> Learn to read, Bill, I didn't say he did these awful things because he's different. I said he's
> different because he did these awful things. I am perfectly aware that it's not that hard to get
> people who might have been decent to do terrible things, that they do not do these things
> because they are a different or lesser order of being. But having done them, which you or I
> might have done, but didn't do, he's different and worse, indeed, worthless, because he did
> them. It was the doing of them that makes him worse and worthy of disgrace and punishment, > and eligible for death.
I've never understood this line of reasoning, although it's probably required to make sense of retributivism. How is it that moral luck can determine deserts?
-- Luke -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030619/c21d71a5/attachment.htm>