I don't have any criticism of people who judge and condemn those who have harmed them. I just don't think it does anything productive beyond helping them deal with the situation emotionally. — T Clark
You jettison emotion as if it were not a critical component here. Emotion is is that which moves and motivates, the word itself referencing motion. That is to say, if you don't care, you won't do anything about it. — Hanover
If we are speaking of therapeutic responses to victimization, I'd suggest forgiveness over bitterness and anger. — Hanover
If people I care about are hurt, what difference does it make whether it was something evil or just unfortunate? — T Clark
my good friend Hume — unenlightened
Would you rather throw your lot in with an ethic reached with reason and some basic assumptions that reduces suffering, or one that could allow all of the worst things imaginable? — ToothyMaw
If people I care about are hurt, what difference does it make whether it was something evil or just unfortunate? If a tornado kills 10 people, I care enough to act without blaming anyone. Why is 10 people being killed by a terrorist bomb different, at least in terms of the proper attitude required to make an effective response? — T Clark
You're making a classic error if you hold that that reason only supports views you like. — Tom Storm
So a car slides off the road and injures the passenger, the cause being low tire tread, a truly unfortunate event.
A mile away a speeding drunk driver injures another passenger to the same extent.
Do you not see how the first instance will not be reduced from societal anger and outrage but the second will? — Hanover
What benefit is derived from endorsing societal anger and outrage? On the other hand, it seems reasonable to me that the negative consequences for an action should be proportional to the responsibility of a person for the results of their actions. You and I would probably agree that the drunk guy is more responsible for the accident than the other driver, so their punishment should be more severe. — T Clark
“…we have strictures against killing innocent people; and we have strictures prescribing equal opportunity. These principles are grounded in reason and subject to rational debate. . But justice also requires passion. We don’t coolly tabulate inequities—we feel outraged or indignant when they are discovered. Such angry feelings are essential; without anger, we would not be motivated to act....Rage can misdirect us when it comes unyoked from good reasoning, but together they are a potent pair. Reason is the rudder; rage propels us forward.” — Joshs
Makes a big difference to me. Specific details aside - one's an act of nature which could not be prevented. The other was a cruel and deliberate act by a human, designed to harm others and therefore, for me, more difficult to come to terms with because of its malicious intent and the possibility of its prevention. — Tom Storm
They are norms or rules not propositions, so what do you propose any such "true moral claims" would even be like? :chin: — 180 Proof
And what's the truth-maker? It's a statement like 'I'm sexy' that has a sense (in some contexts and not in some others) but does not convey either a formal or factual truth-value."Murder is wrong" would be an example of a moral claim that could be objectively true (a proposition). — ToothyMaw
I know enough now to know that you don't.Do you know what meta-ethics is? — ToothyMaw
And what's the truth-maker? — 180 Proof
I know enough now to know that you don't. — 180 Proof
They are norms or rules not propositions, so what do you propose any such "true moral claims" would even be like? :chin: — 180 Proof
Once again, familiarize yourself with the relevant literature - something I should have done a while ago. And I don't know why you are here either, Smith — ToothyMaw
Norms are useful or not useful for some purpose; they are not truth-claims in any sense. A moral statement like "torture is wrong" is, to my way of thinking, only a shorthand for some custom or norm (i.e. mores) — 180 Proof
whether or not moral claims can be objectively true. — ToothyMaw
A mistake. The very same mistake that is made by those that try to make the world conform to reason and logic instead of conforming their reason to the world - metaphysicians.Do you know what meta-ethics is? — ToothyMaw
Norms are useful or not useful for some purpose ... — 180 Proof
:100:Commands are not true or false, they are obeyed or disobeyed. Morality is not made of claims of fact but commands, demands, exhortations, pleas, advice to act thus and not so. It is not 'truth apt'. — unenlightened
"moral realism" is incoherent (re: assumption that moral statements are empirical propositions) — 180 Proof
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.