Originally posted by richjohnsonerm..I am acutely aware that this is not entirely germane here...but the spelling police probably care less about "s" vs. "z" than they do about the lack of an "h" in "characterizing". I've heard that the spelling police do things that are morally reprehensible, by anyone's definition, so watch out 😉.
I did not say that any proposed definition will have a decisive counter example. The point I was trying to make is that, for any property put forth as being shared by all morally reprehensible acts, I have no doubt that you could come ...[text shortened]... to follow the Americans or the British on this one yet in Canada.
Lets start over. My original response ... "Ah, to lead such a sheltered life." was poor at best and I apologize for it. I did'nt mean it as a personal slur. I can see where it might have been taken as such. I retract it completely, and am sorry for it.
Then we are left with my response to your ending... "I'm hoping people here will share what they feel to be the most plausible answer to the general question of what makes certain acts morally reprehensible."
My answer was concise and exact, complete with examples:
"Moral reprehensiblility are those who don't see evil when it is in plain sight." ... Why this was taken by you as a personal attack, I have no idea. I certainly didn't imply that you were the sheriff of Lincoln county Wyoming, or bishop Hillstead.
Had you then stated... "If you believe in evil, I don't want to hear your opinion.", then I would not have responded.
As to your trying to destroy my ego by refering to me as a "punk", a "holier-than-thou" and a cry baby... you are too late by far. It was destroyed long before you were born by a tyrant more capable and in ways that you as an academecian can only dream of. For the record, I don't believe in gods or devils or liberals... all seem rather silly.
As for my "crying in a public forum"... re-read my statement carefully. I was living up to the best tradition of debate... "Give clear, concise examples to support your statements". I only gave two examples:
1 - The inaction of law authorities.
2 - The inaction of church authorities.
As to your last post asking if I believe it to be a subject worthy of discussion, then I think I would answer: Only if it is recognized that evil exists. You apparently deny that it does. I know that it does.
You want to be the winner in this discussion? Ok. You win. It doesn't and never will change the fact that the following is my opinion and is what I believe to be true. I will leave it up to you to decide how much you might win by winning a silly arguement about the existence of evil. You plug in whichever term you like below...
A - "Evil"
B - "Moral Reprehensibility"
"(Insert A Or B Here) is not recognizing it when it is in plain sight."
It is only an opinion, and it will be derided by those who refuse to believe that evil exists. That's fine. Been wrong before and will be again. It is only my opinion, which IS WHAT YOU ASKED FOR HERE.
StarValleyWy-
First of all, I hope I have not contributed to the bad feelings that have been rightly aroused here. Based on previous discussion with bbarr, I am fairly certain he doesn't mean to belittle you personally. I have some experience with very articulate people, and they sometimes come off as being rather insensitive when they do not intend to be. I think the problem here is kind of a value clash best represented by the following analogy:
Imagine yourself and a friend going to the top of a tall building. You take the stairs, and your friend takes the elevator. Upon reaching the top, your friend sees the view as beautiful scenery to be admired in a detached way. You see it as the result of the difficult and arduous work
inherent in climbing the stairs. You both see the same thing, but you have a value clash because of the different natures of your experience.
This is similar to what has happened here. I don't know what evil bbarr has been exposed to, and I certainly do not want to belittle it, whatever it may be. However, you have said that you have experienced evil on a very personal way, and noone can reasonably suggest that you did not climb the stairs in this building. Perhaps bbarr also did; he hasn't been specific. The point is that you seem to have reacted to your practical experience, while he has reacted to his ideas. Both approaches are valid, but they are incompatible.
I am aware that as I have only been on the periphery of this argument, I took the elevator, and you needn't listen to me. I hope your patience with this site has not been exhausted.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI didn't ask for any old opinion, I asked for your opnion concerning a specific question. Of course it's morally reprehensible to see evil and fail to act. It's also indicative of a poorly developed character that one not be able to see certain acts as evil. I grant you all this, it is uncontroversial. But these considerations are completely irrelevant to the question I asked. I'm interested in what you think makes evil acts evil. What is it about morally reprehensible acts that make them morally reprehensible? Imagine I asked a similar question: what properties must an object have in order for it to be a chair? People would likely say that it must be capable of being sat upon and designed for that purpose. These are the properties many would claim an object must posess to be a chair. I'm asking what properties an act must have in order for it to be evil or morallly reprehensible. It's obviously not an adequate answer to this question to say that 'an act X is evil if and only if it is evil'. While logically correct, it is trivially unilluminating. Since moral reprehensibility and evilness are exactly the same property, the answer you gave is also trivially unilluminating. Again, I'm NOT asking about whether a particular act is evil. You apparenlty think I'm asking for you to provide an example of an evil act. I'm not asking for an example. The thing you've provided: "(Insert A Or B Here) is not recognizing it when it is in plain sight." is merely an example of an evil act, it doesn't say anything about what makes an evil act evil. Do you understand?
Lets start over. My original response ... "Ah, to lead such a sheltered life." was poor at best and I apologize for it. I did'nt mean it as a personal slur. I can see where it might have been taken as such. I retract it completely, ...[text shortened]... It is only my opinion, which IS WHAT YOU ASKED FOR HERE.
Originally posted by bbarrMaybe... the question is whether you recognize my understanding. Lets try this...
I didn't ask for any old opinion, I asked for your opnion concerning a specific question. Of course it's morally reprehensible to see evil and fail to act. It's also indicative of a poorly developed character that one not be able to see certain acts as evil. I grant you all this, it is uncontroversial. But these considerations are completely irrelevant ...[text shortened]... of an evil act, it doesn't say anything about what makes an evil act evil. Do you understand?
A specific example of what makes an act "morally reprehensible" is whether it has the property of deminishing an innocent (being) at the expense of a tyrant, through action or inaction." Is that what you want to hear? That is my opinion of what you asked for. Again, I might still not have your exact qualifications for being a legitimate respondent. I am really confused at this point.
Originally posted by royalchickenYes. I think you have wisdom beyond your years. That was an excellent description of what might be going on. I feel bad after reading my initial post, because it could have been seen as condescending beyond doubt. My intention was more directed at humor than at condescension.
Did you read my previous post?
As for being driven away by a little debate, not to worry. I have a hide that is about 14 inches thick, and barring a repost by skilled swordsmen, (omnilash comes to mind) i am quite unpunctured. (all puns intended, unrepentantly)
Originally posted by royalchickenIt was easy to miss. I can't really excuse it. How bout those puns though?
Erm...I always held the belief that my sense of humor is someonwhat bent (I'm the only person I know who laughs at Kafka), but I may have missed the humour in your first post.
"hide 14 inches thick" instead of hyde....
"barring a repost" , a hem...
"unpunctured" as he led with three puns...
Originally posted by richjohnsonI'm actually very partial to that characterization, as long as you modify it to preclude unintentionally caused needless suffering. So, a morally reprehensible act is one that is intended to cause needless suffering. No counter-examples spring immediately to mind.
OK, I'll byte:
Morally reprehensible acts are those which cause someone to suffer needlessly.
Originally posted by bbarrIf morally reprehensible actions are ones which cause needless suffering, then we must consider acts that cause needful suffering. Say person A causes the suffering of person B in such a way that improves the condition of person A. Then the act was not bad by your definition, but this carries the implication that A's improvement mitigates the suffering of B, i.e. A is more important than B. This is the partial ordering.
Say what?