Subject:
|
Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:53:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1183 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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 they're still immoral-- the line there is a morality of charity
> rather than of justice. You can be perfectly just and still be immoral. At
> least that's my take on it. Others may disagree (and do, judging from the last
> debate)
Hmm. I think there is a fundamental difference in the way we determine
morality. See below.
> As you might have been able to infer from my prior posts, the strongest thread
> of morality is intent/motivation. According to my own belief, if you honestly
> intend good through your actions, I can't say you're evil. Perhaps you're not
> the kind of person I want in my society, but you're not evil. This is what in
> my mind distinguishes the situation. But there's a lot of assumptions one
> makes in this process.. perhaps I'd better explore them.
How can I, or you, or anyone, accurately judge someone's intent? It is
impossible to empirically determine intent. Actions can be observed, measured
and compared without inherent bias.(1)
> In the starving people in the natural disaster example: I think the intent of
> your question is something like "are you immoral for not giving to the
> christian children's fund/united way/peace corps/etc"? I think that I
No, actually, my intent was to ferret out exactly what I have: whether you
judge by intent or by action.
> associate not giving to these things along with some form of apathy or
> neutrality. Not acting to save them isn't done out of malice or vice. In
> other words, I don't intend evil when I don't give to these organizations,
> hence I'm not evil. However, I don't think I could say that I intend good by
> not giving to them. Hence, the act of not giving, at least for me, is rather
> neutral.
>
> There is a distinct difference, though, when this hypothetical 2nd party is
> the only group to know about the situation. Let's put it at the extreme: The
> natural disaster is an avalance. It collapses a house that a bunch of people
> were in. You live about 5 minutes away by car/skidder/snowmobile/whatever and
> you're the only one in the area for about 50 miles around. A 6 year old runs
> up to your door and says his parents were just trapped by the avalanche.
> Maybe you don't even have to do anything other than just phone up the
> police/rescue squad, and let them know what happened. But you decide you'd
> rather not. No reason, mind you, you'd just rather not. I think the intent in
> this case would be towards malice. The person in all likelyhood believes his
> actions are wrong; hence, he's wrong. Note that I can concieve of a person
> who wouldn't intend wrong, and is thereby not evil, but I don't believe that
> anyone like that really exists. Even homosidal maniacs know subconsiously
> that their actions are wrong.
Yes, but sociopaths don't. By definition.
Under your definition of morality, a sociopath is never immoral, because he
never feels that his actions are wrong.
What about religious extremists & terrorists that cause the death of innocents
for their cause? They certainly feel they are not doing wrong. By your
standard, this makes them morally just.
I feel that a moral system based on judging intent is inherently flawed. A
moral system based on judging actions is better. Regardless of whether it is
"Thou shalt not kill" or "no one has the right to initiate the use of force"
> > I should have explained more fully. You can't morally impose a penalty if
> > that penalty is not determined beforehand.(1) So in this case, you can't
> > punish the druggist unless it is reasonably clear that his actions are
> > considered wrong, and a penalty is already in place for people who choose to
> > cross the road.(2)
> > ...
> > 1:I can explain the reasoning behind that if you like, but it took me a long
> > time to work out. Or I can give an example: If you tell your child that you
> > will ground him whenever he pulls his sisters hair, you are morally justified
> > in grounding him for doing so. However, if you make no mention of it, and
> > you ground him for pulling his sisters hair, you are being arbitrary and
> > unfair, because he had no way of knowing that the action was wrong.
> > 2:A samaritan reference
>
> Well, there's still a problem. Assumedly, your child might not agree
> beforehand to being grounded if he pulls his sister's hair. The only reason
Then my child can approach the other parent, or an abuse hotline if he feels
he is being treated unfairly.
> that the law is in force is because the parents have the authority. What if
> the parents said "if you play with your stuffed frog, we'll kill you"?
Same thing. However, in this case, the abuse hotline is much more likly to
listen.
> There's also other problems. You might have not specifically said "if you stab
> your sister in the armpit with an exacto knife, you're grounded to your room
> for a week", but your child should still KNOW that it's wrong, and expect
> punishment. After all, my parents never said that to me, and if I had done it
> (like when my sister was 2 and I was 16) I should still have known to expect
> punishment. You can try and simplify it to "if you're not nice to your
> sister, you'll be punished", but then your child is free to interpret the
> definition of 'nice' and maybe also of 'punished'.
You're being extreme, but I'll play along. Why did you know it was wrong?
Was there anything in your environment or background which stated or implied
that stabbing your sister was punishable? What this question is driving at
is: where does the burden of clarification lie?(2)
> We can put that in the druggist example by saying what if Heinz has tried and
> tried, but can't get the 4K together, he goes to the druggist, explains it
> several times, the druggist refuses, Hienz goes away, gets the 4K, comes back,
> but the druggist isn't home. He happens to know that the spare key to the
> druggist's house where he keeps the drug is under the mat. So he goes in,
> takes the drug, and leaves the 4K on the druggist's desk, and returns the
> key. Did he really steal the drug? After all, there are laws against theft,
> but there wasn't a law saying "if you give someone a pre-arranged sum
> (they've agreed to the price already, Hienz just didnt' have it at the time)
> for a product without specific agreement to the transaction, that's theft.
> You will be puished by X years in prison or X dollar fine, etc." I guess you
> could say that he was entering the property illegally (breaking and entering)
> but then we could alter the hypothetical situation to change that. The point
> is that the spirit of the law is interpretable when it's not specific, but if
> the law tries to be specific, there's always cases that bend the line of the
> specific case. Hence, you'd need to be infinite in your examples.
Only if the burden of clarification lies on the system. It doesn't. The
burden of clarification lies on the individual. In other worlds, ignorance of
the law is no excuse. HOWEVER, this is going into left field. This has
nothing to do with morality anymore, and you are starting to argue illegality.
1:At least in theory. Actions are externally observable, intent is not.
2:In other words, is it my responsibility to tell my child precisely what is
wrong, or is it my childs responsibility to ask me if he is unsure?
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
81 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
