Now consider someone who has killed, raped and pillaged for the greater good (by historical standards this is the regular war hero pack).
The parenthetical is true but the raping and (for most part) the pillaging was for personal gain, not the public good. It takes much more effort to contrive scenarios with folks who “rape for the public good”.
No more than torture for the public good, since rape can be used as a form of torture. It also has been used as a form of psychological warfare. Also pillaging can be vital to easing logistic difficulties of your side.
Also pillaging can be vital to easing logistic difficulties of your side.
Indeed, if the good guys are murdering whom they want and extorting stuff from the populace, it’s called a resistance movement, and in a generation there’s hardly anyone who thinks ill of them. See Russia, Spain, China etc.
By implying by omission that the killing was not mostly for personal gain, do you mean to suggest that it was for the public good, or to invoke a non-excluded middle?
By implying by omission that the killing was not mostly for personal gain, do you mean to suggest that it was for the public good, or to invoke a non-excluded middle?
I make no claim about the killing—that is at least arguable and inclusion would distract from the main point that the raping in the example given (historic war bands) was not.
The parenthetical is true but the raping and (for most part) the pillaging was for personal gain, not the public good. It takes much more effort to contrive scenarios with folks who “rape for the public good”.
No more than torture for the public good, since rape can be used as a form of torture. It also has been used as a form of psychological warfare. Also pillaging can be vital to easing logistic difficulties of your side.
Indeed, if the good guys are murdering whom they want and extorting stuff from the populace, it’s called a resistance movement, and in a generation there’s hardly anyone who thinks ill of them. See Russia, Spain, China etc.
By implying by omission that the killing was not mostly for personal gain, do you mean to suggest that it was for the public good, or to invoke a non-excluded middle?
I make no claim about the killing—that is at least arguable and inclusion would distract from the main point that the raping in the example given (historic war bands) was not.