I would say so. Regulations, when broken, are met with punishments. In the case of state law, when one resists these punishments because, for example, one disagrees with being punished, the punishment will become more and more severe with incarceration as the end station.
As such, law is based on coercion and, in my view, clearly imposition. — Tzeentch
Without laws, anarchy. With laws, oppression. How do we tackle this dilemma? — TheMadFool
Emit conservative values and infuse yourself with anarchic values. — I like sushi
Without laws, anarchy. With laws, oppression. How do we tackle this dilemma? — TheMadFool
That dilemma is not all that relevant to me.
Whether it's anarchy or oppression, it's the result of the collective behavior of individuals. I can't and don't want to decide for others what they must do.
I can however look at these systems and ponder their nature, and whether I want to live my life in accordance to their principles. — Tzeentch
But you believe that any idea is as good as another. What does “testing” mean then? All the ideas are just as good what is there to test? — khaled
There is no such thing as non interference sometimes. But let’s test this theory. You see a train barreling at someone who’s tied to the tracks. By this principle of non interference, it would be wrong to attempt to remove them. Do you agree with that? — khaled
It's what your arguments seem to boil down to every time you try to explain what constitutes a "better guess" — Tzeentch
Where did you get that? What argument is the one that boiled down to that? — khaled
But what constitutes a better guess, then? — Tzeentch
How do we tell when that’s the case? Very difficult. But better than not trying. — khaled
Try to escape? — Tzeentch
This would get everyone killed. — khaled
Don't impose. — Tzeentch
The problem is that you don’t follow this. Admittedly, you would impose sometimes. — khaled
What shortcuts am I taking? — khaled
There are situations where inaction is an imposition. Or do you not think so? — khaled
The example of someone standing in the way and not moving is good. He’s not doing anything to you, is he? How is he interfering? You’re the one that wants him to move. So he’s not imposing correct? — khaled
Hence why I am an anarchist internally (at odds with any authority even my own) and generally conservative outwardly, because I've lived enough to realise things are more complex and silly than I did when I was younger so it is sometimes best not to shake things up 'out there' and rather do it 'in here' (my head/myself) and it will bleed through anyhow.
Of course I fail all the time and stubbornly refuse to adhere to what other people do as what I should do because that is how things are done :D — I like sushi
Ideas can approximate reality to varying degrees, and the closer they approximate reality, the "better" (for the lack of a better term) they are. — Tzeentch
I realize however, that I am fallible and have no way to confirm, therefore I shall not impose those ideas on anyone. — Tzeentch
I haven't proposed a principle of non-interference. I have however stated that I do not think non-interference is an imposition. — Tzeentch
In your example I would say it is not wrong to remove someone from a train track who is clearly being held there against their will. — Tzeentch
Correct me if I am wrong, but you have stated that when one gets the sense one's ideas are closer to truth, one gets a right to impose them. — Tzeentch
I also don't believe choosing non-interference (leaving the person on the track) is wrong — Tzeentch
You may state that because 90% of subjects could not drive at an acceptable level, the other 10% may rightfully be imposed upon. — Tzeentch
But better than not trying. — khaled
Debatable. I'm sure you're aware of what happens when collectives disagree on what is the better guess. — Tzeentch
How? — Tzeentch
I do follow that, since I've never been in the highly unlikely situation that my life is directly threatened — Tzeentch
However, in such a situation one could argue that one is not imposing. — Tzeentch
An imposition is the use of force to make an individual act in accordance to one's desires. Force can be physical, it can be verbal, it can be mental, etc. — Tzeentch
Then again, maybe the right thing to do is to sit there and accept one's fate - to turn the other cheek. Perhaps that is what Buddha would do. And didn't Jesus carry his own cross to Golgotha to die on it? I'm willing to consider that option. — Tzeentch
What do you do when some fool comes around with "a sense of the better guess" and starts imposing on you? — Tzeentch
These ideas are all fine and good, until someone comes around to uses them against you, and that is essentially the root of all human conflict. — Tzeentch
Correct, assuming the standing person is not consciously attempting to deny the other person of this space. If it is a conscious attempt to deny, it is an imposition. — Tzeentch
Can I assume you mean to say that your goal here is to arrive at ideas that approximate reality even better? — khaled
The idea that we should not impose because we're fallible is just as susceptible to being wrong as any other idea. Agreed? — khaled
In other words, what do we do when we're not sure if we're imposing or not? — khaled
If I do something to someone, not knowing it was their intent to do so anyways, have I imposed? If, for instance, I wake someone up not knowing whether or not they wanted to be woken up, and it turns out that they actually did want to wake up at that time because they have an appointment, have I imposed? — khaled
Yes. Though one also has a duty to do as much research as they can to make sure their idea is actually closer to truth. — khaled
Isn't attempting at getting a better answer better in your eyes too? If it wasn't, why would you comment here? — khaled
Does this apply regardless of the potential damage and ease of the act? If, for instance you had a button that could cure all strains of COVID, is it morally permissible not to press it and just walk away? — khaled
The problem is that it's a choice of either imposing slightly on 10% of drivers or imposing on everyone a much higher risk of accidents (including said drivers in the first place). — khaled
This gets difficult to discuss without a clear definition of what an imposition is. — khaled
Is refusing to instantiate a law that you know will benefit the community an imposition? Or is instantiating it the imposition? — khaled
If we didn't try to get at better guesses, any guess would be just as good. Wars happen when large amounts of people disagree on something. Imagine what would happen if everyone disagreed on everything. That would be worse wouldn't it? — khaled
It seems to me you believe that if we recognized our fallibility, and thus gave up on trying to approach objectivity, ... — khaled
Try to escape? — Tzeentch
This would get everyone killed. — khaled
How? — Tzeentch
Because that's the described situation. Either you press a button that kills Jeff. You press a button that kills Sarah. Or you press neither (escaping would involve this) and both die. (I'm not sure if I kept the same names) — khaled
Let's say one button would impose on Jeff by pinching him. The other button would impose on Sarah by burning her alive. Walking away leads to both being burned alive. Now in all situations, you're imposing correct? Or do you think that walking away here is not an imposition? Incidentally, do you think non interference is right here too? — khaled
An imposition is the use of force to make an individual act in accordance to one's desires. Force can be physical, it can be verbal, it can be mental, etc. — Tzeentch
This seems to fit the bill here too though. One of your desires is for the psychotic killer not to kill you. And you impose that one desire on the killer through the use of force do you not? I don't think your definition leaves much wiggle room. — khaled
However, in such a situation one could argue that one is not imposing. — Tzeentch
Then again, maybe the right thing to do is to sit there and accept one's fate - to turn the other cheek. Perhaps that is what Buddha would do. And didn't Jesus carry his own cross to Golgotha to die on it? I'm willing to consider that option. — Tzeentch
In ethics it all depends on your starting premises. Do you truly believe that turning the other cheek is always the correct thing to do? Some people do. Some people would just sit there and die. But neither of us would, so we seem to agree that turning the other cheek is not always the correct thing to do. Pointing out that others disagree is not helpful for this conversation because we both disagree with said others. — khaled
Impose on him by stopping him because I have the better guess. — khaled
But I maintain that your ideas would lead to much more conflict. — khaled
If the fool believes in my ideas as I do, he would cease his imposition the moment he realizes his guess is bad. He would even apologize and thank me for showing him a better guess. — khaled
In your case, there is nothing that can be used to stop the psychotic killer or the fool. — khaled
I noticed you also ignored my question on what constitutes an imposition. — khaled
I'm sat in this chair right now. Right now I am denying you the space I am sitting in. Is that an imposition? I doubt it. What if the stander doesn't see it as denying? — khaled
The stander would tell you the walker is imposing, by trying to deny him that space. The walker would tell you the stander is imposing, by trying to deny him that space. Who's right here? — khaled
Even if this systematization sometimes inevitably makes some feel like they're being imposed upon, a lack of it would mean virtually everyone feeling they're being imposed upon. — khaled
Inaction would not be wrong. It is also not right. It is neutral.
In this instance one could use their best judgement to conclude that pinching Jeff is a meaningless imposition that does not compare in any way to being burned alive, and thus choose to impose on Jeff and save Sarah. Jeff will probably agree and thank you for it. If he doesn't, you have made a terrible mistake, but alas people aren't perfect. — Tzeentch
In this instance one could use their best judgement to conclude that pinching Jeff is a meaningless imposition that does not compare in any way to being burned alive, and thus choose to impose on Jeff and save Sarah. Jeff will probably agree and thank you for it. If he doesn't, you have made a terrible mistake, but alas people aren't perfect. — Tzeentch
Yes, but by coincidence you haven't done harm. — Tzeentch
Once one starts imposing based on their conviction on having the better guess, that's when things get muddy quickly. That's what I meant with saying it is debatable. — Tzeentch
Ok, so I do my duty, I do all I can to come to a "sense of the better guess", and then start imposing my ideas on you. They just happen to be wildly different from yours, but that doesn't matter — Tzeentch
It is not a slight imposition. A law is an imposition made under threat of violence. — Tzeentch
I don't disagree with them at all. In fact, I am willing to consider that they are right. It would be consistent with the rest of my ideas.
I'm also willing to consider that the direct protection of one's physical body deserves a clause. — Tzeentch
Doubtful. I'll maintain that the more conflict-prone individuals there are, the more conflicts there are. And the more conflict-avoidant individuals there are, the fewer conflicts there are. — Tzeentch
I've provided a straight-forward definition in the very post you replied to. Please, lets keep our discussion honest. — Tzeentch
The fact that there's no one to notice it only stops you from doing harm, so the imposition is meaningless, but it is still an imposition.
Intention matters. — Tzeentch
If I try to kill someone, but I fail and the victim never notices I tried to kill them, was I not wrong for trying to kill them? — Tzeentch
Neither. They're both imposing on each other and thus both are wrong. It only takes one of them to wisen up and step aside, but they both choose not to. It's a conflict of egos. — Tzeentch
Would you say it is wrong to press the button here? That was the real question. — khaled
Since impositions are wrong that leaves us with the conclusion that it's wrong to pinch Jeff and so save both of their lives, and that the morally correct option (relatively, it's a neutral option with 2 bad alternatives) is to allow both to die. Do you agree with this? — khaled
Now very importantly: Is it right to refer to better judgement, even if it involves imposing? — khaled
Is such an imposition wrong regardless of how certain we are that the victim will not mind it? — khaled
Ok, so I do my duty, I do all I can to come to a "sense of the better guess", and then start imposing my ideas on you. They just happen to be wildly different from yours, but that doesn't matter — Tzeentch
Why would it not matter? My having wildly different ideas should be reason to reevaluate the quality of your research. — khaled
f I thought that stabbing a power outlet with a fork would produce candy, please, kindly impose on me and stop me. By your system, such an imposition would be wrong. — khaled
No offense, but I don't much care for what you're "willing to consider" and I mean this in the nicest way possible. I'm interested in what you're arguing. If you argue that imposition is always wrong, that means there are no such clauses. — khaled
If you change your argument by adding said clause, I would ask why you added this specific clause, and which other clauses may be added. — khaled
I'll maintain that the more conflict-prone individuals there are, the more conflicts there are. And the more conflict-avoidant individuals there are, the fewer conflicts there are. — Tzeentch
If so, then why did you claim that my ideas were "the source of all human conflict" if it's only about "conflict proneness"? — khaled
It's just that you also tried to argue that stopping psychotic killers is not an imposition, ... — khaled
So are you saying that, by denying you this space (where I'm sitting) I am imposing on you? — khaled
Wouldn't that mean that I'm doing something wrong by being sat here? — khaled
If I try to kill someone, but I fail and the victim never notices I tried to kill them, was I not wrong for trying to kill them? — Tzeentch
Agreed. Is this intended as an analogy for sitting in chairs? — khaled
Say A tries to impose X on B, and B tries to impose Y on A. In this scenario, it seems your system would produce that both A and B are wrong, regardless of X and Y correct? — khaled
And if A wants to not be wrong, he should cease trying to impose X and if B wants to not be wrong he should cease trying to impose Y. Do you agree with this? — khaled
And the real answer is, I don't know. — Tzeentch
That judgement could be completely wrong though, and if it is, one has made a mistake. — Tzeentch
The crucial factor here, as mentioned in the previous line, is that one doesn't know if one is making an imposition. One can reasonably assume that Jeff agrees pinching him is much better than Sarah dying, but again, one could be wrong in which case one has certainly made an imposition, which is wrong. — Tzeentch
If I do something to someone, not knowing it was their intent to do so anyways, have I imposed? — khaled
Yes, but by coincidence you haven't done harm. — Tzeentch
If one consciously attempts to use force to make someone act in accordance to one's desires, it is wrong regardless of the outcome. — Tzeentch
One could imagine a situation where the other may be grateful for the imposition afterwards - lets say I push someone out of the way of a moving car. But in this example am I imposing my desires on someone, or simply acting on behalf of theirs? — Tzeentch
Again, intentions matter. — Tzeentch
It's just that you also tried to argue that stopping psychotic killers is not an imposition, ...
— khaled
I haven't argued that — Tzeentch
However, in such a situation one could argue that one is not imposing. — Tzeentch
The question that remains is whether it is also immoral to impose in such a situation. — Tzeentch
Sure. If I try to deny a person from sitting in a chair by sitting there myself, and the person just walks by and never noticed I attempted to impose on them, was I not wrong for trying to impose on them in the first place? — Tzeentch
In case it wasn't clear, the fact that one has to use force to make someone act in accordance with one's desires generally implies conflicting desires, and conflicting desires (or the impression thereof, in case of intentions) are key to determining whether something is an imposition. — Tzeentch
If I do something to someone, not knowing it was their intent to do so anyways, have I imposed?
— khaled
And you answered:
Yes, but by coincidence you haven't done harm. — khaled
But pinching Jeff is undoubtedly an imposition, yes? — khaled
It sounds to me like you're implying that an imposition is wrong only if it ends up conflicting with the victim's interests. Am I correct? — khaled
If I do something to someone, not knowing it was their intent to do so anyways, have I imposed? — khaled
Yes, but by coincidence you haven't done harm. — Tzeentch
But here you say that one "doesn't know if they're making an imposition", implying that if Jeff had been fine with getting pinched to save him and Sarah, then pinching him is not an imposition. — khaled
Additionally, by your original definition, pinching is certainly an imposition. — khaled
If one consciously attempts to use force to make someone act in accordance to one's desires, it is wrong regardless of the outcome. — Tzeentch
This seems to be your original definition of imposition, which is always wrong. We can agree that pinching Jeff falls here yes? (Desire: save Jeff and Sarah, Force: Pinch) — khaled
It's just that you also tried to argue that stopping psychotic killers is not an imposition, ... — khaled
However, in such a situation one could argue that one is not imposing. — Tzeentch
If you claim that all impositions are wrong, and that this (self defense) is an imposition, what question remains? — khaled
I certainly don't think you're always wrong. If you owned the chair, I would say you are definitely not wrong for instance. Do you believe that you would be wrong even then? — khaled
In one you claim that an imposition is an imposition regardless of the intent of the victim. In the other, you claim that the victim's intent is "key to determining whether something is an imposition". Which definition shall we proceed with? — khaled
No, not undoubtedly. As I tried to make clear, there must be a conflict of desires or the impression thereof to make it an imposition. — Tzeentch
In this example one can reasonably assume Jeff would want to be pinched if it meant saving Sarah, and thus one may choose to take that risk. But it is still a risk.
If it turns out Jeff disagrees, one has made an imposition. — Tzeentch
I ammended my claim, leaving the question of self-defense unresolved for now. Why skip over that? — Tzeentch
If it is not one's desire to impose, but one is instead for whatever reason to make a judgement call, the desires of the victim and one's ability to accurately determine them become key. — Tzeentch
But the question is whether or not taking the risk is permissible. — khaled
Suppose Sarah is Jeff's ex-wife and he hates her with a burning passion. So much so, that he doesn't mind dying with her, and so verbally and loudly opposes your decision to pinch him to save both. Now does it become immoral to pinch Jeff? — khaled
Or another situation, imagine the Jeff is stoned out of his mind and mumbles something about how he hates blue so much so don't you dare press the blue button. Incidentally, that's the button to pinch Jeff. Would it be wrong to press it then? — khaled
I'm not sure it's purely the imposition victim who has to be taken into account but rather also the victims of not imposing — khaled
If one did, it was permissable. If one didn't, it wasn't. There's no way to determine the morality of such an act beforehand, hence the risk. — Tzeentch
Just like when one intends to kill someone but fails, that is still an immoral act. — Tzeentch
Yes — Tzeentch
This is a situation where one could reasonably assume that the desires expressed by Jeff are not his true desires but a result of a deteriorated mental state. One could take the risk.
Whether that decision is right or wrong can only be accertained after Jeff sobers up. — Tzeentch
The issue with this is that it implies that inaction is immoral, which in turn implies that one has to spend their every waking moment and ounce of energy solving what one perceives to be the world's problems — Tzeentch
Incidentally, before I begin, you’re an antinatalist correct? — khaled
A consequentialist answer then? One cannot tell beforehand if what he’s about to do is permissible or not. — khaled
I don’t see how you square it with this however: — khaled
Just like when one intends to kill someone but fails, that is still an immoral act. — Tzeentch
The first quote implies that an attempt at murder is never wrong (“there is no way to determine the morality of the act beforehand”). Successful murder is itself only conditionally wrong (wrong only if the victim wants to live)
The second implies that the attempt itself is wrong. — khaled
I find it curious that if Jeff is drunk then we shouldn’t respect his intentions, but when he’s malicious we should. — khaled
If it was 20 people in that room, and Jeff was purely evil, would it still be wrong? If there were 100 would it still be wrong? What about if it was between Jeff’s wish to cause death and the entirety of the human race on the other end? Would it still be immoral to pinch Jeff? — khaled
Yes I do believe inaction is sometimes immoral, but I don’t see how that means that we must spend every waking moment trying to fix things. — khaled
There is no fundamental difference between action and inaction. — khaled
Let’s return to Jeff and Sarah. We say that the action is pressing a button correct? Let me coin a new verb: “sserp” and it means “to not press”. So now, Sarah can accuse you of imposing on her by sserping the button. — khaled
The split between action and inaction is a trick of the language.
This idea hasn’t gone under much scrutiny I’ll admit, so I’m curious what you’ll say. What is it about sserping that makes it an inaction as opposed to an action? What separates them in general?
Is standing still an action or inaction? — khaled
I am however seriously considering the possibility that the act of having children is immoral. — Tzeentch
An intent to harm can by itself be immoral. — Tzeentch
If we make the judgement that somehow, because we perceive the pinch to be only a minor sacrifice, we are justified in imposing on Jeff we open a box of Pandora. — Tzeentch
This is how I would personally judge this hypothetical situation and I could of course be wrong. Maybe Jeff's anger is entirely out-of-character in which case one could take a risk, just like when he was intoxicated. — Tzeentch
Because if inaction towards a perceived problem is immoral, then every moment not spent solving the problems one perceives is immoral. — Tzeentch
Personally, I think inaction is only immoral towards those situations one has voluntarily taken responsibility for. — Tzeentch
I think there is, and I also think it is fundamental. — Tzeentch
Sarah has no grounds to demand (impose) one's involvement in their predicament. — Tzeentch
Standing still is an act(ion). But while one is standing still, one may also be in inaction. For example, one is not running. — Tzeentch
This is what I mean. But by the current standard, you cannot tell the morality of an act beforehand. So having children would only be wrong if the child grows up hating their life wouldn't it? Assuming of course that the parents don't have malicious intent with their children. What further consideration is needed?
Well then it looks like further amendment is needed. It's not just about the consequence anymore, the morality of an act also depends on the intent before it takes place. What to do when those contradict?
If one has a benevolent intent but the outcome is bad, was the act immoral? Was the morality of the act determined after or before the act in this case?
On the other hand, if the intent is malicious, but the outcome is good, was the act immoral? Was the morality of the act determined after or before the act in this case?
What's the "timeline of morality" here? Is the morality of the act initially determined by intent but then we "add" the consequence after the act is done and recalculate the morality of the act? If so, what's the point of this extra addition and recalculation? That's the best I can make of this so far. — khaled
I've never come across a system that determines the morality of the act both before (intent) and after (consequence) the act, so I'm confused on what to make of this. — khaled
Besides, doesn't saving Sarah fall under "benevolent intent"? So the outcome could be wrong (benevolent intent, but the act ends up contradicting Jeff's wishes). What makes you so sure it is wrong? What variables determine when benevolent intent overrides the consequences of an act and when it doesn't? — khaled
Couldn't you say this regardless of how out of character the anger is? There is always a chance that Jeff doesn't mean what he says, or a chance that it's actually not Jeff speaking but you hallucinating. What if one bets on those chances? — khaled
Can your system definitively state that imposing a sacrifice on Jeff is wrong? — khaled
I don't see how it could given that morality is determined after the act is done, and given that the intent in this case is benevolent (save Sarah).
But you also seem sure that it is wrong. Why is that? — khaled
Correct. Now how would this imply that one has to spend all their time fixing things? — khaled
In your system, action can be immoral if it's against the victim's interest. That doesn't mean that one has to spend every waking moment checking if their actions have imposed or not does it? You typed many responses to me, did you once ask me if you were imposing? — khaled
And how does responsibility work? — khaled
Can one ethically have a child and choose not to take on the responsibility associated? — khaled
Many would argue that you have a responsibility to save Sarah in that scenario. — khaled
But they are involved aren't they? They're sserping the button! They're causing her death! — khaled
There is no fundamental difference between action and inaction. — khaled
I think there is, and I also think it is fundamental. — Tzeentch
What is it then? — khaled
... , what tells you that sserping is an inaction, instead of an action? — khaled
1. The intention of the act must be just. — Tzeentch
2. One must possess the power and wisdom to make their intentions reality. — Tzeentch
criteria 2 cannot be fulfilled, for no other reason that the actor of has very limited control and little to no knowledge over the outcome.
That is to say, having children cannot be a moral act. — Tzeentch
An act that has a malicious intention, is immoral, regardless of the outcome.
An act that has a harmful outcome, is immoral, regardless of the intent. — Tzeentch
But is it immoral? The same ignorance and hubris are present, with all the risks they bring, yet the intentions were good and no harm has come of it. Maybe it is not immoral. Or maybe it is. Unresolved. — Tzeentch
I don't think a system could make any sense without taking both into account. — Tzeentch
Of course, and one could always bet on those chances if one felt they had ample reason to do so. — Tzeentch
It rests on the assumption that one is interested in living a moral life. If one isn't interested in that, this entire discussion isn't relevant to them. — Tzeentch
If impositions are in any way meaningful, one may expect some kind of signal from the person who one supposedly imposed on. — Tzeentch
But if you take this discussion as an imposition on my part, and you find it impossible for yourself to stop partaking in this conversation for whatever reason, let me know and I'll stop. — Tzeentch
Whoever put them in their predicament is causing their death. — Tzeentch
I explained; the difference between action and inaction is similar to that which is and that which isn't. — Tzeentch
.. , what tells you that sserping is an inaction, instead of an action?
— khaled
It refers to something that isn't. — Tzeentch
Standing still is an act(ion). But while one is standing still, one may also be in inaction. — Tzeentch
Couldn't this be applied to all acts? — khaled
After all, if by criteria 2, you mean the power and wisdom to make intentions a reality with 100% chance, then no act at all fulfills that criteria. — khaled
Let's take giving to charity. There is always a chance that the money I send gets stolen and used to fund the Russian mafia. I do not have the wisdom or power to ensure that that will not happen with 100% certainty. Therefore donating to charity is not moral by this formulation. — khaled
So how certain should we be before an act with benevolent intentions becomes justified? — khaled
Also, what is the difference between "not moral" and "immoral"? Is it ok to do "not moral" acts? — khaled
First, what happens when these criteria contradict? So what happens when one has benevolent intent, and has enough certainty that they'll succeed (so the act is moral) but the act has a negative consequence (so the act is immoral)? — khaled
And second, what counts as the "outcome" exactly? If, say, I help an old lady cross the road (out of benevolent intent), but then 3 years later she ends up murdering 5 people, have I done something wrong or right? How far into the future do we need to look? — khaled
Your system cannot say "this is wrong". Only "this was wrong". Who cares about the latter? — khaled
What does knowing that an act happened to be wrong accomplish? — khaled
It doesn't guide you towards living morally. — khaled
But as I explained, since your system also has the morality of acts depend on their consequences, you never know the morality of an act before it is done. So by the same logic shouldn't you spend every waking moment tracking the consequences of every act you have ever committed to ensure that they didn't have bad consequences that would make them immoral? — khaled
And let's say you do manage to track act X to have resulted in a negative consequence (putting aside the "how far into the future should we look" question), it doesn't seem like that fact alone (that an act happened to turn out wrong) would have any bearing on future behavior. — khaled
If it doesn't impact your behavior surely it doesn't lead you to live a more or less moral life? — khaled
So then, how does your system lead to a more moral life if doesn't impact behavior? — khaled
Even then, one can bet on the chance that they're hallucinating that particular signal, once again making their intention benevolent. — khaled
And since the morality of an act is only determined by its consequence at that point, they are free to do anything. — khaled
"intention" requirement is trivial to fill. — khaled
And the consequence requirement doesn't deter an act. — khaled
Hypothetically, if someone found your holding this belief that impositions are wrong, itself an imposition on them, and asked you to stop, would you? If not, why not? What justifies that imposition? — khaled
Multiple things can cause the same event correct? It's not just the person that put them in their predicament, but also the person that supplied him with the tools, and the person that supplied him with funds, and so on. — khaled
... sserping the button is also part of the causal chain. — khaled
Let's take the person who built the pods to trap Sarah and Jeff. If said person knew what their use would be, and built them anyways, is he wrong? Now, importantly, if he didn't know, and they happened to be used for evil, is he wrong? — khaled
Because if the consequence is bad, then the act is wrong regardless of intention. How might one ever act morally then — khaled
Or conversely, if every single act can be immoral or moral assuming benevolent intention, isn't every act done with benevolent intention justified? — khaled
That doesn't help very much. I can cite one of many differences between existence and non existence. For one: Existing things can be detected, non existing things cannot. Can you similarly cite a difference between action and inaction? — khaled
I don't quite understand this critique as you've already claimed that the same act can be an action or an inaction... — khaled
So is standing still an action or inaction now? Does it refer to something that isn't or something that is? — khaled
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.