It seems to me the substance of Mr Savin’s objection could have been expressed more briefly and clearly as “Deontologists would not steal under any circumstances”. (Or even the familiar “Deontologists would not lie under any circumstances, even to save a lfie”).
It seems to me the substance of Mr Savin’s objection could have been expressed more briefly and clearly as “Deontologists would not steal under any circumstances”.
That does not appear to be the case. Those are examples of other things that he could have said which would provide a more convenient target for your reply. Assuming you refer to Will_Sawin, that is.
It seems to me the substance of Mr Savin’s objection could have been expressed more briefly and clearly as “Deontologists would not steal under any circumstances”. (Or even the familiar “Deontologists would not lie under any circumstances, even to save a lfie”).
That does not appear to be the case. Those are examples of other things that he could have said which would provide a more convenient target for your reply. Assuming you refer to Will_Sawin, that is.