 | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —James Brown
|
| | | (...) All of these are irrelevant to the main thrust. The druggist's motivations for not selling are not important. (...) Why? (...) Allow me to draw a parallel hypothetical situation. There is a natural disaster, and several people are left in a (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Hmm... Important to Hienz's claim on the drug? No. They're not. Hienz has no claim to the drug if he hasn't acquired it from the druggist in some manner (trading/selling/performing services/etc.. not threats or beatings, etc., though) Is it (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) The druggist is clearly and willfully taking action that is harmful to a human life. If you consider that immoral, then it is immoral. His motivations do not matter. Even if he is (under his moral code) preventing a greater evil (for example, (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Well, I think my view on it is that it's required in order to be moral... We don't 'require' people to be moral, but if they're not, then people like me call them jerks. They're not unjust, per se; they are certainly within their rights, but (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) Hmm. I think there is a fundamental difference in the way we determine morality. See below. (...) How can I, or you, or anyone, accurately judge someone's intent? It is impossible to empirically determine intent. Actions can be observed, (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Yep. What it really means is I can't judge you. Only you can judge you. I can do my darndest to try, and usually, in our society, we can do a pretty good job of determining someone else's intent. We don't always get the details right, and (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) Determining intent can only be inferential, not observational. This makes judging by intent inherently less impartial than judging by actions. (...) I do not trust myself to judge anyone's intent.(1) I am not omniscient, and I will never know (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Well, to the absolutest of my theory, yes. I have no grounds for assuming anyone else's intent, and have no basis for proof. But the point is that it usually does seem to work. That is, usually, I can judge someone's intent fairly well. But (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) Doesn't have to be taken to an extreme. If I happen to see a total stranger kill someone, I know what has happened, but not why. (...) Sorry, being unclear in the interests of brevity(1). You were saying (paraphrase warning!) that you felt (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) And that's really why I feel the need to judge by intent. If I see one person kill another, I can see the action, but not the intent. Perhaps the killer had no idea he was killing, or whatever. His intent could concievably be such that his (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) Hmm. Ok, fair. That's a difference in how we define morality. To me, morality is a matter of the conscious mind. Unless, of course, we're defining the subconscious differently, but I'm >not< going there! ;-) (...) Ah yes, but that doesn't mean (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) :) yeah, the subconscious is tough... (...) Ok, I can see that... Hmmm... maybe it would be fairer to say that the law can be 'bad'. Not *morally* bad, but ill-concieved. In other words, a law becomes less and less 'good' (ethically good, you (...) (25 years ago, 30-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
