Exactly. That's why I said: "From here, we can expand the term "survival" in a qualitative manner, from a bare living state to a flourishing state: well-beingness, happiness and all that which are desirable for almost every human being." This encompasses almost everything that is "good" for everyone. And vice versa: everything that is "good" helps people's survival. E.g. "Good relationships" that you mention, help people in difficult situations in their life and in general enhance their life (survival).But I think we have to go beyond just survival. Of course, survival is important, you can't do anything if you're dead after all. Human beings also care about having good relationships with other beings for example. — Hello Human
I believe that it is a very good example. (@Hello Human :up:) The main difference between the two is their intention. The criminal intends to harm the victim. So his action is against surviva. And this makes it immoral. On the other hand, the victim, in trying to defend himself, intends to protect survival. And this cannot make his action immoral. Huge difference!Now, who is most in the wrong here ?
— Hello Human
This is a silly example. I don't know why you're trying so hard. You don't have to agree with me. — T Clark
I'm not sure what do mean exactly, but if you mean that I have only talked about our own survival, it isn't so. I have included "others" in a very clear manner, as follows (quoting): "Now, since we are talking about morality, which has mainly a social connotation, we should also expand "survival" in a "spherical" way, to include persons around us -- from family, to friends to larger groups, to society, to humanity -- and say that an action is as moral as it is good for the greatest part of the people in the mentioned areas or "spheres" of reference."what you call survival has a way of seeping out and attaching itself to people other than ourselves by evolution or culture I guess — T Clark
Exactly. That's why I said: "From here, we can expand the term "survival" in a qualitative manner, from a bare living state to a flourishing state: well-beingness, happiness and all that which are desirable for almost every human being." This encompasses almost everything that is "good" for everyone. And vice versa: everything that is "good" helps people's survival. E.g. "Good relationships" that you mention, help people in difficult situations in their life and in general enhance their life (survival). — Alkis Piskas
I believe that it is a very good example. (@Hello Human :up:) The main difference between the two is their intention. The criminal intends to harm the victim. So his action is against surviva. And this makes it immoral. On the other hand, the victim, in trying to defend himself, intends to protect survival. And this cannot make his action immoral. Huge difference! — Alkis Piskas
So his action is against surviva. And this makes it immoral. On the other hand, the victim, in trying to defend himself, intends to protect survival. And this cannot make his action immoral. Huge difference! — Alkis Piskas
Of course. But these are extreme cases. There are always extreme cases in everything. Moreover, in this case, we cannot speak about morality when the person is mentally ill or cannot distinguish right from wrong.there is some point where actions trying to protect survival go too far. Being paranoid or overprotective for example. — Hello Human
But the example talks about a serial killer ... Anyway, I get what you mean (outside the example given): 'A' wants to harm 'B' but not severely, and 'B' tries to prevent the harm or responds to the harm done more severely, even killing 'A'. Well, I think this case belongs to the subject of "justifiable" actions that are judged in courts and elsewhere. But I think this gets outside the scope of this discussion, doesn't it?what if the bad guy wasn't trying to kill the other guy? — T Clark
If an incitement is so strong that it becomes your present purpose, if even for only a second, could it be considered an incitement still? — john27
But the example talks about a serial killer ... Anyway, I get what you mean (outside the example given): 'A' wants to harm 'B' but not severely, and 'B' tries to prevent the harm or responds to the harm done more severely, even killing 'A'. Well, I think this case belongs to the subject of "justifiable" actions that are judged in courts and elsewhere. But I think this gets outside the scope of this discussion, doesn't it? — Alkis Piskas
No it cannot be considered incitement. I agree with the claim that incitement can become our purpose, but not with the claim that it always is our purpose. — Hello Human
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.