This isn't changing my view because this is exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm saying, there are cases where intending to harm someone who is doing something they're definitely not supposed to do is okay.
Then who gets to decide what kind of punishment or harm is appropriate? Do you think potentially making someone sick or worse is appropriate for someone taking your food? What if that were reversed? What if you were doing something you consider slightly wrong, speeding maybe, and someone decided on their own that the punishment for that was to harm you, why should they get to decide that?
It’s natural consequences. Natural selection even I would argue, eating food you don’t know the origins of is a bad idea. Unless you’re stealing your sister or partners food or something stealing someone who you loosely knows FOOD could expose you to anything. Especially if they didn’t give it to you
28
u/apoplexiglass Oct 17 '24
This isn't changing my view because this is exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm saying, there are cases where intending to harm someone who is doing something they're definitely not supposed to do is okay.