For me it comes down to: do we want to correct for the particular injustice in the most precise, straightforward way, or do we want to make the most out of whatever money we can manage to siphon towards helping poor people of color, which includes some - but clearly not all - descendants of slaves. I would choose the former, but both positions clearly have merit. — ToothyMaw
ToothyMaw,
Do you claim only those actions to be evil that are seen/believed by "many" to be evil at the time of enactment? Or.....?
Put differently, can an action not be seen as evil at the time of its enactment but that same action be seen as evil "down the historical track"?
This question is put because answering it may go to the heart of 1) i.e. defining "the magnitude of evil", possibly the validity of your assertion of 2) i.e."scales upward with its length....to the present", may suggest another timeline argument cited in 3) i.e."claim the bad effects......are no longer present" and "must object to 1)" and may upset the balance of the assertion/conclusion of 4).
It is hoped that this comment shows a 'fairly close to your point/s' understanding.
fair smile. — kazan
ToothyMaw,
Do you claim only those actions to be evil that are seen/believed by "many" to be evil at the time of enactment? Or.....?
Put differently, can an action not be seen as evil at the time of its enactment but that same action be seen as evil "down the historical track"? — kazan
This question is put because answering it may go to the heart of 1) i.e. defining "the magnitude of evil", possibly the validity of your assertion of 2) i.e."scales upward with its length....to the present", may suggest another timeline argument cited in 3) i.e."claim the bad effects......are no longer present" and "must object to 1)" and may upset the balance of the assertion/conclusion of 4). — kazan
It is understood point (2) of the OP is the assertion that if the evil action's consequences continue to the present, that scales up the original evilness of the action. Agreed? — kazan
If you answer yes, then this question could be asked. "Does the older the evil action, that's consequences are still felt in the present, the more evil is that action mean that the oldest of such evil actions ( with current consequences) should be, for example, condemned more actively than more recent actions ( and adding your agreement to the time gap question regarded as evil sometime after their commission)? ( put another way, be considered worse morally?) — kazan
If you agree then at this point the question can be asked, " Are all recent evil actions ( recognized as such immediately or subsequently) never going to achieve equal or highest evilness status until the older evil actions are deemed to no longer have consequences? — kazan
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.