On jueves, 28 de marzo de 2019 7:18:45 (CET) John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 3/28/19 2:52 AM, René Mérou wrote: > > For the soft interpretation, If you have one heart of a specifically > > killed non-volunteer donor, you are not to blame if you here not informed > > and you wouldn't accept it voluntarily. > > You are pulling this out of thin air, it's a completely constructed example.
Exactly. That was my intention. Led me explain it a little more: I has making one hypothesis. A mental construction to think about something. In this lines, I want to show that a general rule was made and it was a bad argument because the general rule is not tenable. Literally: in some cases you can blame someone on situations decided before his existance if he profits the subsequent situation unfairly causing damage to others or is nowdays increasing this profit adding more damage day by day to others. (although I grasp to see cases where this demostration could not apply: when you do not have other possible conduct.) To reason by using hypothesis is useful when you try to seek in filosophy, logic or moral. ... > Did you know that up until recently, Germany was still paying reparations > for even World War I? Yes I did, but I did not have time to seek that info. I was like 3am here. Thanks, I'll add it to my email because I think it suports my argument: Sometimes you will pay for something decided and even happened before you first steep. And somethimes it could be fair to do so. SOMETIMES => ergo the general rule is not tenable. (To my best knowledge) Pace and freedoms. -- René Mérou
