were under suspicion for a serious crime -- whether rightly or wrongly -- then I would obviously want to get off for it, even though I would strongly prefer a much harsher justice system.
Well that's where we differ, as if I committed a serious crime then I would want to be punished appropriately. I believe this is called "having a conscience", although apparently you consider such a thing a severe intellectual disability.
I can't get over how surreal it is, being lectured about the deficiencies in my moral worldview by a guy who more or less owns up to having no consistent moral principles at all - whose worldview is based entirely in self-interest and "fuck u got mine".