Subject:
|
Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:38:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1394 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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.
Determining intent can only be inferential, not observational. This makes
judging by intent inherently less impartial than judging by actions.
> > 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 do not trust myself to judge anyone's intent.(1) I am not omniscient, and I
will never know why someone does something. I can infer, but I cannot observe.
Your argument almost sounds like you are claiming morality is external, which
is another place I disagree (with most of society). I think that morality can
only be determined internally, not dictated from outside. A code of behavior
determined externally is an ethical code, not a moral code.
> > 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.
I disagree. <grin> In my opinion, if it is wrong to kill, then it is wrong to
kill, period. Otherwise, there's no such thing as a moral dillema. What if
someone honestly and truly is unaware they did wrong. In your view, they are
moral. After the fact, they are taught that what they did is wrong. Do they
suddenly become immoral?
> 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.
Yup, complete agreement. I don't think a moral code should be applied to
society at all. Only you can decide if you are acting morally or not.
> > > 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
Well then, society thinks that playing with his stuffed frog is grounds for
death, and if he wants to not die, he'd better not get caught playing with his
stuffed frog, or leave the society. This has >nothing< to do with morality,
but with ethics.
> 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
But up above, in the terrorist example you said you trusted your own
judgement. How does that jive with not having a say in morality?
> 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.
When I can reach an ultimate morality, I will be omniscient.
> > 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.
That's an assumption. Neither you nor I have any way of knowing the child
feels bad about it, or will ever feel bad about it. Also, "realizes...action
was immoral" implies that the morality is external to the child. I hold that
the child cannot realize that an action is immoral, the child has to >decide<
an action is moral. In other words, I believe that a moral code is learned,
where as you imply that you think it is instinctive.
> 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
All of these are determined by me, in the case of morality, and by groups in
the case of legality or ethics.
And it is important to note that I never claimed to hold that there are any
ultimate rules regarding behavior. I just hold that a moral code based on
behavior is more consistent than a moral code based on intent.
> 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.
Morals are relative. Or to say it another way, morals are both internal, and
mutable.
> 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.
Ignorance of the law was a poor way of phrasing it, my apologies. If the
child is ignorant of any wrong, then of course punishment would be wrong(2).
But I would be inclined to say that in most cases, most children would be
aware that hair-pulling is painful, and they are likely doing it on purpose,
with an awareness that it is considered wrong. This is where the 'ignorance
of the law' part comes in. Despite the fact that they haven't been told
'don't pull hair' they are aware (through inference and environment) that it
is 'wrong'. But again, this whole example has nothing to do with morality,
and everything to do with ethics.
1:Even my own, on some occasions ;-)
2:This is, of course, my own morality.
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
|
|
|
|
