Originally posted by no1marauderTry the words, "I'm wrong" sometime.
What a idiot! I realize you nitpick but the two sentences were meant to be READ TOGETHER. Try it sometime.
Intentionality is a mental act. To intend something is to mean that one is not neutral or opposed to whether that event occurs or not.
Originally posted by no1marauderWeaseling? Is it just me or does it sound as though you did not care for my response?
Address the questions posed or leave the thread. I'm tired of such weaseling.
BTW, you really need to read a history book about John Brown; is there ANY subject you're not totally misinformed on?
BTW If you see faults in my posts why not say what they are instead of continuously insulting me? Granted, it may not be as much fun for you but it is the courteous thing to do.....that is if you have any social graces whatsoever. Unlike you I may be prone to err. Therefore, spit it out and say what they are if you insist on pointing them out.
Originally posted by whodeyHe doesn't care for any response that isn't a terrorist "Blow up the Abortion Factory" or shows the least degree of nuance.
Weaseling? Is it just me or does it sound as though you did not care for my response?
BTW If you see faults in my posts why not say what they are instead of continuously insulting me? Granted, it may not be as much fun for you but it is the courteous thing to do.....that is if you have any social graces whatsoever. Unlike you I may be prone to err. Therefore, spit it out and say what they are if you insist on pointing them out.
Halitosis is walking down the street and spots Man A swerving his hired van and barreling towards Toddler B on the sidewalk. Being the upstanding citizen of no1ville, Halitosis thinks only of one thing -- to kill the would-be killer: Man A. He pulls out his 357 magnum and fires from the hip -- instantly killing man A. The driverless van still kills Toddler B. Later investigations find that the van's steering column broke and the breaks had failed.
Did Halitosis commit a moral or immoral act?
Originally posted by lucifershammerWho says it was? When you decide to do something and you are aware that it will have necessary consequences, you are deciding that you will be the cause of those consequences. Semantic nitpicking aside, as a moral issue you are responsible for those consequences. Your attempts to make it seem like necessary consequences are freakish accidents that the actor has no moral responsibility for is idiotic.
Try the words, "I'm wrong" sometime.
Intentionality is a mental act. To intend something is to mean that one is not neutral or opposed to whether that event occurs or not.
Here's orfeo's response from earlier in the thread:
To answer pretty well all of the hypothetical raised by no1, I would have to spend a lot more time wrestling the morality of killing a person to save anyone. How exactly am I supposed to prioritise any one life over another? What about multiple lives? What difference would it make to me if I knew (a) the potential victim; (b) the potential killer; (c) both? What if I was related to one or both?
These are fundamental questions that I would have to address before I could tell you who to save and when and how.
This is how human beings actually think about the issue; they don't simply say "Well I'm saving the child, so I can ignore all the other consequences since I don't really intend them".
Originally posted by no1marauderWhen you decide to do something and you are aware that it will have necessary consequences, you are deciding that you will be the of cause those consequences.
Who says it was? When you decide to do something and you are aware that it will have necessary consequences, you are deciding that you will be the of cause those consequences. Semantic nitpicking aside, as a moral issue you are responsible for those consequences. Your attempts to make it seem like necessary consequences are freakish accidents that the actor has no moral responsibility for is idiotic.
That is not the same as saying you intend all such consequences.
... as a moral issue you are responsible for those consequences. Your attempts to make it seem like necessary consequences are freakish accidents that the actor has no moral responsibility for is idiotic.
Your carricaturing of my position is even more idiotic. I did not say that the actor has no moral responsibility for evil effects of his actions; what I am saying is that he is not morally culpable for evil effects that follow from acts that are morally permissible.
If you think that's idiotic then, in the interests of consistency, I expect you to be advocating the death penalty for people who happen to kill an attacker in self-defence.
Originally posted by no1marauderOn page 8 you were telling me that people don't 'parse their thoughts in the split seconds that preceded the act of killing'. Now are you telling me they do? Make up your mind - either people deliberate (albeit very quickly and with a great degree of intuition) morally or they don't.
Here's orfeo's response from earlier in the thread:
To answer pretty well all of the hypothetical raised by no1, I would have to spend a lot more time wrestling the morality of killing a person to save anyone. How exactly am I supposed to prioritise any one life over another? What about multiple lives? What difference would it make to me ...[text shortened]... the child, so I can ignore all the other consequences since I don't really intend them".
Besides, your characterisation of my position is simply wrong. Can you point out where I've effectively said that consequences can be ignored because they are not intended? Have you forgotten that I specified four conditions for a moral judgment?
The purpose of something like PDE is to provide people like orfeo the means to resolve the moral dilemma in question.