"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]

>> Quit dodging and answer the question. Should we be able to hire murderers
>> with impunity?
>
> Of course, we can and do and the answer is yes. That some idiot is
> prepared to kill another on the promise of few pennies is just an excuse
> for their original desire anyway.

So a smart and moral thing to do in Rons' World if you get fed up with an
annoying spouse, child or in-law would be to simply hire someone to bump
them off, with impunity. Pretty scary world.

> Soldiers are hired killers. We justify their actions and so do they.
> Executioners in states with death penalties are hired killers. Some
> people argue doctors are killers in that abortion is killing and those
> are paid acts. The US is currently invovled in war, many people are
> being hired for those killings.

None of those exceptional circumstances gives us the right to have any
person killed we choose to kill.

> Now, don't dodge my question. Are you going to claim that the law is an
> example of logic.

Yes it is. If it is considered immoral to hire killers, then it is logical
to make it illegal.

> I just provided several examples where the law DOES
> allow for the hiring of killers.

Neither exceptions nor violations invalidate a moral rule. Morality is not
mathematics, it's a social construct that is used to modify behaviour.

>> >> > I admire vegans in that they do seem to be able to live up to their
>> >> > ethical values. Vegans are certainly better than I am. They can live
>> >> > their daily lives without having to kill.
>> >>
>> >> Who or what will you kill today?
>> >
>> > I don't need to kill. There are plenty of others who willingly take on
>> > that role for me.
>>
>> Exactly, just like vegans. Thanks for illustrating my point
>
> Once again, you hold others (the vegan) responsible for what others (the
> killers and farmers) do. I find passing responsibility is a consistent
> position for the vegan hater. The vegan is certainly better than me that
> they will choose to avoid harming an animal, but then I have my reasons
> to see that harm to animals continue to avoid harm to others.

According to your logic neither you nor the vegan is responsible for what
others do, and since neither of you is killing any animals, how do you
conclude that the vegan is better than you?