Killing to Protect the Unborn

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Just because something is morally permissible does not mean it is morally optimal. The term 'moral' can be conflated to both these meanings.

I don't care; this is semantics. If you ask the average person whether A's act was moral or not, he doesn't draw such a distinction.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Just because you keep repeating "it's useless" over and over again does not make it so. PDE isn't useless in any of the hypotheticals you cited - rather it's the fact that you refuse to clarify how the hypothetical is to be used by the person answering and the fact that you refuse to provide relevant information that makes it seem useless.

If you w ...[text shortened]... be moral?
or
(2) Are you asking whether a bystander would judge said actions to be moral?

I repeat:

When people make moral judgments regarding others' actions they place themselves in the position of the actor and then decide whether the actions were morally justified by some standard they believe in.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The key to both your hypotheticals would be in the application of the Principle of Double Effect (PDE) to these situations:

[quote]"A person may licitly perform an action that he foresees will produce a good effect and a bad effect provided that four conditions are verified at one and the same time:

1. that the action in itself from its very obj us about dialogue, I suggest you stop parodying the names of those who disagree with you.

BTW, how is "the evil effect is a means to the good effect" true in 2, but perhaps not true in 1? It would seem in 2 that no harm is intended at all.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't care; this is semantics. If you ask the average person whether A's act was moral or not, he doesn't draw such a distinction.

On the contrary, the ordinary person makes such distinctions all the time. What do you think the ordinary person means when he says, "What you did was alright, but it would have been better if you had done [something else]"?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
On the contrary, the ordinary person makes such distinctions all the time. What do you think the ordinary person means when he says, "What you did was alright, but it would have been better if you had done [something else]"?

😴😴

Please try to stay on-topic. The person would regard the thing done as "moral", wouldn't he?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I repeat:

When people make moral judgments regarding others' actions they place themselves in the position of the actor and then decide whether the actions were morally justified by some standard they believe in.

And if they are unable to place themselves in the position of the actor (i.e. when (2) is unclear or impossible to determine) and the intent of the actor is key to the moral permissibility of the action, they suspend moral judgment. Happens all the time.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
And if they are unable to place themselves in the position of the actor (i.e. when (2) is unclear or impossible to determine) and the intent of the actor is key to the moral permissibility of the action, they suspend moral judgment. Happens all the time.

Do you seriously believe that if most people were given hypothetical 1, they would say "I don't have sufficient information to decide if KellyTay's action was morally permissible or not?" If so, you are truly out of touch with reality.

Originally posted by no1marauder
😴😴

Please try to stay on-topic. The person would regard the thing done as "moral", wouldn't he?

How is it off-topic to provide a direct counter-example to an assertion you made? If my statement is off-topic then so is yours.

The person may or may not consider the action "moral" depending on which definition he is considering at that time. Sometimes people make statements like "The moral (LH: or right) thing to do was ..." where it's clear they're talking about moral optima.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
How is it off-topic to provide a direct counter-example to an assertion you made? If my statement is off-topic then so is yours.

The person may or may not consider the action "moral" depending on which definition he is considering at that time. Sometimes people make statements like "The moral (LH: or right) thing to do was ..." where it's clear they're talking about moral optima.

Because the whole non-issue is a side show started by you. I already agreed that for the sake of this particular argument we can use "morally permissible"!!!

Originally posted by no1marauder
Do you seriously believe that if most people were given hypothetical 1, they would say "I don't have sufficient information to decide if KellyTay's action was morally permissible or not?" If so, you are truly out of touch with reality.

People may make assumptions about the actor's intentions (please try and be civil and cut out the juvenile name-games) and make a judgment based on it. That doesn't mean they do have sufficient information to make the judgment correctly.

Suppose I gave them the additional information that the actor's primary intention in shooting the woman was, indeed, to kill her and saving the child was secondary -- do you think they would still arrive at the same conclusion as easily?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
People may make assumptions about the actor's intentions (please try and be civil and cut out the juvenile name-games) and make a judgment based on it. That doesn't mean they do have sufficient information to make the judgment correctly.

Suppose I gave them the additional information that the actor's primary intention in shooting the woman w ...[text shortened]... child was secondary -- do you think they would still arrive at the same conclusion as easily?

People make the most logical assumptions under the circumstances; perfect and complete information is never available. In this case, your additional "info" is exceedingly unlikely and so can be disregarded as a possibility. So they wouldn't "suspend moral judgment" would they?

EDIT: And don't start with the offended act when you've already started acting in an arrogant manner (as you almost always do).

Originally posted by no1marauder
BTW, how is "the evil effect is a means to the good effect" true in 2, but perhaps not true in 1? It would seem in 2 that no harm is intended at all.

In H2, the terrorising and imprisonment of the girl (the evil effect) was directly and intentionally used as a way of obtaining a live birth (the good effect). The evil effect was logically necessary in obtaining the good effect; therefore the former was a means to the latter.

In H1, the death of the woman (the evil effect) was not logically necessary for the child to be saved (the good effect); e.g. the child would've been saved even if the woman had only been [temporarily] disabled by the shot.

Originally posted by no1marauder
People make the most logical assumptions under the circumstances; perfect and complete information is never available. In this case, your additional "info" is exceedingly unlikely and so can be disregarded as a possibility. So they wouldn't "suspend moral judgment" would they?

EDIT: And don't start with the offended act when you've already started acting in an arrogant manner (as you almost always do).

People make the most logical assumptions under the circumstances; perfect and complete information is never available.

That's irrelevant. You're setting the hypotheticals, you are in a perfect position to make complete information available. That you continually refuse to do so is telling.

Further (and this goes back to the point that you refuse to clarify), the relevant information is completely available to the actor involved.

In this case, your additional "info" is exceedingly unlikely and so can be disregarded as a possibility.

On the contrary, unless it is false or impossible it cannot (by definition) be disregarded as a possibility.

So they wouldn't "suspend moral judgment" would they?

If they were asked to make a judgment based solely on the information available (with no critical assumptions), they would.

EDIT: And don't start with the offended act when you've already started acting in an arrogant manner (as you almost always do).

You started the juvenile name-games long before I (or anyone else, for that matter) arrived on this thread. So you shouldn't play the victim either. The only instance of apparent arrogant behaviour on my part also came after you started making sweeping dismissive judgments.

EDIT: You started this thread with the promise of a "dialogue", which usually presupposes a modicum of civility and mutual respect.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
In H2, the terrorising and imprisonment of the girl (the evil effect) was directly and intentionally used as a way of obtaining a live birth (the good effect). The evil effect was logically necessary in obtaining the good effect; therefore the former was a means to the latter.

In H1, the death of the woman (the evil effect) was not logically necess ...[text shortened]... e child would've been saved even if the woman had only been [temporarily] disabled by the shot.

Such dancing on the head of a pin "logic" is what makes PDE such a completely useless guide to moral action. It is, of course, also factually inaccurate - try "temporarily disabling" someone by a shot. The scenario was set up so that a "disabling shot" was not possible (as it is not possible for most people who are not expert marksman - and even an expert marksman would not take the risk of shooting to disable IF by doing so he was increasing the risk to the child in the hypo).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]People make the most logical assumptions under the circumstances; perfect and complete information is never available.

That's irrelevant. You're setting the hypotheticals, you are in a perfect position to make complete information available. That you continually refuse to do so is telling.

Further (and this goes back to the point that you of a "dialogue", which usually presupposes a modicum of civility and mutual respect.[/b]

I refuse to give people perfect and complete information in the hypo when they could not have it in real life. That's ridiculous and would invalidate the hypos. If you find that "telling", that's your problem. If your position is that you can't tell whether saving the life of a child that is about to be killed by killing the would be murderer would be a morally permissible act, so be it.