Thats what I would consider a principal based ethic (“dont do this”), which I addressed in the OP.
Ok, so unintentional consequences...where do we put them on ethical scales here? Thats a good question.
I think intention is a determinate factor in judging right and wrong, in the sense that a certain threshold of due diligence is being met. As long as the person has met that threshold (aren't being totally thoughtless or grossly ignorant of the consequences of their actions) then we dont need to put those unintended consequences on our ethical scale.

Oops, please delete.

Ok, gotchya :up:

I think I disagree with that, but you had mentioned that you would argue that the heat of passion would make it somewhat forgivable if traded for 100 million lives? Id like to hear your argument.

Well, I don’t conflate the law and morality, I think of the two as distinct from each other, so youre really asking a different question from my point of view.

None of what I said was intended to follow mathematical rules. The terms were meant in a broad sense, to illustrate my points.

↪DingoJones If the murder were in the heat of passion, then I would argue that saving 100 million lives somewhat forgives that. If saving 100 million lives is an excuse to kill someone, then that’s not okay. — Noah Te Stroete

Ok, lets hear the argument.

But would his saving of lives be considered in the balance of morality?

Exactly. Thats essentially what Im asking. Why couldnt he? It follows the same rationale. If the ball kicking was ok, why not the murder?

Yes, i agree an accidental act isnt really a moral one (unless someone was so careless it was immoral I suppose), but what if the person saved the lives to get girls? Its still saving 100 million people.

Sure, I get it, an enlightened, non-judging consideration. Im explicitly asking in the context of judging however, so that doesnt answer the OP.

So you think intention is definitive of how the balance is struck? Does it really matter why the person saves 100 million lives? Wouldn't you be glad he did it? (Provided the 100 million lives were the moral surplus of course).

Lol, ya I know. Sounds silly when you put it that way. However, I wouldnt say that those actions you used balance out.
Now, it doesnt really matter where you think those balances are so much as whether you think that a balance (and surplus of either morality or immorality) is possible. We can make it easier to consider in the interests of exploring the idea. So, what about a person who spends all day, every day working at saving lives...lets say the save 100,000,000 lives a year. Once a year, he takes a day off and stalks the streets, chooses a dude at random and kicks him square in the nuts. Back to work the next day. Does he earn anything for saving so many people? What kinda asshole goes “fuck those 100,000,000 people and their friends and family's grieving, I aint letting nobody kick me in the balls!”? Lol
Also, if you object to the surplus of good, why not the surplus of bad in a redemption story? Why does it work one way and not the other?

:lol:
Thank you for putting in the effort on that one.

Its amazing how low his reading comprehension is. You answered his question in the first line of your response, but it just doesnt sink in.

Well not being omnibenevolent is not the same as being cold and distant. God could be mostly good but makes certain sacrifices for his plan or mysterious ways etc.

What do you mean by “too simple”? Sometimes things are done simply, such as the obvious logical contradiction of omnibenevolence and the horrible death of the fawn. How complex does it need to be to satisfy you?
Also, what is gods “grace”?

I think you're conflating different things, if by "science" you mean Francis Bacon's method based on "induction" or "empiricism", that's a completely separate institution or method from "deduction", aka logic / reason or "rationalism". — IvoryBlackBishop

I didnt intend to mash all those things together, but to identify each separately as things that cannot be used to detect/ interact with the supernatural. Basically, all the tools we have to figure things out.

I meant it in the sense of those things which exist outside the ability to detect or test or interact with science. Ghosts, magic, gods etc...the things that rationality, logic, reason, science etc cannot be used upon.

The point I'm trying to make is that people can act in a "religious" or "fanatical" way about things even if they aren't traditionally what is defined or perceived as a "religion". — IvoryBlackBishop

Sure, but I think it makes a big difference if the fanaticism is making an appeal to the supernatural. Its easier to justify the most extreme acts/beliefs when you can measure them against things beyond the natural world (eternal life in paradise, an eternity of suffering, seeing all your dead loved ones, satisfying the plans of a divine, perfect being etc.)

Thats not what Im doing. Im not saying im right because Im more educated than you, I dont know what education you might have, or from where. If you have actual experience in philosophical academia, you should reference that instead of the article.
You made a claim about consensus in academia, and referenced that article. I made a counter claim to that view, and referenced actual academic consensus. Yes, Im basing that off of my own experience but Im not trying to cite credentials or make an appeal to authority.
On one hand we have actual experience of philosophical academia, and in the other we have the results of a google search. Can you make a case as to why the latter should hold more weight?

Im telling you whats taught in the institutions of learning dedicated to the subject matter, the result of long history of academics debate and study. You are welcome to reject that as definitive of the subject matter, and embrace whatever other source you like but you are factually incorrect about whats actually consensus in academia. This is a problem of the uneducated, they lack the knowledge of what's important in academics.
As has been pointed out to you, you can have a valid opinion that ISNT based on academia, Im not making an appeal to academic authority here. You are wrong about whats being taught in academia though, unless you are referencing specifically theist academia. (Which you didnt).

Nicely fact checked sir.

Thats one article, and maybe its on the cutting edge of philosophy and represents some shift in all of academia but I have my doubts. When you take philosophy at the university level (incidentally, one of my philosophy profs graduated from Stanford) they teach definitions and epistemology with a little more depth than what your reference does.
At the very least, there would be contention about that way of defining terms that way.

I disagree, the confusion is about the terms. Atheism is about belief, ones position on a specific belief, agnosticism is about knowledge, what one thinks about what can be known. That whats taught by the experts, if by experts you mean philosophical academia.
A person can be an atheist for a number of reasons, there are different kinds/forms of atheism. What they all have in common, what therefore is most definitive of atheism, is a lack of belief in god/gods.

It doesnt force me to respond, and I do not respond in reaction to him being wrong. I CHOOSE to respond because he is an obnoxious asshat.
Here, Ill demonstrate by choosing not to respond to him. Something he isnt capable of. As I pointed out to him, thats the difference. He’s stuck with his childishness.

What a strange, backwards world we live in when we need to act like a disability is just a harmless difference rather than a detriment. I don’t know about this Thread drama either, but identifying the recognition of the obvious physical drawbacks of having a missing limb as some kinda “ableist” bigotry is ridiculous. We’ve only heard the one sided, most likely rose coloured glasses version but if its considered bigoted to suppose god allowing someone to be born with no legs is a moral failing on gods part because we’re all supposed to pretend disabilities are not disabilities then that is some grade A baloney. Im very skeptical the mods on this site would be so far succumbed to whatever far left extremist nonsense gave birth to the idea that they would threaten banning on that basis alone.

Oh...ok. Thats too bad, almost seemed like this was the beginning of a discussion. Take care...

*takes a bow*

I DO realise its a bit silly to argue over definitions, but when people do so through the filter of their belief or agenda it forces a response.
The confusion on this point is from certain theists, the ones that do not argue honestly and try and play little word games to inoculate their beliefs against basic reason. That comes from my anti-theism though, not my atheism.

Frank is cut off though. Like that guy needs any more cognitive impairment.

Well I didnt say Frank wasnt agnostic. He is. He is also an atheist.
Non-theist = atheist. There is no distinction between the two, save semantics necessitated by theist arguments that try and create a false equivalence between theism and atheism being beliefs.
Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive.
Personally, I hold no particular loyalty to definitions, im happy to go with whats most sensible if its presented to me. Also, I dont care if 99.9999999% (whered you pull that number out if?) of people are getting it wrong. I care about what the best, most reasonable usage. If 99.99999% of people thought the earth was flat, Id still maintain its roundness (spherical, for Pedantic Frank) because thats the best, most reasonable position to hold.

In what way is that topic ableist? Seems pretty heavy handed to me.

Ey, stop flinging shit at each other. — Qwex

Whoa whoa whoa fella...HE is flinging shit. I on the other hand am flinging barrages of highly polished turds. Highly accurate, somehow sharp and deadly, polished, turds.


Anyway, I agree with you. There should be a distinction between god (which one?!) and a first cause, higher power etc, and if course there is (I just used the separate terms for some of them.) but people dont seem to pay much attention to them.
There is a lot of wasted discussion anytime people start referencing the dictionary in a conversation. Its an appeal to authority really, and its contentious. Its much better to reference how each participant is using the term, and addressing the differences to move forward with the understanding of what each person actually means.

Spelling and grammar are not measures of intelligence, they are measures of ones mastery of grammar and spelling. You are an endless bucket of stupid. And, since you have the memory of a goldfish to match the wit of a goldfish ill remind you: I dont kare if I misspel thinggs, it iss a litmmus test to detect pedantik moronz.
I could go back and correct my own posts to 100% correct grammar and spelling. The difference between us is that you are stuck stupid. Not because of your admittingly low levels of comprehension, but because of your grossly misplaced arrogance.
(Quick, point out that I should have typed “admittedly”. Lol, what a joke)

Your welcome, but the true gift im bestowing upon you is enlightenment, youre just to stupid to realise it. Im calling you names AND dismantling every wrong headed thing you barf onto your keyboard.
For example, despite claiming to be some kind of writer you are unable to articulate any actual humour in your responses. You are not clever, all you do is repeat the same thing (big surprise) about toddlers and tantrums which are two things Ive already said to you! :lol:
(Repeating my own quips back to me, but devoid of the same caliber).
Want another one? You are too engaged with the contents of your own ass to even realise that YOU are the joke, WE are all laughing at you dummy! Wise up.
I repeat, the ONLY thing you have going for you is sheer, stubborn stupidity. Eventually I will get bored of humiliating you, long before anything actually permeates its way past you nigh impenetrable baby mind.
You are like the character Wimp Lo, from the movie Kung Pow. He was purposely trained in martial arts backwards, so he thinks losing is winning. He gets kicked in the face, he gloats about his “face to foot style, howd you like it?” Or gets kicked in the nuts and falls on the ground “my nuts to shin style. I cannot stand, do you surrender?”
Thats you. Too hopelessly soft in the head to to realise when you should beg for mercy.
Youve lost on every front, if you had any shame at all you would shut the fuck up, but you cant, cuz you are just to obtuse.

:lol:
Ill be here all week, dont forget to tip your waitress. Lol

Cretin I hadnt used yet, but you just earned it. Only a cretin tries to glom their way into an exchange with someone else and use it to indirectly address...well me in this case.
Also, sport implies a contest. You are no contest. The only thing, ONLY thing you have going on is a skull so thick you dont get tired of being punched in the head.
Do you know the reason you are making short responses now you dishonest stooge? Want me to tell you?

I think I agree.

Agnostic atheist.

True, murder is a human title but we have a working definition in the thread and I think according to that the chimps committed murder.
And yes, leaders can go to far...and then they might get murdered.