1. Trump is president in 2017.
In relation to this truth I can think of 3 lies:
2. Jane is the president in 2017
3. Sarah is the president in 2017
4. Vick is the president in 2017
So, assuming life is random, there's a 1/4 chance of truth and 3/4 chance of falsehood. — TheMadFool
In a nutshell, the number of ways one can be good are fewer than the number of ways one can be bad. To add, our moral compasses are incomplete and flawed. — TheMadFool
This is just arbitrary nonsense. — Bitter Crank
We don't know what you think is good and bad, which is an additional problem with your claim. — Bitter Crank
So, you don't disagree with what I said. — TheMadFool
There's only one truth to 2 + 2, which is 4 but an infinite number of wrong answers. — TheMadFool
It's entropy — Srap Tasmaner
But I disagree with your argument that it is more probable to have dishonesty (lies) than honesty. These are acts of the will and we are in full control of it at all times. I can never be mistaken about my intentions. Now, will the moral good win over the moral evil? I think that is entirely up to the individual. — Samuel Lacrampe
You, more or less, agree with me. — TheMadFool
Good point. But I can show that our moral compass is perfect, by the nature of morality and honest intentions.But you can't deny our moral system is imperfect, which means it's more likely you err. That translates to evil. — TheMadFool
Not all. Only those consequences that are reasonably foreseeable, because it gives ground to suspect dishonest intentions. If a man dives in front of my moving vehicle and gets killed, then my act of driving is one of the causes of his death, but I am not guilty because I could not have foreseen it, thus there is no ground to suspect dishonest intentions on my part.As a good person the onus is on you to consider ALL the consequences of your actions. — TheMadFool
To sum up, I claim that my moral theory is compatible with the legal justice system, and that both are based on intentions, not on acts. The act may be the trigger, but the intention is the decisive factor. — Samuel Lacrampe
Attempted murder is more punishable than accidental homicide, although you are right that if there is no evidence, then x cannot legally be charged. In truth however, x is guilty of having harmful intentions.We can ignore intentions but not consequences. For instance, x intends to harm y and pushes y. In the process a bullet misses y. In this case, y should be thankful to x, despite x's intent. Even legally, y has no basis for a case against x. — TheMadFool
It still depends if the harm was reasonably foreseeable or not. Say x plants a tree in y's yard as a gift. One day, y crashes his car into it and gets injured. Objectively, x is one of the causes of y's injury; but legally and morally, x is not guilty. I will concede that professional liability seems to fit what you describe. But even then, a professional is liable only to things he has (or should have) knowledge about.However, if x intends good for y, but in the process harms y, then y is clearly justified, legally, to charge x for any loss or injury. — TheMadFool
According to the Bible, God judges the heart of men; and 'heart' in that sense means intentions. — Samuel Lacrampe
I have heard this before, but it is false relative to the christian definition of hell. Hell is not a physical place but a state of relationship between the individual and moral goodness or God (for moral goodness is part of the essence of God). That state of relationship is due to the heart or intentions of the individual; and a good heart leads to heaven, not hell. Therefore hell would not result from good intentions. Maybe by 'hell', the author means 'physical evil', although I dispute this as well, for this hell is still more likely to result from evil intentions than from good intentions.the road to hell is paved with good intentions. — TheMadFool
we have absolute power over our intentions — Samuel Lacrampe
If one is forced to do something without their consent, it is called "against their will"; and it is a self-contradiction to say "Their will is changed against their will". — Samuel Lacrampe
You are conflating again.
Truth=good
False=bad — Cavacava
Good and bad are normative concepts of valuation , true and false as you have presented them, are analytic concepts, which are true or false based solely on their form. — Cavacava
Will comes from within, from inside, and one is always in full control of it. Desires come from without, from outside, and one is not necessarily in control of that. — Samuel Lacrampe
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.