TotallyRepost · Verified · 5 points ·
It's actually quite an interesting question. If their way of life is inherently harmful to ours, yet they are born or created that way, meaning they have no real choice and were dropped into a ecology they did not design, then coexistence in any meaningful sense may be impossible. If that is the case, is it sufficient justification to expel them, or even to wipe them out entirely?
Basically, if demons are not morally guilty, yet remain fundamentally incompatible with human survival, what can be done, and what should be done?
This raises the justification problem: if harm is unavoidable and asymmetric, does self-defense scale all the way up to eradication? Philosophically, this echoes arguments used to justify the quarantine of incurable carriers, the extermination of invasive species, or preemptive war framed as survival, et cetera.
If coexistence is impossible and one side must vanish (be it containment or eradication), prioritizing one's own species can begin to feel almost tautological. Survival asserts itself. Truly dog eat dog.
From a consequentialist lens, this conclusion may seem acceptable. From a deontological perspective it becomes questionable, as wiping out an entire group feels categorically wrong regardless of the outcome. Virtue ethics meanwhile, is concerned with what such actions ultimately turn us into (what habit, mind and character does it cultivate for example).
Basically, if demons are not morally guilty, yet remain fundamentally incompatible with human survival, what can be done, and what should be done?
This raises the justification problem: if harm is unavoidable and asymmetric, does self-defense scale all the way up to eradication? Philosophically, this echoes arguments used to justify the quarantine of incurable carriers, the extermination of invasive species, or preemptive war framed as survival, et cetera.
If coexistence is impossible and one side must vanish (be it containment or eradication), prioritizing one's own species can begin to feel almost tautological. Survival asserts itself. Truly dog eat dog.
From a consequentialist lens, this conclusion may seem acceptable. From a deontological perspective it becomes questionable, as wiping out an entire group feels categorically wrong regardless of the outcome. Virtue ethics meanwhile, is concerned with what such actions ultimately turn us into (what habit, mind and character does it cultivate for example).
854 
replydetachattach picture