Is a man evil if he has evil thoughts, and good if he has good ones? — NOS4A2
But "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."“it’s the thought that counts” — NOS4A2
Of course, since the "biological" mind, i.e. the brain, is not involved in morality in any way.even if a moral state of mind is biologically and measurably indistinct from an immoral or amoral state of mind. — NOS4A2
Unfortunately, this is true.others will come to believe that you are good or evil according to what opinions you hold, regardless of any other behaviors you may or not engage in. — NOS4A2
I believe you did it right. Ethics (morality) has to do mainly with action not thoughts, ideas, opinions, etc. although these two areas are usually in agreement. (Exceptions are hypocrisy, lying, dishonesty, etc. That is saying one thing and doing another. But the opposite can also happen, one can exhibit verbal violence but he can't "harm a fly".)I wonder if I’ve been doing it wrong this whole time, as for so long I’ve been judging people according to their conduct, how they treat others, and not by the opinions they hold and share. — NOS4A2
Agree.thinking and speaking are some of the least consequential in terms of physics. — NOS4A2
Experts in what? Philosophy, psychology, religion, neuroscience, ...? :smile:So I raise the question to the experts. Does ethics apply to thoughts? Is a man evil if he has evil thoughts, and good if he has good ones? — NOS4A2
The implication is that despite one’s actions (or lack thereof) one state of mind is morally superior to another, even if a moral state of mind is biologically and measurably indistinct from an immoral or amoral state of mind. — NOS4A2
Moral logic and quests for the common good can lead one to do immoral things. As intimated I believe morality reveals itself in the act alone, whether it is impelled by thought or instinct or self-concern. — NOS4A2
I believe morality reveals itself in the act alone, whether it is impelled by thought or instinct or self-concern. — NOS4A2
reason (b) a reasonable belief that the person's tie colour clashed with their socks. — unenlightened
Mens rea. The so-called intention can lead to a harsher punishment. You’re right. I guess I’m trying to find out why, ethically speaking, this needs to be the case. — NOS4A2
But again, as far as acts go, reasoning is the least consequential. It’s not as consequential as pulling a trigger, for instance. In fact it’s so inconsequential that we could never measure it, observe it, and all we can do is sift through its chatter, most of which comes after the event in question. Should this scant activity be applied to our judgement? Law says it should be. Again, I’m not so sure. — NOS4A2
I read elsewhere that someone was compassionate by virtue of what he wrote online, as if showing concern for others was something one could do entirely alone, tapping on some device or other. It evoked in me that tired platitude “it’s the thought that counts”. I’m not so sure. — NOS4A2
Every properly human act involves an intention, and the intention is the primary defining characteristic of an act. — Leontiskos
Blinking and breathing are not acts in the philosophical sense. — Leontiskos
Every intentional human act involves an intention, and the intention is the primary defining characteristic of an act.
If you've ever reprimanded yourself for an unfair judgment or secretly 'taken back' a wish that someone would die, or immediately upon the impulse to strike someone for a trivial offense checked yourself and thought, 'That's not me!', then you already know perfectly well that it does. And knowing this is the reason for the self-censorship that forestalls a thousand unnecessary violent confrontations and social disgraces in each of our lives. We know what we ought to do and we know how we ought to think. The uncivilized savage within has impulses; the ethical superego controls them.Does ethics apply to thoughts? — NOS4A2
Not by itself. But thoughts invariably precede actions. The good man may have some bad thoughts - it's almost impossible not to - but his next impulse is to suppress those bad thoughts. The evil man indulges his evil thoughts and acts them out - and usually goes to great lengths to justify them, first to himself as "they owe me" or "it's my right" or "I'm defending freedom", and then to the world as elaborate moral or political or legal gobbledegook.Is a man evil if he has evil thoughts, and good if he has good ones?
Why think the intention is the primary defining characteristic of all acts? — wonderer1
I think there is a lot that is interesting about human acts that is independent of whatever moral judgementalness might pass through people's minds. — wonderer1
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.