Posts
Comments
I'd say you're being uncharitable to both views.
The first view: "Everyone should be treated the same". Having different laws for different races or ethnicities, is more unfair than treating everyone the same. Attempts to keep racial discrimination result in people being discriminated against and killed. Even if perfect equality were not achievable, I think a more equal society is preferable to a less equal one, unless there are good things that only came with a less equal one.
The second view: "It's bad to hurt people's feelings", I'd defend with some caveats: adding an "everything else being equal" at the end. Unnecessarily hurting people's feelings is net negative. It can be legitimate to hurt people's feelings, but I wouldn't say hurting for the sake of hurting is good or neutral. Between two courses of action, equally effective, but one of them unnecessarily hurting people's feelings, it's preferable to choose the one where fewer people's feelings are hurt.
I'd feel uncomfortable in this community if basic human rights are challenged in a sort of witty game and a supposedly clever use of language.
Are you sure of 'modus ponus' being a name for the third rule of inference? I have seen a few names for it:
- Modus ponens.
- Modus ponendo ponens.
- Law of detachment.