: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?Fine. I still disagree. If you kill someone but don't intend to, I wouldn't say that you've committed wrongdoing. — Thorongil
In some situations it is (virtually) impossible to avoid wrongdoing though. It's just how life is.One thing I don't like about your position is that it makes it impossible not to commit wrongdoing. — Thorongil
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
In some situations it is (virtually) impossible to avoid wrongdoing though. It's just how life is. — Agustino
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.You are to blame for the action, but not morally to blame. — Thorongil
Is that inanimate object a moral agent?If an inanimate object caused the explosion, has it done wrong? Like you, it never intended to cause the explosion. — 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. — 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.
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?In the sense that you are the cause of it. — 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.It doesn't matter. The lack of intent is the same in both cases. — Thorongil
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.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 come? I don't follow the logic.Yes, because it is the foundation of any value. — 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.Note that a freedom that does not include "to murder" is not really a freedom. — 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. — Agustino
Produce eudaimonia?What are the necessary traits for some X to be "a value"? — Mariner
Well, I don't think murder or hate can be a "value".No one can say that X cannot be a value because of some structural defect in the constitution of X. — 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.The practical aspect of the same phenomenon is that if we don't consider ethical freedom a value, we'll boss people around. — Mariner
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
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
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.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
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.Says you.
See the problem here?
Of course, for a serial killer, eudaimonia will probably be different than for you or me. — Mariner
:-} 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 >:OOnly if you answer my 10 posts or so that you have not yet answered in the other thread. — Beebert
The serial killer may THINK his eudaimonia is different, but he would be wrong in his judgement. — Agustino
Is it possible to arrive at a rational judgement with regards to the morality of the said issues?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
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.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
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.