CrucioIsMade4Muggles

CrucioIsMade4Muggles t1_ja03ivh wrote

>If you abandon your principles as soon as its convenient then you don't actually have any principles.

And if your principles get people killed, then having principles is demonstrably not virtuous.

>Besides, wearing a mask wasn't going to kill anyone to begin with so your hypothetical is kinda useless.

It was going to deprive medical professionals of masks, which would lead to them getting sick and causing a shortage of healthcare professionals in the face of an unknown and deadly pandemic threat. Yes--it was going to. My hypothetical wasn't a hypothetical--it was an objective description of what was going to happen and what they avoided.

2

CrucioIsMade4Muggles t1_ja02oqn wrote

My argument is that people who do things that can get people killed or worsen a public health crisis should be silenced.

You're arguing for the principle of freedom of speech, but the moment any principle causes more harm than good, that principle should be immediately abandoned. I care about human lives--you seem to care more about blind ideology. That is, by definition, evil.

−2

CrucioIsMade4Muggles t1_ja01ur1 wrote

Yes they lied--to avoid worsening the public health crisis. From the POV of the welfare of the population, their lie was the right decision.

Telling the truth is not always the right thing to do. If telling the truth gets more people killed than lying, then you lie--lying is morally obligatory when it saves lives.

−3