| >In other words, using your statement, there is some assumed emotional or social end-goal of the behaviour is there not? Isn't that n+1 from the recourse already defined from society? Society is not an algorithm whose purpose is to derive formal logical proofs of type "recourse" for any particular set of inputs. There is no n+1, nor is there necessarily an emotional or social end-goal. >The behaviour is designed to illicit something, is it not? Otherwise, why would you do it at all? Most people don't orchestrate their emotions in order to elicit a specific response. People find Elon Musk to be an asshole because he acts like an asshole, they find his behavior objectionable because they object to his behavior. There need be no more complexity to the matter than that. >At what point would he no longer be objectionable and/or for the behaviour to stop? His death? And now the slippery slope argument... I don't see anyone calling for Elon's death, do you? >Even if he profusely apologised, prostrated with guilt and remose today, wouldn't the behaviour still continue? Maybe. But then again, he could also eat an infant on live television and people would still defend him, so in the end it all seems to even out. |