Reflections, Reflections

The sheer irrelevance of this objection is staggering. Jacobs and Potter are objecting to the claim that crimes motivated by prejudice are more culpable than crimes that involve the same conduct but different motivation. However exactly the philosophically tricky notion of 'the same conduct' is to be understood, it is indisputable that defrauding widows out of their life savings is not "the same conduct" as gay bashing. The question that Jacobs and Potter should have asked is this: Suppose that a gang of young men beat someone up just because they feel bored. Is this act less morally reprehensible than if they had beaten him up just because they believed that he was gay? Both acts are seriously morally wrong, but it is far from obvious, at least to me, that the second act is not more reprehensible than the first.