• dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    While what you wrote is very intelligent sounding, “doing harm is bad” isnt a moral statement. Harm by definition is bad outside of any system of morality. You can break down any situation into a set of logical proposals, but not without consequences. How much of an autist the gentleman in the picture is being is really what prevents him from clearly seeing the shittiness of his decision. Calling your hysterical wife that youre leaving after 15 years slave to the sunk cost fallacy isnt logic. It’s being a terrible person.

    • itsralC@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      What if doing a little harm today leads to more good tomorrow (so, a net positive amount of good)? And in a year? And in two centuries?

      • flicker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        A decision can be objectively moral and the outcome can be objectively positive, and yet the enacting of the “correct” decision can still be done in such a way as to maximize harm, rather than minimize.

        The person you respond to says that calling the wife a slave to the sunk cost fallacy is cruel, and that is correct. You shouldn’t measure only the logical, correct, desirable outcome, but also the compassion and humanity with which you attempt to realize that outcome.

        All this for a comic which is boomer “wife bad.”

        • Hamartia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          I think that’s more, ‘edgy’ incel humour, than your standard boomer contempt-of-partner knee slapper.

    • yesman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      The easiest way to tell your making a semantic argument is when you literally use the phrase “by definition”.