if in some bizzare, hypothetical fantasy world, isis somehow invaded israel and stopped the ongoing genocide there and delivered a perfect two state solution overnight, would you be morally against specifically that action because it was isis who did it?
to be clear, i’m not asking whether you’d be against isis as a whole: just whether you’d be against isis ending the current israel-palestine situation peacefully
This is you “so what if hypothetically Putin solves world hunger, homelessness, and redistributed all wealth so everyone was on equal playing field. Oh, oh. And he disarmed all their nukes and led the disarmament of all nuclear armed nations? Oh AND He helped solved climate change? Then would think he’s a good guy?” Like those hypotheticals are bonkers and useless.
it’s called a thought experiment
do i think anybody is realistically going to kidnap me and plumb my kidneys into a world famous violinist? no. but i can still use that hypothetical to make a point. do i think anybody is likely to run into a barn at 0.9c while holding a long ladder? no, but i can still use that to learn something.
based on your response, i presume you agree that a group can do bad things, or even be on the whole bad by a very wide margin, but still do something good worthy of praise?
Yeah but being bad and doing a good thing from time to time doesn’t make you good. Your thought experiment doesn’t provide any value because no one is saying everything the bad groups do is always and forever bad. It’s more like the severity of badness outweighs any good they are doing when it comes to the perception of them.
I’m sure Hitler gave his friends very nice and thoughtful presents. At the same time he was ordering a genocide. Are those presents then bad? Not on the surface. Is he redeemable because of that? No.
If they did that I’d be grateful to them. And if I had wheels I’d be a wagon.
so you agree that a group can do bad things, or even be on the whole bad by a very wide margin, but still do something good worthy of praise?
