Subject:
|
Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:22:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1343 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> 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)
> ...
> 1:At least in theory. Actions are externally observable, intent is not.
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 sometimes we screw up majorly, but for the most part, we can tell. But you
can never be sure.
> 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 think the answer to all three is that I believe I may be a better judge of
their intent than they are themselves. Am I? I don't know. But I hold myself to
be. I can trust my own judgement. Do they REALLY believe killing is wrong? If
they're mentally derranged, usually you can get to the root, and find morality
underneath it all. It's not consiously visable to the person, but it's there.
Put these people in therapy to try and expose their subconscious, and they can
see their wrongs. Do they ALWAYS see their wrongs? No, sometimes the therapy
doesn't work. And of course maybe they really DON'T think they're wrong. But I
tend to think not. I only concede that the possibility exists.
> 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"
Unfortunately, I don't agree ("thanks, Cap'n Obvious (me, not you)!"). For the
most part, I think if the person honestly doesn't know or doesn't think they're
wrong, I can't see them as evil. Likewise, if somebody honestly believes their
actions are good, I can't see them as anything but good. In some cases I might
regard them as unfortunate or uninformed, but they're still good. Hence, I'm
not REALLY allowed to judge others, and they're not really allowed to judge me.
The problem with my system is when it gets applied to society. When we want to
punish those who are immoral, and immoral is relative, we have the potential to
have homosidal maniacs running through the streets, killing people, and not
being held back. But now we're loosing the focus of morality and society. The
laws of society are quite different from the laws of morality. And it's within
society's laws (I feel) that we should restrict those who stray from societal
laws. Whether the offenders are moral or not is another issue.
> > 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.
Well, this is basically a tie-in to "what if the law is unjust?". Suppose the
other parent, or the abuse hotline thinks the same thing? The kid goes
everywhere, and everyone thinks that him playing with his stuffed frog is
grounds for death. Does his feeling on the matter count for naught? That's
really my quarrel. We can turn it around, and say what if a person who honestly
believed killing was right was in the situation. How COULD he know or be able
to find out he was wrong? Obviously (I think), society doesn't determine
morality. And without having some flawless divine connection, there is no real
way that I can see to connect the person with an absolute morality. John D
tried arguing for logic to be that connection in the last debate, but I have
problems with that, too. The point is that we all agree that other people don't
have a say in morality (ex: Bob saying I'm evil doesn't make me evil), so how
should we determine morality? Either it's through ourselves or it's through the
divine. I think John D wanted to say that going through ourselves (via logic)
ends up at an ultimate morality (assuming flawless logic, etc) but I still
disagree.
> 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)
> ...
> 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?
Extreme? Well, yeah. The best way to test theories is to see if they hold up
under the extremes. As to your question, I don't know. I was actually trying to
ask you that. In my own world, it's up to the individual to determine
everything, and as experience grows, we can expand our realm of morality more
and more. The child doesn't know not to pull his sister's hair, so he does it,
and gets punished. If he were a dog, he'd just associate hair pulling with
punishment, and not do it out of fear of punishment, but the child goes
further. When the child realizes that pulling the hair actually hurt his
sister (maybe his own hair gets pulled or something), he realizes that his
action was immoral-- not just that he'll be punished, but he actually feels bad
for doing it.
My question is more to you. If you hold that there are certain ultimate rules
like "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal", then we will always need
more detail as new situations arise. The basic problem turns into "What is
stealing?" and "What is killing?". "What is property?" "Who defines property?"
"What is it to cause death?" "What is it to die?" etc. At some level, you
either have to reach the infinite in your definitions, or rely on someone's
judgement to make the call. And when you do that, I'd argue that we wind up
with relativism, since people are rarely consistent with each other, and none
of us has the right to claim a better knowledge of morality than another.
> 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.
If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then *should* the child be punished for
pulling his sister's hair? You said before that it would be wrong to punish the
child if he had no advanced knowledge of what the 'law' was. Maybe, however,
you think it's just wrong to PUNISH, but the act is still wrong. I'd argue,
however, that the child is exempt from the law because he has no concept of it.
When he gets a concept of the law, and understands why the action is wrong, he
is expected to abide by that law.
Laterz,
DaveE
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
