Originally posted by no1marauderYou insist (in a minority) that these intents are not separable. You provide no arguments, no reasoning, no analogous situations to back your position.
No, you continue to pretend that it's an "either/or" situation or that the intents are easily separable. Furthermore, you insist that this separation is the critical factor in determining whether the act is morally permissible or not. It is the latter position that I am saying is far outside the thinking of most human beings.
Now why exactly should I just take you at your word?
Originally posted by lucifershammerReally? So if Muhummad Atta tells you on the morning of September 11th that he's going to hijack a plane and run it into the World Trade Center, you can't kill him if that's the only way you reasonably believe you can prevent that future risk to others?
Possible future risk to others is not a factor when considering whether to commit an action that presents immediate certain risk to one. That's why.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI don't care what you do; if you want to pretend that people in life and death situations really parse their thoughts like you absurdly claim they do, go ahead.
You insist (in a minority) that these intents are not separable. You provide no arguments, no reasoning, no analogous situations to back your position.
Now why exactly should I just take you at your word?
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo they wouldn't unless they were self-delusional. People intend the necessary consequences of their actions (assuming they are aware of the necessary consequences).
No. It just isn't. You can keep repeating yourself all you like, but you're still wrong.
Killing the woman may be a necessary effect of the act of shooting her; it doesn't mean the effect is intended. Indeed, most people would say afterwards that the death of the woman was unintended -- they didn't mean to kill her, just to save the child.
Originally posted by no1marauderEven if Atta were to tell me in the airport before boarding I would still have reasonable options to prevent him from hijacking the plane that does not involve killing him myself. But that's beside the point.
Really? So if Muhummad Atta tells you on the morning of September 11th that he's going to hijack a plane and run it into the World Trade Center, you can't kill him if that's the only way you reasonably believe you can prevent that future risk to others?
Does he present a grave, present and otherwise unavoidable danger to human life? Only then is (4) satisfied -- and that in itself isn't sufficient to make the act morally permissible. There is also (1)-(3).
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd if you want to pretend that people are blood-thirsty, rampaging monsters who want to kill everyone who could potentially commit a crime, go ahead.
I don't care what you do; if you want to pretend that people in life and death situations really parse their thoughts like you absurdly claim they do, go ahead.
Originally posted by no1marauderAs I said earlier, I suspect you are using some implicit legal definition of 'intention' here as opposed to the psychological/phenomenological account.
No they wouldn't unless they were self-delusional. People intend the necessary consequences of their actions (assuming they are aware of the necessary consequences).
People do not always (perhaps not even mostly) intend even necessary consequences of their actions -- some of those consequences would be considered undesirable but unavoidable by them; given the option of avoiding those consequences, they would take it.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI would say that only a tiny minority of people would agree with your position.
Even if Atta were to tell me in the airport before boarding I would still have reasonable options to prevent him from hijacking the plane that does not involve killing him myself. But that's beside the point.
Does he present a grave, present and otherwise unavoidable danger to human life? Only then is (4) satisfied -- and that in itself isn't sufficient to make the act morally permissible. There is also (1)-(3).
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt is utterly meaningless that people would prefer to avoid undesirable consequences that they cannot possibly avoid. If they decide to do an act knowing that those consequences will happen they are intending them.
As I said earlier, I suspect you are using some implicit legal definition of 'intention' here as opposed to the psychological/phenomenological account.
People do not always (perhaps not even mostly) intend even necessary consequences of their actions -- some of those consequences would be considered undesirable but unavoidable by them; given the option of avoiding those consequences, they would take it.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderAccording to you, everyone but a tiny minority is ready to kill at the drop of a hat.
I would say that only a tiny minority of people would agree with your position.
EDIT: Which doesn't surprise me all that much if it is true (and I'm far more optimistic of human nature on that count than you are). It's not for nothing that it's called the "Culture of Death".
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammer🙄🙄
According to you, everyone but a tiny minority is ready to kill at the drop of a hat.
EDIT: Which doesn't surprise me all that much if it is true (and I'm far more optimistic of human nature on that count than you are). It's not for nothing that it's called the "Culture of Death".
Now you're simply resorting to falsehoods and Ivanhoe tag lines. Try thinking for yourself.
Originally posted by no1marauderIf I have you tied to a chair and decide to torture you, is it meaningless to say that you would prefer not to be tortured because you cannot possibly avoid it? If I hold your daughter hostage and ask you to kill someone for me, is it meaningless to say that you would prefer not to kill, even though it is unavoidable for you?
It is utterly meaningless that people would prefer to avoid undesirable consequences that they cannot possibly avoid. If they decide to do an act knowing that those consequences will happen they are intending them.
Of course not. And that's why you're simply wrong on this count.
Simply knowing that certain consequences are unavoidable as a result of an act does not mean that those consequences are intended. Perhaps that's true in a legal sense, but it's not true in a psychological or philosophical sense.
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat a idiot! I realize you nitpick but the two sentences were meant to be READ TOGETHER. Try it sometime.
If I have you tied to a chair and decide to torture you, is it meaningless to say that you would prefer not to be tortured because you cannot possibly avoid it? If I hold your daughter hostage and ask you to kill someone for me, is it meaningless to say that you would prefer not to kill, even though it is unavoidable for you?
Of course not. And tha ...[text shortened]... s that's true in a legal sense, but it's not true in a psychological or philosophical sense.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, I'm not. Please actually learn how to read.
Well, you're the one who is persistently claiming that most people are thinking, "Kill her!" in your first hypothetical.
Here it is AGAIN:
Killing the woman would be a necessary intention of the act of shooting her.