(August 17, 2012 at 7:09 pm)genkaus Wrote:(August 17, 2012 at 3:36 pm)elunico13 Wrote: You're begging the question here. Why is your autonomy more superior than James Holme's autonomy to kill 12 and injure 50 in the theatres of Colorado? I don't see how this is rational either. It's still your standard of morality against somebody else's.
Because his autonomy requires negation of autonomy of 62 others. If we are to give equal sanction to to everyone's autonomy (and by extension, their standard of morality), then we cannot rationally sanction anyone whose morality requires them to encroach upon others' autonomy.
And here we are again with the fallacy of begging the question. Still no reason given for the importance of people's autonomy or rights being superior over any other group. Why are we obligated by you to give equal sanction to everyone's autonomy?
It is very inconsistent of you to be against anyone's decision for moral behavior, such as James Holmes. If people are just a result of mindless chemistry then they have no choice in what they do. Just like vinegar has no choice but to react with baking soda. Therefore, why should we punish people or accuse them of any wrong if they do evil and have no choice?
James Holmes acted consistent with what evolution teaches. He evolved from an animal, and when he murdered those people, He acted like one. You can't say he's wrong since evolution made him that way.
