Fine. I still disagree. If you kill someone but don't intend to, I wouldn't say that you've committed wrongdoing. — Thorongil

:s so let's see - if we're in a chemical laboratory, and due to my negligence I forget the gas on after I leave, and there is a big explosion later killing many people, have I done no wrong because I didn't intend to?

One thing I don't like about your position is that it makes it impossible not to commit wrongdoing. — Thorongil

In some situations it is (virtually) impossible to avoid wrongdoing though. It's just how life is.

so let's see - if we're in a chemical laboratory, and due to my negligence I forget the gas on after I leave, and there is a big explosion later killing many people, have I done no wrong because I didn't intend to? — Agustino

Correct. You are to blame for the action, but not morally to blame. If an inanimate object caused the explosion, has it done wrong? Like you, it never intended to cause the explosion.

In some situations it is (virtually) impossible to avoid wrongdoing though. It's just how life is. — Agustino

This is excellent fodder for the anti-natalist.

You are to blame for the action, but not morally to blame. — Thorongil

Then in what sense am I to blame? I think I am absolutely to blame morally, if I wasn't negligent - a vice - the tragedy wouldn't have happened.

If an inanimate object caused the explosion, has it done wrong? Like you, it never intended to cause the explosion. — Thorongil

Is that inanimate object a moral agent?

This is excellent fodder for the anti-natalist. — Thorongil

Only if you have some absolute revulsion from wrong-doing. I have a revulsion from it, but not absolute.

Then in what sense am I to blame? — Agustino

In the sense that you are the cause of it.

Is that inanimate object a moral agent? — Agustino

It doesn't matter. The lack of intent is the same in both cases.

Then in what sense am I to blame? I think I am absolutely to blame morally, if I wasn't negligent - a vice - the tragedy wouldn't have happened. — Agustino

Negligent homicide is a much lower intent crime and is used as a charge when one person causes the death of another through criminal negligence. The charge does not involve premeditation, but focuses on what the defendant should have known and the risks associated with what he did know.

In the sense that you are the cause of it. — Thorongil

So if I am the cause of it, how am I not morally to blame for it if I could have stopped myself from being the cause of it for one?

It doesn't matter. The lack of intent is the same in both cases. — Thorongil

It's not the same at all. In one case you're dealing with a moral agent who has, amongst other things, a capacity for intention, and in the other case you're dealing with an inanimate object that has no capacity for intention (or internal states for that matter) whatsoever.

?

What's your point? Yes negligent homicide is not as immoral as wilful homicide (due to lack of intention amongst other things), but that isn't to tell us that it's not immoral at all.

"so let's see - if we're in a chemical laboratory, and due to my negligence I forget the gas on after I leave, and there is a big explosion later killing many people, have I done no wrong because I didn't intend to?"

Of course you are to blame for having Done wrong but if you are healthy you Will blame yourself. But morally blame? If it was a mistake? Dont be ridiculous. You have Done wrong, a mistake that had fatal consequences, but to call it a moral wrong is primitive. That is What people thought 8000 years before christianity.

Of course you are to blame for having Done wrong but if you are healthy you Will blame yourself. But morally blame? If it was a mistake? Dont be ridiculous. You have Done wrong, a mistake that had fatal consequences, but to call it a moral wrong is primitive. That is What people thought 8000 years before christianity. — Beebert

How is it not a moral wrong when it is caused by my negligence?! Is negligence a moral virtue or a vice? If it is a vice, then I am morally culpable.

Nope, killing (a human) is intrinsically wrong inasmuch as it deprives him of his freedom. — Mariner

I wanted to challenge you on this. Is freedom a value in itself? And if so, then why? For example, is the freedom to murder a value?

Yes, because it is the foundation of any value. The freedom to murder is a value just as existence, rationality, agency, are values. Without these realities, there are no values.

Note that a freedom that does not include "to murder" is not really a freedom.

Yes, because it is the foundation of any value. — Mariner

How come? I don't follow the logic.

Note that a freedom that does not include "to murder" is not really a freedom. — Mariner

My point is that it seems that your conception of freedom is purely negative - being able to do whatever you want. Whereas I tend to conceive of freedom more along the lines of doing what you ought to do. I wouldn't say someone who gives in to their lusts is free for example.

Ethical freedom is the freedom to pick your own hierarchy of values. This is what I'm talking about -- it is a freedom that prisoners in a dungeon, or castaways in a distant island, enjoy. Dead people don't enjoy it.

Ridiculous.

Ethical freedom is the freedom to pick your own hierarchy of values. — Mariner

Ah, well you should have clarified that. Now why is ethical freedom a value? I think the freedom in question is the necessary presupposition of any value, but it is not a value itself.

Ridiculous. — Beebert

Arguments please!

Ah, well you should have clarified that. Now why is ethical freedom a value? I think the freedom in question is the necessary presupposition of any value, but it is not a value itself. — Agustino

What are the necessary traits for some X to be "a value"? If ethical freedom is really freedom, the answer is "none". No one can say that X cannot be a value because of some structural defect in the constitution of X.

This is the theoretical aspect. The practical aspect of the same phenomenon is that if we don't consider ethical freedom a value, we'll boss people around. The disregard for ethical freedom produces orcs.

Only if you answer my 10 posts or so that you have not yet answered in the other thread.

What are the necessary traits for some X to be "a value"? — Mariner

Produce eudaimonia?

No one can say that X cannot be a value because of some structural defect in the constitution of X. — Mariner

Well, I don't think murder or hate can be a "value".

The practical aspect of the same phenomenon is that if we don't consider ethical freedom a value, we'll boss people around. — Mariner

That doesn't follow, because I said ethical freedom is necessary for values to be possible, but it's nevertheless not a value itself. It's just the starting point.

Produce eudaimonia? — Agustino

Says you.

See the problem here?

Of course, for a serial killer, eudaimonia will probably be different than for you or me.

So if I am the cause of it, how am I not morally to blame for it if I could have stopped myself from being the cause of it for one? — Agustino

Because being the cause of something isn't the same as to be morally blameworthy. That ought to be a simple distinction to understand.

It's not the same at all. In one case you're dealing with a moral agent who has, amongst other things, a capacity for intention, and in the other case you're dealing with an inanimate object that has no capacity for intention (or internal states for that matter) whatsoever. — Agustino

The lack of intent is the same. An even occurred due to an intentless action in both cases.

"Because being the cause of something isn't the same as to be morally blameworthy. That ought to be a simple distinction to understand."

Yes, especially a Christian should understand this. Because God is "the first cause".

Because being the cause of something isn't the same as to be morally blameworthy. That ought to be a simple distinction to understand. — Thorongil

If a person is the cause of something evil, then they are morally blameworthy, at least if they could have prevented it. I think your view actually leads to quite many absurdities, not to mention that it encourages absolutely terrible behaviour. Basically it tells me that I have no moral blame if - say - I forget the gas on and there's a big explosion and many people die. It's not a morality that gets me to be careful about what I do, and understand myself in relation to others. It's a self-contained kind of morality, that's broken off from the real world.

You dont understand what thorongil says

Says you.

See the problem here?

Of course, for a serial killer, eudaimonia will probably be different than for you or me. — Mariner

No, I actually don't see the problem. The serial killer may THINK his eudaimonia is different, but he would be wrong in his judgement. I'm actually very very surprised you take this position.


Listen to this for a few minutes from where I linked it 23:30.

The lack of intent is the same. — Thorongil

Sure, so what? It doesn't follow that the action is not immoral, since that would be simply to presuppose that morality consists in not intending evil.

Only if you answer my 10 posts or so that you have not yet answered in the other thread. — Beebert

:-} I will answer your 10 posts or so in due time. Now there's some work I need to do, because I'm still behind on work... that's what having to deal with sexism accusations does to you >:O

The serial killer may THINK his eudaimonia is different, but he would be wrong in his judgement. — Agustino

Says you. It is easy to say that John Doe is wrong when we are discussing serial killing. But some moral issues are not so beyond the pale.

Note, I don't disagree that John Doe is wrong (in other words, I'm no relativist) -- what I'm disagreeing with is the notion that you, or I, can decide for others what is the correct way to reach eudaimonia.

Mortimer Adler had no right to go about bossing people around, even if he was right about how to reach eudaimonia. This also applies to you, and to me.

Says you. It is easy to say that John Doe is wrong when we are discussing serial killing. But some moral issues are not so beyond the pale. — Mariner

Is it possible to arrive at a rational judgement with regards to the morality of the said issues?

Note, I don't disagree that John Doe is wrong (in other words, I'm no relativist) -- what I'm disagreeing with is the notion that you, or I, can decide for others what is the correct way to reach eudaimonia. — Mariner

But we can establish what is eudaimonia right? We may not be able to tell others how to get from where they are to the respective state, with that I can agree.

But we can establish what is eudaimonia right? — Agustino

For ourselves. Yes, we can. Because we are ethically free. Hence the value of that freedom.