Really? Are you quite sure of that? Degree is not specified. Why don't you make explicit whatever degree you mean.not everything affects everyone, so that's false, — Bartricks
And I did not say it did, so read a little more closely.and not everything that affects others affects them without their consent, so that's false too. — Bartricks
I saw this above. What exactly do you mean by "default wrong"? Pretty clearly you must have a special twist on it, or at least some clarifying to do. By implication, it is not possible to not wrong a person by some act, if they have not given a prior consent or authorization. Or, same thing, everything that might "effect" any person "in a significant way" is wrong, absent prior consent. And that cannot be right.But anyway, the claim is that if an act affects someone else in a significant way then it is default wrong if the affected person has not consented to be affected in that way. — Bartricks
As said before, this thread is about whether procreation is default wrong due to blah did blah consent (can't be bothered to keep writing it). It is not about Kant. — Bartricks
If a barrister knows or even simply believes that her client is guilty then to defend them would be, implicitly if not explicitly, to lie, and lying is always morally wrong according to Kant. — Janus
Alas, then, for you know a lot less than I give you credit for.And no, I mean what I say; I am not "fooling around". — Janus
Are you denying that some lawyers defend those they believe or even know to be innocent? Do you deny that to do so is morally, as opposed to legally, wrong from a Kantian perspective, because it constitutes telling a lie? Do you, in general, deny a distinction between what is legally wrong and what is morally wrong? If you say there is no such distinction, then I will have to return the compliment and say that alas, you know much less than I gave you credit for. — Janus
What insult? I tried to credit you with knowledge, which you finally admitted you have, along with almost every other educated western adult on earth. The insult, if there was one, was in your being disingenuous. — tim wood
The moral obligation is to do one's duty. In the case of a lawyer, that duty may not be intuitively obvious, though it be obvious to reason. — tim wood
You're confusing, I think, the act with the purpose of the act. — tim wood
I have not incorrectly used the term 'Kantian' in referring to the argument I am focusing on in that way. — Bartricks
If you cannot affect someone by creating them, kindly explain how you can affect someone by destroying them - and explain in a way that will not allow me to say the same about creating someone or that will not just involve making some arbitrary stipulation that has no support from reason. — Bartricks
As you think you like logic, here's an argument and you tell me which premise you dispute, or the first premise you dispute if you dispute more than one of them. — Bartricks
That a large portion of our lives will have to be lived under the paternalistic dictactorship of our parents and state authorities is part of what makes forcing someone into this existence such a significant thing to have done to them. — Bartricks
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.