This contradicts what you said earlier here about potential harm. On the same rationale, if your spouse cheated on you and you never found out, then there would be no harm and so it wouldn't be immoral either; but this is absurd.If the employer gave a raise to one person and not the other, and the person who did not receive an unearned raise never found out, there would be no harm and so it wouldn't be immoral — VagabondSpectre
This does not agree with the definition I stated. I courage is defined as "the will to do something that goes against one's inclinations (or desires)", then courage cannot itself be an inclination or desire. Maybe you don't agree with the definition, and believe that courage is in fact a desire? But courage is praiseworthy; and there is nothing praiseworthy about submitting to our desires.Courage is when the desire to help out-competes the desire to remain safe. — Inter Alia
Understood. So I am still at the point of understanding your position. Could you then describe to me this definite idea of where we want to be, with respect to a good society?This, however, is not a fair characterisation of what I've said, [...] everyone already knows what is a 'Good' society as an evolved instinct [...] I guarantee they will have a definite idea of where we want to be, and be very uncertain about how to get there. — Inter Alia
But in this case, the harm is an effect of the act, and so not part of the act itself. Another way to look at it, is that if you are caught, then you could defend yourself on the grounds that the act is not immoral until you are put away, because no harm is done to yourself or your loved ones before you go to prison.For example, if you're caught and go to prison you have done harm to yourself — Sam26
I agree, but this harm is again an effect of the immoral act, and so does not make the act immoral. In other words, the person is harmed because the act is immoral; and would not be harmed if the act was not immoral. And so, we have yet to determine what makes the act immoral in the first place.In this case is there harm done? I would contend that there is harm done to your character and/or to your psyche, that is, any normal thinking human being would know and understand that since they were willing to take the life of another that that diminishes them in some way. Over time, I think any normal functioning person, would be affected by the memory of such an act. — Sam26
Your logic is circular. In this example, you claim that not feeling harm after committing an immoral act is not normal, thereby implying that the act is the criteria to determine how we should feel. But on the other hand, you claim that harm is the criteria to determine if an act is immoral or not.let's say that the person is incapable of feeling empathy, and as such there character and/or their psyche is not affected by this act. Moreover, there is no detectable harm done, then I would say that the act was not immoral. It's not immoral, not only because there was no detectable harm, but it's probably not immoral because this person's brain is not normal, that is, they're impaired in some way. It's still a crime, but the person may not be morally responsible (at least in theory). — Sam26
This contradicts what you said earlier here about potential harm. — Samuel Lacrampe
I am surprised that you do not see injustice in this scenario. If your 1000-employee company gave everyone a Christmas bonus every year except for you, would you not be upset, and rightfully so?This behaviour is called discrimination, which is defined as "unjust treatment of different categories of people or things". — Samuel Lacrampe
courage cannot itself be an inclination or desire. Maybe you don't agree with the definition, and believe that courage is in fact a desire? But courage is praiseworthy; and there is nothing praiseworthy about submitting to our desires. — Samuel Lacrampe
I admit I use the terms 'ethics' and 'morality' interchangeably, as I don't know what the difference is. But how can one disagree that attempted murder is unethical? Would you like to be the target? Would anyone? If not, then it is unethical by applying the Golden Rule. — Samuel Lacrampe
I want to clarify that the emotional pain is an effect of the immoral event, not a cause. I.e., the victim feels upset because the event is immoral, and not the other way around, that the event is immoral because the victim feels upset. As a mere effect, the emotional pain cannot be the criteria to determine if the event was immoral. It must be something else, like the fact that the treatment is unequal among employees.the intuitive pull of your example comes from empathizing with the emotional upset feeling of being neglected that we can readily imagine. [...] Emotional harm is sometimes tricky to deal with because we often feel injured when in reality we have not been. Not being given a bonus that you were never promised is not an injury; your co-workers getting one and not yourself might be insult, but not injury. — VagabondSpectre
The employer is free to act this way in the legal sense, but he is not "morally free" to treat different employees with different levels of respect. I.e., the unequal treatment remains immoral, even if there is nothing the employee can do about it.I would say that an employers freedom to give away un-promised bonuses however they choose is more important than an employees desire to gain unearned money or not feel somehow excluded. — VagabondSpectre
Are you saying here that we have the power to select between desires? If so, then this power cannot itself be another desire, but something above it. Do you agree with free will then?What is praiseworthy is selecting those desires, the following of which is beneficial for society. — Inter Alia
You make it sound like the gods were the cause of our guilt, which in turn separated us from the divine; and then another god, Christ, removed our guilt. This seems counter-productive.Something (we call them gods) plucked us from our habitat and taught us “right from wrong”. This is the knowledge of good and evil that brings....guilt. Guilt is what severs our connectivity with the divine. This is why sacrifices were implemented. It doesn’t undo sin, it absolves guilt. This is why FAITH in Christ absolves all sin. — Steve
Is it real forgiveness, or merely the belief of forgiveness which removes the guilt? I think the former makes more sense than the latter.When you believe that you are forgiven you have no guilt so you can connect with the divine and renew your role in creation. — Steve
If "helping out others" and "remaining safe" are both nothing but desires, and there is nothing else to influence our behaviour, then it follows that the behaviour simply follows the strongest desire. But then there is nothing praiseworthy or virtuous about the behaviour, because desires are involuntary. — Samuel Lacrampe
Are you saying here that we have the power to select between desires? If so, then this power cannot itself be another desire, — Samuel Lacrampe
Is it real forgiveness, or merely the belief of forgiveness which removes the guilt? I think the former makes more sense than the latter. — Samuel Lacrampe
Are you asking if the knowledge is within the subject? Yes, knowledge is always in a subject, for only subjects can know things. However, the knowledge is about objective moral goodness. — Samuel Lacrampe
Does it follow that Hitler and the Nazis were not objectively morally bad during the Holocaust, and that they were simply the minority in terms of opinion on the treatment of the Jews?Morality and goodness are wholly subjective. — charleton
Morality and goodness are wholly subjective.
— charleton
Does it follow that Hitler and the Nazis were not objectively morally bad during the Holocaust, and that they were simply the minority in terms of opinion on the treatment of the Jews? — Samuel Lacrampe
Does it follow that Hitler and the Nazis were not objectively morally bad during the Holocaust, and that they were simply the minority in terms of opinion on the treatment of the Jews? — Samuel Lacrampe
Let's not forget that the US has a death penalty, which is morally repugnant in most civilised countries. — charleton
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.