But both pieces are philosphically flawed. If, for example, it could be shown that Jeremy Clarkson's "snarling contempt" for speed-limits, cameras, pedestrians, people who drive diesel cars etc. made absolutely no impact at all on Britain's road death-toll, does this mean he should be allowed to live?
You see the problems you get into when you use utilitarian reasoning.
Surely in a civilised society aesthetic reasons alone should be enough to justify his execution?
Speaking of Johann Hari, in a piece about London he wrote this:
"In human history, a mixture of peoples this drastic and this cacophonous has never been tried before. London now is a teeming planetary test, where globalisation is made flesh and we really are the whole world in one city."Surely in a civilised society aesthetic reasons alone should be enough...