by martin-t | 2025-09-05 00:01:02+00:00
Sorry for a late reply, it took me a while to read the article.

As far as I can tell from it he was a habitual abuser and his death is not a loss for society, quite the opposite.

One thing people struggle with is the idea that every life has infinite value. That is obviously nonsense. Then they say every life has a very high value and it's the same for every person. That is also nonsense - if you get attacked by two people, do you have the right to kill them both in self-defense? Yeah, because their 2 lives are less valuable than your 1 life.

Most importantly, value to whom? To the person whose life it is, it is indeed very high. Than there's the family, friends, acquaintances, state, society and humanity at large. And to each of those groups, the value is different. The key realization is that to some of those groups, the value can be negative, very negative in fact.

Every dictator is no doubt loved by his friends (especially those who get privileged positions from him) so his value to his friends is very high but to his society, the value is often negative.

This particular abuser is interesting because his life had a negative value to both his daughters and society/humanity. But he still has family members willing to protect him because his life had positive value to them. This is sad, if he was my family member, I would not protect him. But a lot of people put family before morality - they are genetically predisposed to do so, even if it's detrimental to humanity at large.

> Morality doesn’t flow downstream from legality, but the other way around: legality is downstream of morality.

No, that's how it should be. Sadly, legality is downstream of morality + practicality + provability.

Morality because if the law is too unjust, people revolt.

Practicality because it's practical for the people in power to make laws in their favor and because too much morality makes for a weaker state - too many people end up in prison instead of being economically productive.

And provability because even though morality operates on reality (it depends on the actual truth), legality requires proof to dispense punishment. This is one reason why the idea of an all knowing god is so tempting - you can cross provability off the board because the god will dispense punishment based on the actual truth.

> The fact that they faked injuries in order to present themselves as victims is especially concerning, but considering their father’s connections in the police department, I think they feared retaliation even after their abuser was killed.

Exactly. Lying and manipulation are not wrong on its own. They are multipliers. If the goal is good and you used them to achieve it, nothing wrong happened. However, I generally see them as massive red flags because although they are tools good people should absolutely use, they should be used as a last resort and people who reach for them too early generally do so out of habit which basically revels their true nature.

> The cycle of violence

I hate this term. WW2 axis was destroyed through overwhelming violence. There was no cycle because the good violence was so thoroughly the bad people were all either dead, soon to be executed or no longer had power to continue it (or decided to play innocent victim and keeping them alive was _practical_ in the case of the Japanese emperor).

> Hurt people hurt people.

There is some truth to this but I feel like this happens because we don't allow victims to fight back and perform the punishment themselves. People who were wronged want to hurt the aggressor but that person is usually untouchable by them (otherwise he wouldn't dare wrong them in the first place). So the anger ends bottled up inside them and ends up hurting others.

This is why I hate this celebration of victim hood and the idea that the victim has to be defenseless and ask others for help. We should not just let but encourage people to fight back.