A decision can be objectively moral and the outcome can be objectively positive, and yet the enacting of the “correct” decision can still be done in such a way as to maximize harm, rather than minimize.
The person you respond to says that calling the wife a slave to the sunk cost fallacy is cruel, and that is correct. You shouldn’t measure only the logical, correct, desirable outcome, but also the compassion and humanity with which you attempt to realize that outcome.
What if doing a little harm today leads to more good tomorrow (so, a net positive amount of good)? And in a year? And in two centuries?
A decision can be objectively moral and the outcome can be objectively positive, and yet the enacting of the “correct” decision can still be done in such a way as to maximize harm, rather than minimize.
The person you respond to says that calling the wife a slave to the sunk cost fallacy is cruel, and that is correct. You shouldn’t measure only the logical, correct, desirable outcome, but also the compassion and humanity with which you attempt to realize that outcome.
All this for a comic which is boomer “wife bad.”
I think that’s more, ‘edgy’ incel humour, than your standard boomer contempt-of-partner knee slapper.