The problem is “Everyone said well that’s fine, he’s an expert”. They were, like it or not, vulnerable novices and the expert abused his authority, intentionally or not, and with serious consequences, like the mother being convicted of murdering her children.

Woah, just noticed this as I’m not getting any notifications from Reddit. I agree that it’s still unclear. Originally, (1) was just: people have the right to life, but later I was trying to change it to a conditional and yeah got into some trouble. I’ll give a better response with full clarifications in a couple of weeks time for my next blogpost. Thanks!

Fair observation. As my professor like to say when he is corrected: “I put that there on purpose to make sure people are paying attention” 😂

I was going to put it this way:

1. IFF people have the right to life.
2. Murderers are people.
3. So, murderers have the right to life.

Anyway, the growing pains continue 😉

yeah, I probably should’ve left it at: “even if they never get it right, philosophers should still aim to” but I got carried away 😂