[pvn]

From another thread:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the difference between your child tripping outside and being impaled on a knife and dying... and me charging at your child with a knife and stabbing her to death?

[/ QUOTE ]
I see none.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason this person sees none is that he is only looking at one narrow aspect:

[ QUOTE ]
In both instances my child would be dead, I would be sad, and I would remove the hazard after the fact (too late for my child, but hopefully in time to save others from the same fate).

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, he is only observing that someone died.

He is totally ignoring that in one case someone *acted* and the other one didn't.

There is a difference between looking at cases where one is forced to do something and looking at cases where one forces others to do something. There is not a one-to-on mapping.

People are forced to "work or die" every day. People are "forced" to eat to survive. But there is no moral agent at the other end making a *decision* to force people into these situations. There is nobody to blame. Yet those who only see someone being coerced think that *someone* must be "made responsible". Yet there is nobody who can justly be saddled with the obligation to remedy these conditions.

This is the critical fallacy that has struck a long line of distinguished politics posters, including moorobot, propertarian, and most recently jogger.