| > Seems to me that you've demonstrated clearly through the course of the discussion that individual definitions of "badness" differ substantially enough for there to be significant disagreement. The claim I stated that that started this thread was, that different definitions of badness are accompanied by different but respective definitions of misuse. > Here you are making the same case yourself. Yes? I used a word having some meaning in mind, you interpreted it with a different meaning, which obviously doesn't work. You pointed that out, so I pointed out, that that was not the meaning of the word I was using it for. > I can see the rhetorical corner you're attempting to back the discussion into, and it's a weak position devoid of nuance or understanding. I think you are over-interpreting me, answering to something I haven't said. > P.S. drug use is also observed in nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drug_use_in_anima... That's what I was answering to, with "Killing others is natural". This is a factual true statement, but you wouldn't accept this as a moral argument in a court. Because animals (including humans) can do and do something, does not mean we want to cater to that as a society. In fact restricting things, that might not even be bad in isolation, is what separates civilization from the undomesticated. |
Self defense, as I pointed out, is a perfectly normal reason to kill someone which is widely accepted as a morally defensible argument in court.
> I think you are over-interpreting me, answering to something I haven't said.
Seeing as your argument was anticipated, and a suitable set of counterexamples was provided preemptively, I think not.