Talk:Simple conflicting desires/@comment-73.10.205.231-20180909003412

I don't think that the moral value of Person 1 killing Person 2 is as ambiguous as this article posits. For one thing, whereas 1's killing of 2 may be a thwarting of 2's Desire to Garden, that is not the ONLY desire of 2's that it thwarts.

Because 2 has the desire to garden, they by extension have the desire to Stay Alive, Obtain Sustenance (Food, Water..), Avoid Debilitating Pain, Keep Themselves Physically Functioning, etc. Although these other desires, these "tertiary" desires, only exist in relation to 2's primary desire "to garden", they still exist AS desires, and still must be taken into account accordingly. Thus, 1's murder of 2 will subsequently thwart a number of all those other desires.

Meanwhile, 1's thwarting of his own desire to murder would not be a subsequent thwarting of the rest of his desires. Although, if he never manages to fulfill his desire (or becomes discouraged from carrying out his desire), then his reasons for Eating, Staying Alive, and etc. will be thwarted.