 | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) :) 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)
|
