You seem like someone who just hasn't thought or read about this topics much at all, to the extent that in order to discuss them on a philosophy forum you would need to do some homework first. I'm happy to talk after you do some homework. If you don't want to, that's your call. — Leontiskos

:roll: Cut the bullshit—trying to dismiss others by insinuation is not a substitute for cogent argument. You have no idea how much or how little I've thought or read about this. If you are incapable of sustaining an argument in your own words, be man enough to admit it.

- It's obvious that you haven't given the topic of negligence much thought. I'm going to focus on those who are willing to put in some work in order to discuss things at a higher level. Take care.

The impression I am forming of you is that of a self-deluded, condescending fool who cannot bear losing an argument. I'll be happy to ignore you in the future. May you gain some much-needed self-knowledge...

- ...And the abuse continues. Put me on ignore. I would love that.

If you don't see that it was you who starting with the personal attacks via insinuation, deflecting by attempting to paint my understanding in a poor light, instead of actually addressing the points I made, then I can only hope that for your own sake you wake up to yourself.

- I was just being honest about my assessment of your state of knowledge regarding this topic. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems obvious to me that you don't understand this area well enough to opine on it, and I am simply not going to waste all of my time correcting elementary errors regarding things like the notion of negligence.

I grasp the basic distinction between "sins of commission" and "sins of omission". "Negligence" in the context of ethics and moral philosophy is a multi-faceted issue. If you want to claim I don't understand the notion of negligence, then you should be able to say what it is I don't understand about it, or just how what I've said displays my purported lack of understanding.

Okay:

Another example is that someone might have a sudden and uncontrollable sneezing fit when driving and fail to see the pedestrian on the crossing and run them over and kill them. They will still be punished even though it was not their fault in any moral sense. — Janus

Supposing someone has an unforeseeable seizure, would they be punished in this case?

You are conflating the legal with the moral. If someone drinks and drives they are being negligent. If their ability to focus on the task of driving safely and/ or being physically coordinated enough to do it, is sufficiently impaired by the alcohol and they are unlucky enough to kill someone, they will not be excused and will be prosecuted and punished to a far greater extent than if they had not killed someone. — Janus

I agree.

From the point of view of the law concerning negligence, they have committed a greater crime than if they had merely driven without incident, but this doesn't seem right from a moral standpoint. Call this moral luck (or unluck). — Janus

Fair enough.

So I have to apologize. The quality of your recent posts has not been problematic. I was thinking about the earlier ones and I was trying to respond to too many different threads. Sorry about that. :yikes:

Still, I do not see how I have conflated the legal with the moral (although I do think the legal order is within the moral order).

Thanks, you have shown yourself to be of honest and generous spirit, and in my book that is what is most important.

- Okay, thanks for that. And I put in some additional leg work for your argument in the other thread.

Cheers. I have posted what I think will be my final contribution to that thread.