Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So again, if you could show me where it is described as evil when someone is accidently killed, I'd appreciate it.
Because morality is about what you should do.Wait, before we go down the semantics rabbit hole again, how is what you will and won't do, based on unfair harm, not moral behavior?
Can "good behavior" (how we should behave) be defined in a way that people would be incorrect to disagree with? Then it would be objective.This is more inline with what I'm trying to get at. This why we can say in ALL cases, if you know stealing a car causes unfair stress(bad) and you want to behave well(good), then you won't do it.
Okay.I care because when I rationalize it out, its clear to me that morality is objective, yet others thinks it's clear to them that it isn't, so trying to figure out how to get to an agreed truth of the matter is interesting to me.
You said you were certain about "that". You said "that" was a "personal opinion". There's nothing flippant about trying to understand how you mix objective language with what you say is subjective.Don't be flippant.
You have yet to answer my questions, though I try repeatedly to reformulate them to make it easier for you. We're not jumping topics until you clearly define what the heck you're on about.So yet again...
Would it be evil if the person was innocent and didn't want to be killed?
Unfair harm was caused, regardless of intent?
Though, honestly, I'd probably just call it an unfortunate accident.
As opposed to... "fair" harm?
both terms involve some sort of subjective moral judgement already in place...
I don't think we regret our good acts, only our evil acts, i.e., acts with bad outcomes. "Bad" and "evil" are both antonyms of "good". Even the complete absence of culpability does not remove one's responsibility.Would it be evil if the person was innocent and didn't want to be killed? Unfair harm was caused, regardless of intent?
Though, honestly, I'd probably just call it an unfortunate accident.
I think that's a fair description of immorality. However, one needs to care about others to have internal regrets concerning how their actions affect others. So, in the positive sense I also see compassion as an absolute morality in its intention and goal.I don't think we regret our good acts, only our evil acts, i.e., acts with bad outcomes. "Bad" and "evil" are both antonyms of "good". Even the complete absence of culpability does not remove one's responsibility.
If I design a board game wherein the rules are the same for all players, then I have designed a fair game because it is equitable and balanced. No mention of whether I "should" design games to be fair, so no mention of morality.
If I have a broken arm, my body has been damaged and we can say that I was harmed. No mention of whether I "should" have had my arm broken, so no mention of morality.
If it were true that we "should" treat people fairly, then we "should" cause harm to folks that cause harm. It would be fair to harm them.
Tranquil spectators of your brothers’ wreck,
Unmoved by this repellent dance of death,
Who calmly seek the reason of such storms,
Let them but lash your own security;
Your tears will mingle freely with the flood.
When earth its horrid jaws half open shows,
My plaint is innocent, my cries are just.
Surrounded by such cruelties of fate,
By rage of evil and by snares of death,
Fronting the fierceness of the elements,
Sharing our ills, indulge me my lament.
Would it be evil if the person was innocent and didn't want to be killed? Unfair harm was caused, regardless of intent?
Though, honestly, I'd probably just call it an unfortunate accident.
"innocent" in what context?
As opposed to... "fair" harm?
both terms involve some sort of subjective moral judgement already in place...
Indeed -- moral judgements are attached to the intent, not the act itself.
If I accidentally knock a potted plant off my windowsill, and it clunks someone on the head on the sidewalk below, the act is not immoral. If I aim for someone.... That's a different story.
Well, no act took place. Remember the conclusion was "I won't steal Nancy's car". So nothing happened, there was no act.
Again, you're correct. "Relative" and "objective" are not at odds. I think there was some old nerd with wacky hair about 80 years ago that wrote something about that.
It's like this:
Objective vs Subjective.
Relative vs Absolute.
Again, correct. You may believe that all stealing is wrong (which would be a matter of absolutes) but the word "steal" only describes an act; it doesn't imply moral judgement. Even when I used to believe morality could be objective, I would still have said, "Stealing a loaf of bread to feed starving children is a moral thing to do".
Because morality is about what you should do.
Can "good behavior" (how we should behave) be defined in a way that people would be incorrect to disagree with? Then it would be objective.
Yet, you would still act as if you did something wrong and apologize for the accident. Wouldn't you?
For sure. I'm sorry I was so clumsy. But if you trip and knock that plant holder off the balcony and it kills someone, then that has been defined as being evil.
Maybe just kinda evil, lol
Innocent in the sense that they didn't deserve to die.
I'm thinking fair harm happens when you're feeling guilty or being justly punished. Unfair harm is harm inflicted on the undeserving innocent, like Nancy in my earlier car theft scenario, where its unfair harm to take what she rightfully owns. Or the person who got killed by accident.
Yet, you would still act as if you did something wrong and apologize for the accident. Wouldn't you?
Murdering children would be evil. Knocking a pot plant over places me (or the act) in the same category? It makes the word meaningless.
I was kidding. I’d categorize it as an unfortunate accident.
Find the person who gets to decide who does or doesn't "deserve" to die, and you'll find the sourceof morality... and chances are, that source isn't going to be absolute...
"justly," "unfair," "undeserving," and "rightfully" are all terms that require an outside, subjective point of view... how then can they be used to lay the foundation of an "absolute" morality?
But is my act immoral?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?