Originally posted by inimalist
how can you judge the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an act without reference to its outcome on people?
You can't. That was part of my point. Right and wrong are arbitrary. You can only observe an action's affect on people, and work to avoid suffering and promote happiness, through actions that are neither wrong nor right.
But you don't need concepts of right and wrong to recognize suffering and happiness, which was my point all along.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavIf she knew, before he's even created, that she's going to create him in a way that he's going to do something she arbitrarily set as wrong and breaks a rule that had no reason at all to set, which will make her punish him severely...err, yeah, she really shouldn't have created him in the first place...total **** move.
Your mother knew you were going to do bad things...she should have had you aborted?
Originally posted by Digi
You can't. That was part of my point. Right and wrong are arbitrary. You can only observe an action's affect on people, and work to avoid suffering and promote happiness, through actions that are neither wrong nor right.But you don't need concepts of right and wrong to recognize suffering and happiness, which was my point all along.
what I am saying, however, is that acts which adversely affect people, or positively affect people, are not really morally neutral.
The existence of these positive and negative outcomes would, at least in my view, be the specific things upon which the morality of the act is judged.
From what you appear to be saying, my slaughter of an innocent child could be morally neutral even though there are such obvious negative consequences.
Originally posted by inimalist
what I am saying, however, is that acts which adversely affect people, or positively affect people, are not really morally neutral.The existence of these positive and negative outcomes would, at least in my view, be the specific things upon which the morality of the act is judged.
From what you appear to be saying, my slaughter of an innocent child could be morally neutral even though there are such obvious negative consequences.
The act itself is utterly determined (you are a determinist, yes? my point becomes muddied if we're on opposing sides there). As is the outcome. Therefore, judgement (good/bad, right/wrong) can't be assigned to it, since the act and outcome were perfect and inevitable, given the causes that preceded it. It would be akin to yelling at a ball for hitting the ground when you drop it.
So yes, counter-intuitive as it may seem, that's my stance. In some niche philosophical circles that I've read about it's referred to as no-fault determinism.
That suffering is negative and to be avoided, and happiness is positive and to be worked toward, has nothing to say about moral culpability.
So in your example, the murderer should be imprisoned or killed (working toward the elimination of suffering) but is not "at fault" in the literal sense of the phrase, for his actions, for they could have been no other way. Legally, yes, he'd be responsible for it, but only due to the interests of promoting happiness by preventing further suffering that he would cause. Not as punishment for wrongdoing.
Originally posted by Bardock42
If she knew, before he's even created, that she's going to create him in a way that he's going to do something she arbitrarily set as wrong and breaks a rule that had no reason at all to set, which will make her punish him severely...err, yeah, she really shouldn't have created him in the first place...total **** move.
So why don't you punch pregnant women in the stomach more often? They're clearly all assholes.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah they aren't, since they don't do anything I just said was a requirement to be an *******.
Most children will get in trouble at some point. The mother (having not had an abortion) apparently wants the child to be born into the suffering she will inevitably wreak upon them.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosBetter read again what I said...if not all the conditions are met I didn't make a statement on it.
Most children will get in trouble at some point. The mother (having not had an abortion) apparently wants the child to be born into the suffering she will inevitably wreak upon them.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i think god should also be accountable for its actions.. you know the old saying not even kings are above the law..being human we may not be able to do anything now, but given time and thought we can come up with something..
remember the babylon story had god say that their is nothing we arent capable of accomplishing..
in a sense i like to think man is god and there is nothing we can't accomplish.
Oh right. So if I create a sculpture and then ruin it for the heck of it, I should charge myself for distruction of my own property.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
creating a sculpture is different then creating a living breathing being that feels pain.. giving birth or having a pet does not give one the right kill and torture them because you feel they are yours... living things are not a mindless possession that can be simply destroyed...
Says who? You?
In the grand scale of things human life is so ridiculously insagnificant, and now you're going to compare someone which we have nominated to be the supreme creator of everything known and unknown, including your brain which thought out this ridiculous argument and initiate that they should be held responsible for your distruction.
Frankly, God does not give a flying feck about human life, considering that he may posses all the knowledge of the universe.
Its this human egocentric idea that there is a supreme being out there who takes interest in individual carbon life forms, which by the way, has single liniar concepts of everything
eg. if its not like this, it must be like that.
God is natural law. It is everything, anything and nothing.
God is not a separate entity - everything exists in relation to something else, nothing is a stand alone.
This is the concept humans seem unable to comprehand - human thought somehow keeps on reproducing this idea that it is independent, unique creation, and so much so that it names God to be its constant overlooker, watcher, judge, executioner...
Why would most supreme being in the whole universe take interest in short lifespan of simple carbon lifeform?! Why?!
And now you think we should keep God responsible for human death. Thats like piece of clay holding me responsible squishing it into another form.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i only said he should be held responsible if he committed all those old testament atrocities...
To which she gave the very reasonable answer: "What atrocities?"
Human life has no value whatsoever and no matter what pathos filled argument you might have to try backing up the claim that cannot change. Mass murder by God isn't a bad thing, it barely qualifies as a thing in the grand scheme of the universe especially from the perspective of something like the Abrahamic God.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessActually, if you'd create a basically humanlike robot, with feelings and all that jazz (all hard to define obviously) and then destroy it, I'd favour a law that holds you responsible to some degree.
Oh right. So if I create a sculpture and then ruin it for the heck of it, I should charge myself for distruction of my own property.Yeah, that makes sense.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually, if you'd create a basically humanlike robot, with feelings and all that jazz (all hard to define obviously) and then destroy it, I'd favour a law that holds you responsible to some degree.
I'd just build a robot with feelings and jazz that wasn't humanlike and then crush them in front of you mockingly.