It's necessary for him to have committed suicide at home, though. It's the same thing as my South Africa example earlier, where you and Janus argued that traveling to South Africa was indeed a cause of me breaking my leg in South Africa. — Terrapin Station

Yea. I have been arguing for the same thing. Going to south africa IS a cause for breaking your leg IN SOUTH AFRICA. Not a cause for just "breaking your leg" though

Doesn't it? "Precondition" and "Necessary condition" sound like synonyms to me. — khaled

makes mincemeat out of the conventional connotations of "cause" and "culpability." — Terrapin Station

What's the "conventional" connotation of cause because I'm not sure there is such a thing.

So how is what the kidnapper did wrong? — khaled

He kidnapped someone. That's doing something against their consent, where the person is normally capable of granting or withholding consent.

You also stipulated that the kidnapper was torturing the person.

How would Hitler be culpable for anything? He didn't cause direct physical deformations did he? — khaled

Right. He wasn't culpable on my view.

I'm not in favor of any "conspiracy" crime by the way.

He kidnapped someone. That's doing something against their consent, where the person is normally capable of granting or withholding consent. — Terrapin Station

No they're not they're sleeping. Also let me tweak the scenario then. Say he didn't kidnap you but set up the torture equipment around your bed? Totally guiltless now?

Right. He wasn't culpable on my view. — Terrapin Station

Is a rapist culpable for doing harm onto someone?

No they're not they're sleeping. — khaled

You might as well hold up a sign announcing that you don't understand why I'm using the term "normally"

Is a rapist culpable for doing harm onto someone? — khaled

It's bizarre just how dense you are with understanding the distinctions here. (It's kind of bizarre just how dense you are period.)

A rapist is physically doing something to someone else, aren't they? They're not only telling someone else to do something

You might as well hold up a sign announcing that you don't understand why I'm using the term "normally" — Terrapin Station

Yea forget that situation. I thought you would say that a torturer and kidnapper would be culpable for BOTH torture and kidnapping not just kidnapping. Still I have 2 different scenarios

1- Also let me tweak the scenario then. Say he didn't kidnap you but set up the torture equipment around your bed? Totally guiltless now? Heck even add that he was a visitor so he was allowed to enter your house at the time by your consent

2- A rapes B. Did A do something wrong?

A rapist is physically doing something to someone else, aren't they? They're not only telling someone else to do something — Terrapin Station

No they're not. The rape victim can always just bite their tongue off and kill themselves. Then, with that alternative in mind, the fact that they are suffering is directly caused by them CHOOSING not to kill themselves isn't it?

A rapist is physically doing something to someone else, aren't they? — Terrapin Station

So was the kidnapper/torturer. But apparently the torturer is innocent because hey, if you don't like it just press the button and kill yourself

I thought you would say that a torturer and kidnapper would be culpable for BOTH torture and kidnapping not just kidnapping. — khaled

You asked me about kidnapping. So that's what I answered. I added that you had also stipulated that they were torturing the person, but you only asked about kidnapping.

Re (1), first off, did you grant permission for them to enter your property and do this? Aside from that, just what are we positing re the devices?

So was the torturer. — khaled

Goddammit you're a moron. You brought this up re the Hitler tangent. (Seriously though, you really are an idiot, or otherwise maybe a bit crazy or you're just trolling.)

You asked me about kidnapping. — Terrapin Station

I asked "So was what the kidnapper did wrong?" Obviously I was referring to both the kidnapping and the torturing.

"So how is what the kidnapper did wrong"

But okay, maybe you had in mind the torture, too. Again, I added that to the post in question awhile ago.

Again, I added that to the post in question awhile ago. — Terrapin Station

Please stop saying "the post in question" we have like 80
I have no clue what you're talking about

:mask:

Is torturing someone while giving them an easy way to kill themselves wrong or not? First of all.

I have no clue what you're talking about — khaled

That's a big part of the problem, obviously. Either you're incapable of following a conversation very well, or you're simply not making an effort to.

If I quoted you saying "So how is what the kidnapper did wrong," then obviously I'm referring to the post where I responded to that question.

Is torturing someone while giving them an easy way to kill themselves wrong or not? — khaled

By this point, if you were not a moron, you should be able to know what my answer will be:

Its wrong if by torture we're referring to doing nonconsensual physical violence to the person, in a way that the macro-observable effects will linger, where the victim is normally capable of granting or withholding consent to such actions.

By this point, if you were not a moron, you should be able to know what my answer will be:

Its wrong if by torture we're referring to doing physical violence to the person, in a way that the macro effects will linger, where the victim is normally capable of granting or withholding consent to such actions — Terrapin Station

But the torturer is NOT the cause of torture is he. Assuming the victim has free will (which we have been doing) the victim has two options:

A: Kill himself
B: Suffer

The victim is actively choosing to suffer. Therefore he is the cause of his own suffering. So how is the torturer to blame.

I'm just trying to figure out how you can simultaneously say that one has complete free will and also that morally wrong actions are those that are causally peggable to a certain action. How is the torturer's actions and the victim's suffering causally peggable in this case? The victim is actively choosing to put himself in a position where the torturer inflicts suffering on him therefore is HE not the cause of his own suffering?

Let's put this in Jack and Jill terms for you.

Jill kidnaps Jack and tells him:

Either Kill yourself by pushing this button or I'm going to torture you.

Jack says, "Screw off and let me out of here."

Jill then makes a choice to torture Jack. Jack doesn't have the option to choose to not have the force applied to him that Jill is applying as she tortures him. It was Jill's choice to torture him. She could have chosen otherwise. She could have let him go.

Just to be clear, do you consider applying any force that leaves physical changes without consent bad because:

A: Just cuz it is
B: Someone is harmed in the process.

Just to be clear, do you consider applying any force that leaves physical changes without consent bad because: — khaled

It has to be something where there are macro-observable effects for at least a few days after the event, and then it's also simply an issue of whether the victim cares enough about it to feel it's a problem.

It's a foundational disposition for me. It doesn't rest on another disposition. So "just cuz it is (the way I feel about it)"

Again, if you were paying attention, not trolling, etc., you could have already answered for yourself that B isn't the case, because I specified countless times that I formulate no ethical stance on "suffering" or "harm" per se.

Ok. The point of the whole scenario was that IF you were B, I would say that the harm isn't caused by Jill but by Jack's decision. But if it's A then yea sure Jill bad

Ok. The point of the whole scenario was that IF you were B, I would say that the harm isn't caused by Jill but by Jack's decision. But if it's A then yea sure Jill bad — khaled

It's caused by Jill because it's Jill's decision to apply the forces she's applying to Jack.

It's only Jack's responsibility if Jack gives his consent, although Jill still has to decide to cooperate.

There is no point in debating who's the cause of Jack's suffering if you picked A

There is no point in debating who's the cause of Jack's suffering if you picked A — khaled

the A and B choices above have nothing to do with causality. They have to do with why one feels that something is ethically wrong.

If Jill applying any sort of force on Jack that is going to leave a long lasting effect is bad just cuz then it doesn't matter if that force or something else is the cause of Jack's suffering. A and B have nothing to do with causality but if you pick A then what caused Jack's suffering doesn't matter morally. That's what I mean when I say it doesn't matter to debate who's the cause of Jack's suffering. But had you picked B then determining if that force is the cause of Jack's suffering is significant. You picked A so it doesn't matter if Jack suffers or not or what makes him suffer, Jill is still at fault.

I started this whole situation assuming you would have picked B and was trying to understand how you can causally peg a force to someone's suffering directly. You don't have to do that if you picked A though.

So now I guess we're back at where we were like 3 days ago. You consider actions done on living creatures that are currently not capable of giving consent but will become capable of doing so in the future at some point morally considerable. Ergo you didn't think genetically modifying children to suffer is morally permissable. However you set the bar of what counts as "abnormal" alterations at "whatever society dictates is normal or abnormal" which by definition will never make birth abnormal. So if your argument justifying why fertilization (an action done on a living creature that is currently not capable of giving consent but will become capable of doing so in the future at some point) is morally permissable is because society dictates it. And if that is all it takes for something to be morally permissable then there is no chance you'll ever consider birth as morally problematic

I just want to get this point straight. Does fertilization fall under: an action done on a living creature that is currently not capable of giving consent but will become capable of doing so in the future at some point?

And if so is your reason for saying it is moral that society has decided it doesn't count as "abnormal"

And if not how is it that fertilization is different from genetic engineering. They are both modifications done on living creatures (sperm and egg) currently incapable of giving consent that will become capable of giving consent later. But you classify one as a modification and the other not