I think there may be prudential and admonitory reasons for prison sentences in the absence of moral culpability. However, I also think such sentences can be gratuitous as forms of punishment. I would probably prefer sentences of community service or some form of charitable work instead. — Thorongil

This is a very important subject. You are aware that this is not the position of either the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox church with regards to morality right?

There are many problems with the view that good and evil are mere matters of simple intention. For example, what if someone authentically thinks that killing you will do you good because it would send you to heaven for example? If they try and kill you, then they intend to do good (even if they're wrong) no? According to you, they have done nothing wrong (morally) by killing you, since they intended to do good.

There is a saying out there - "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

Morality cannot be a mere matter of intention. Intention is only a matter of the will, but the will doesn't act independently from the intellect. If the intellect thinks X is good, then the will will pursue X. But that judgement can be mistaken, so the will can pursue evil while intending to pursue good. Thus, mere intention is not sufficient to give an account for morality.

If the stone is as blameworthy as the individual who - by negligence - drops a hammer onto his co-worker's head, based on what considerations do we put one in prison, and we don't do anything to the other?

per your link at Wikipedia. — Bitter Crank

And here's the guy (not you BC) who said I'm the most dishonest person here... >:O

I see people constantly disenfranchised with how much they make (money) — Posty McPostface

Well, I suppose that's true, however, most of us don't make enough to the point we can be really safe if say an accident or the like would happen to us. That's why many people are worried about money. Even if your income is in top 10% of your country, you're still not making a lot likely.

To make a lot you have to pull in approximately $10,000+/month (and in places like New York, likely much more!) net positive cash flow. If you have that kind of cash flow, then you can start saving big, and in a few years of that, you'll accumulate a big enough cushion to be undisturbed by money anymore. But it's not easy to start a business pulling in that kind of income.

So suppose you do get that kind of income, then you need to save it. 120K/year. It takes approximately 8.5 years to reach 1 million like that. If you do reach that level, then you're starting to be a big boy that can be unconcerned about money. You can probably even quit your business or sell it by that point - you'll likely get another $1-2 million cash out of there. With $3 million if you don't live an extravagant lifestyle, you're finally free of all money worries and can focus on other things completely.

But most of us don't reach that level. So money continues to be a worry through out life. That's kind of sad if you ask me. Most of us are forced by circumstances to remain financial prisoners, only one step away from being broke.

I think people are born with a bent toward pessimism or optimism, and I doubt they will have much luck deliberately converting themselves to the opposite — Bitter Crank

Well, I haven't "deliberately" converted myself from one to the other, but it's just a fact that when I was a tad younger I was a lot more optimistic than I am today. I still act optimistically today, but deep inside I feel pessimistic. For example, even when I go to the gym, I don't have a "can-do" attitude. I'm like "oh man, I won't be able to finish my routine today", and I feel depressed inside. But I still do it in the end - like I don't give up, but I have to force myself to do it (which does take me a bit longer). After I finish it, I feel happy though. But I always start thinking I can't do it - and this exists in most areas of my life, including business/work.

I think we're at an end of an era. A period of great conflict and darkness looms over us, and when we shall emerge from it, we'll never be the same again. Trying to think linearly from today's society to the future will not work, because a radical break is going to happen, and it will happen inevitably. Western society is at an end - our current technology will not be sustainable, and the world 300 years from now will be extremely different than we are tempted to imagine. We may not even be a technological society anymore. It's hard to say.

So democracy, too, is a myth. — Pneumenon

Yes, for sure. All political regimes are myths - the world moves through political regimes cyclically. In today's world we have returned to the democracy of the Greeks - the same democracy that killed Socrates. But it is a transformed democracy, it is a democracy of this age. But that is no problem. Soon the other regimes will be coming back as well. Monarchies and all the rest. They will not be like monarchies of 300 years ago. They will be monarchies of this age.

And why should we be attached to democracy? That regime which sent all the greatest people who have ever lived to death. Jesus Christ was killed by a democracy too. Who do you want? asked Pilate to the raging crowd. "Barabbas! We want Barabbas!". And what shall I do with Jesus? asked Pilate. "Crucify him! Crucify him!"

More importantly, though... If the constitution cannot be amended by the will of the people, then it ain't democratic. — Pneumenon

"the will of the people" is a myth ultimately. "The people" don't have a will. Only individuals do. The myth of the "will of the people" is the most effective tool for control in a democracy. Maybe we can talk about "the will of the people" in a small group - say 50 people - but for millions, there is no common will. Choosing between black and white - that's not the will of the people, they're simply not given other choices.

If the constitution says that some of its articles are not amendable, then these articles are not amendable. — Πετροκότσυφας

Good, then we first amend the article that says those articles are not amendable, then we proceed to amend the unamendable articles. Deal? X-)

It can rule out the abolishment of the democratic system through its constitution. So, an undemocratic agenda is ipso facto unconstitutional and can be dealt with by the law. — Πετροκότσυφας

And the Constitution cannot be amended? :-!

I distinguished between moral blame, which is to assign moral responsibility, and simply blame, which is to assign causal responsibility. — Thorongil

So then O:) - a stone that falls from the rooftop on someone's head has "simple" blame? :D

This question doesn't affect my position at all, so I ignored it. I'm here to defend what I take to be moral, not what qualifies as imprisonment-worthy. — Thorongil

Do you hold that there are situations when we should imprison people based on factors that are NOT also immoral in nature?

Blameworthy — Thorongil

Can a stone be blameworthy? Can an animal be blameworthy? Or is it only moral agents that can be blameworthy?

How do we determine which factor is the one to use to confer moral blame in a given scenario? — Thorongil

All the four I've listed will be relevant, some more-so than others. But you still avoided to answer my question.

Why else do you think we sentence people to prison if they accidentally - say while building a house - kill a co-worker? That is a barbaric practice that we should eliminate or what? — Agustino

I say to you, Agustino, that if you and I were building a house, and you accidentally slipped while holding an electric saw that then flew out of your hands and wounded me in some way, I would hold you responsible, but not morally responsible. I would demand nothing of you. I wouldn't say that you had committed evil. I wouldn't say that you yourself are evil. I would simply say, "It's okay, Agustino, I know you didn't intend to hurt me. I'm sorry you tripped, which caused me to be wounded. Think nothing of it." — Thorongil

Okay, first of all, I don't think this example is the same as the one I gave. It's one thing if an incident that ends up harming someone happens by accident, and another if it happens by negligence. If I leave my child on the side of the balcony while I go grab a beer from the fridge, and my child unknowingly pushes him/herself over the edge and dies, then I am morally blameworthy for that, even if I didn't intend it, because I was negligent with him or her and didn't perform my duty as a parent (by the way, this story that I told you is a true story, it happened to one of my friends' dad).

To be held morally responsible for things one doesn't intend is an inversion of justice and precisely what postmodernist leftists peddle all the time. It is to be guilty before proven innocent. To say that there are evils one can commit without intending to commit them is to make everyone a moral monster. The only logical conclusion is to isolate oneself in a grass hut, far away from the material consumption and human interaction that cannot but implicate one in evil without one intending to. That is the only way to be moral on your account. — Thorongil

To say that there are evils one can commit without intending to commit them is to understand that intention isn't the only factor at play. Yes it is a factor, a very important one, but not the only one. Why else do you think we sentence people to prison if they accidentally - say while building a house - kill a co-worker? That is a barbaric practice that we should eliminate or what?

For ourselves. Yes, we can. Because we are ethically free. Hence the value of that freedom. — Mariner

:s No, not just for myself, for everyone. I do share the idea of happiness/eudaimonia expressed in the video I linked you by Adler, namely that happiness/eudaimonia is the same for all human beings.

Now it's true that for action X to be moral it must be freely embraced, so in that regard freedom is important. So in other words, I cannot desire that other people are moral without desiring that they are free, but freedom alone is not sufficient for morality.

a little story — unenlightened

Interesting story. Yes, no doubt some concepts - like that of a princess in Western society - seem to be associated with white people. Is that a problem? I don't think it's anymore of a problem than the fact that in India a princess is associated with a dark-colored woman, and in China with an Asian-looking woman and so forth. It's absolutely normal in other words. It's based on the local culture.

To follow on this, one thing that intrigues me is that the child thought that the princess had to be white. Because my best friend in school, for example, was darker colored in terms of skin color, and in art class, when we were asked to draw a human being he drew a man (darker colored one) and I drew a man too, but lighter colored one. And I distinctively remember the moment, caused it made me remark that we each drew a similar skin color to our own. Instinctively we both drew ourselves when asked to draw a human being. I think it's more the concept of princess that is associated with "white" because of all the children's stories such as Cinderella, etc. where princesses are always portrayed as white in the West.

Says you. It is easy to say that John Doe is wrong when we are discussing serial killing. But some moral issues are not so beyond the pale. — Mariner

Is it possible to arrive at a rational judgement with regards to the morality of the said issues?

Note, I don't disagree that John Doe is wrong (in other words, I'm no relativist) -- what I'm disagreeing with is the notion that you, or I, can decide for others what is the correct way to reach eudaimonia. — Mariner

But we can establish what is eudaimonia right? We may not be able to tell others how to get from where they are to the respective state, with that I can agree.

Only if you answer my 10 posts or so that you have not yet answered in the other thread. — Beebert

:-} I will answer your 10 posts or so in due time. Now there's some work I need to do, because I'm still behind on work... that's what having to deal with sexism accusations does to you >:O

The lack of intent is the same. — Thorongil

Sure, so what? It doesn't follow that the action is not immoral, since that would be simply to presuppose that morality consists in not intending evil.

Says you.

See the problem here?

Of course, for a serial killer, eudaimonia will probably be different than for you or me. — Mariner

No, I actually don't see the problem. The serial killer may THINK his eudaimonia is different, but he would be wrong in his judgement. I'm actually very very surprised you take this position.


Listen to this for a few minutes from where I linked it 23:30.

Because being the cause of something isn't the same as to be morally blameworthy. That ought to be a simple distinction to understand. — Thorongil

If a person is the cause of something evil, then they are morally blameworthy, at least if they could have prevented it. I think your view actually leads to quite many absurdities, not to mention that it encourages absolutely terrible behaviour. Basically it tells me that I have no moral blame if - say - I forget the gas on and there's a big explosion and many people die. It's not a morality that gets me to be careful about what I do, and understand myself in relation to others. It's a self-contained kind of morality, that's broken off from the real world.

What are the necessary traits for some X to be "a value"? — Mariner

Produce eudaimonia?

No one can say that X cannot be a value because of some structural defect in the constitution of X. — Mariner

Well, I don't think murder or hate can be a "value".

The practical aspect of the same phenomenon is that if we don't consider ethical freedom a value, we'll boss people around. — Mariner

That doesn't follow, because I said ethical freedom is necessary for values to be possible, but it's nevertheless not a value itself. It's just the starting point.

Ridiculous. — Beebert

Arguments please!

Ethical freedom is the freedom to pick your own hierarchy of values. — Mariner

Ah, well you should have clarified that. Now why is ethical freedom a value? I think the freedom in question is the necessary presupposition of any value, but it is not a value itself.

Yes, because it is the foundation of any value. — Mariner

How come? I don't follow the logic.

Note that a freedom that does not include "to murder" is not really a freedom. — Mariner

My point is that it seems that your conception of freedom is purely negative - being able to do whatever you want. Whereas I tend to conceive of freedom more along the lines of doing what you ought to do. I wouldn't say someone who gives in to their lusts is free for example.

Nope, killing (a human) is intrinsically wrong inasmuch as it deprives him of his freedom. — Mariner

I wanted to challenge you on this. Is freedom a value in itself? And if so, then why? For example, is the freedom to murder a value?

In my hierarchy, democracy is not a good, and therefore the question becomes unanswerable. I don't think it is even a necessary evil -- in my appraisal it is a quite unnecessary evil. — Mariner

Ahhhh finally a kindred soul :D

The essential question here is how far are you willing to go to ensure the survival of democracy, either in one country, or globally? — Pneumenon

I'm not willing to do anything to ensure the survival of democracy. Being tied to one particular political system is a problem, not a solution.

Of course you are to blame for having Done wrong but if you are healthy you Will blame yourself. But morally blame? If it was a mistake? Dont be ridiculous. You have Done wrong, a mistake that had fatal consequences, but to call it a moral wrong is primitive. That is What people thought 8000 years before christianity. — Beebert

How is it not a moral wrong when it is caused by my negligence?! Is negligence a moral virtue or a vice? If it is a vice, then I am morally culpable.

In a white dominated society (dominated by sheer numbers and by status) the prejudices of black folks do not prevail, the prejudices of white folks do. — unenlightened

Well that depends what you mean, but I suppose that would hold true on a macro-scale, though even in such a society there would be places where black prejudice dominates at the micro level. The ideal is to have no prejudice dominate, that's what we should be looking to approach.

And in this forum, the combined prejudices of every single woman, even augmented by such powerful voices as my own, are not going to seriously harm or inhibit anyone. — unenlightened

Well that depends how they are used. It's not very difficult at all to slip into a "police-state" kind of place that simply eliminates any kind of dissent based simply on labels of sexism - "because one (or multiple) woman said so and we can't question how women feel about sexism". There needs to be a degree of rational discussion - it seems to me that you presuppose that we have to take special care of minorities because we can't have rational discussion about the issues to decide what is right/wrong. But who took "special care" of me for example? I'm a minority here with regards to religion AND politics. As far as I remember, in the very beginning I fought for myself, and because of that more religious and conservative people have spoken up.

White male leftwing atheists predominate here, and especially in a philosophy forum, they, we, should welcome and nurture otherness of culture and background to challenge our preconceptions. — unenlightened

I agree.

In the sense that you are the cause of it. — Thorongil

So if I am the cause of it, how am I not morally to blame for it if I could have stopped myself from being the cause of it for one?

It doesn't matter. The lack of intent is the same in both cases. — Thorongil

It's not the same at all. In one case you're dealing with a moral agent who has, amongst other things, a capacity for intention, and in the other case you're dealing with an inanimate object that has no capacity for intention (or internal states for that matter) whatsoever.

?

What's your point? Yes negligent homicide is not as immoral as wilful homicide (due to lack of intention amongst other things), but that isn't to tell us that it's not immoral at all.

Only a moron would think that!!! — Sapientia

>:) >:O

I hadn't really thought about it because it usually doesn't go in that direction and I don't expect it to be a problem. — Baden

I think in today's world, especially on college campuses in the US, I can imagine it can go that way, precisely because so much of sexism is focused on women's issues in our culture, and men are viewed as the culprits and the sexists very often. So it is absolutely possible that men will be labeled sexists as a form of bullying, even when they're not.

This is excellent fodder for the anti-natalist. — Thorongil

Only if you have some absolute revulsion from wrong-doing. I have a revulsion from it, but not absolute.

You are to blame for the action, but not morally to blame. — Thorongil

Then in what sense am I to blame? I think I am absolutely to blame morally, if I wasn't negligent - a vice - the tragedy wouldn't have happened.

If an inanimate object caused the explosion, has it done wrong? Like you, it never intended to cause the explosion. — Thorongil

Is that inanimate object a moral agent?

Fine. I still disagree. If you kill someone but don't intend to, I wouldn't say that you've committed wrongdoing. — Thorongil

:s so let's see - if we're in a chemical laboratory, and due to my negligence I forget the gas on after I leave, and there is a big explosion later killing many people, have I done no wrong because I didn't intend to?

One thing I don't like about your position is that it makes it impossible not to commit wrongdoing. — Thorongil

In some situations it is (virtually) impossible to avoid wrongdoing though. It's just how life is.

Why? — Thorongil

Because I think all four components are required to give a full moral account of the situation - an account that can be comprehensive of all situations that arise.

it would have been better if people had simply learned not to respond. — Janus

Maybe you are right, if you look at it that way, it is a missed opportunity. I'm perhaps too often confrontational with such people, and in the end I suppose that's not wrong if you can control that. But if I never resist - or try to - I never see if I can or not. Wayfarer was talking about this recently in one of his posts too.

But how do we determine the morality of an action if not the intent of the agent who performed it? The only other way to determine it is by the consequences of the action. In that case, intent doesn't matter. But I never took you for a consequentialist. — Thorongil

The action itself - murder - killing another human being - is wrong. Not based just on the intention of the agent, which in both cases is to kill a human being (for different reasons though), and not based just on the consequences. It's a combination of intention, consequences, internal state of the one who performs the action and the context. It's quite a complicated thing, one which I think is best to couch in Aristotelian terms rather than the more modern Kantian vs consequentialist kind of thinking.

This is very easy to see that neither intention alone, nor consequence alone are sufficient to determine right/wrong. For example. Suppose I kill someone accidentally. I haven't intended it, but I've still done wrong. Or suppose I am a doctor and I apply the best treatment possible to a patient, and he dies - I haven't done wrong, despite the consequence.

What if TS were me under an alternative account? It's not impossible. I could have created another account under a different email to let my alter ego out for some exercise. ;) — Janus

He did actually open a new account under the name of John Harris, so wouldn't say it's that impossible >:O - but that one is unfortunately also banned now.

Yes sand is very unpleasant when it gets in your Janus. >:) — Janus

>:O >:O

It's good to keep yourself clean of Sand :P

. :) — Janus

Have you become possessed by the banned spirit of Thanatos Sand with the ".:)" ? >:) — Agustino

Ah, I see, you must have performed some exorcism on your own self :-O