>>515793726
Yes. A utilitarian humanist who is a realist.
If you had bothered to ask me, I would have told you that I'm glad that Charlie Kirk died a swift death, it would have been painful for maybe a flash but he wouldn't have suffered for long. It was a more humane death than the cocktail they give prisoners on death row. This is the utilitarian. It is what it is.
If you're worried about dignity, he's being memed to death but it's a consequence of his own actions; that's the realist.
For welfare? He's dead but his family will be fine. He had a chance of making things worse off for people had he continued on the path he was on. It wasn't as if he were a baker, his words and actions would go on to directly influence others. Again, there's a hint of the utilitarianism, but also realism yeah.
As for respecting his values? I do. He advocated for the 2nd amendment, people who died to gun violence were a risk, he wasn't humanitarian by any means. He didn't believe in empathy, that it was being misused. In his arguments and debates he didn't show it either and he picked and chose which parts of the bible to follow, even holding conflicting views within the same debate.
Listen. There's applying purity politics to something or there's understanding there are scales. If we hold purity politics to Kirk's own statements then it's a good thing actually!!! We don't, we whitewash them.
I'm utilitarian. I recognise his views had the ability to cause harm, I recognise his death was quick and relatively painless, he didn't suffer. It could have been cleaner but he endorsed worse. It is what it is and at the end of the day, I recognise that political violence may be necessary in this world but I don't call for it explicitly or incite it.
I also recognise that violence being human nature is contested, there's people who hold ideas that violent uprising within society is inevitable and I'm on the fence as a realist.
>>515794180
You could have just asked you know.