Ethics

Not that I would do this, but is murdering five people randomly (e.g. shooting into a crowd) less immoral than planning beforehand to murder persons A, B, C, D, and E? How would a philosopher of law treat this as opposed to a moral philosopher?

Comments

I have a feeling I'm not getting the intuition behind your question. Offhand, it's hard to see why random killing would be less immoral. In fact, depending on the case it could be more immoral. Suppose A, B, C, D and E are all murderous villains. While that doesn't justify taking the law onto one's own hands, there could at least be something like a moral motive behind the killings in this case. But if the victims were picked at random, killing them cold hardly be a response to any guilt they may bear.

As for the difference between how a philosopher of law and an ethicist would respond, I'm afraid I have nothing to add, being neither.

Read another response by Allen Stairs

Read another response about Ethics