Justification of knowledge and morality/ethics

Google defines intentional as "on purpose" or "deliberate".

As for deliberate I will assume you mean the first definition Google provides which is "conciousely" or "intentionally". So that is a circular definition.

Google provides a one word definition of the phrase "on purpose" and that word is "intentionally". Again circular definition.

So I ask again what does that mean to you? What is the observable difference between an intentional act and an unintentional act or unguided event?

Physical injurry is at least an objective value. Is giving someone a physical injury the only immoral act that you are prepared to recognize?

Yeah, that would be a big part of it. 

In that case we still need a standard we both agree on to base our arguments about morality on and you have the added challenge of including all the immoral acts you mentioned as not living up your standard for a moral act.

Well if you can't agree on the standards that i have already laid out then you just see things differently. I mentioned it's subjective at that point. 

Which means our subjective opinions about what our standard means will perforce be at least a little different. Without an objective standard such as promoting wellbeing versus harm we may not even be having the same conversation.

Let me put it another way. I'm not asking if murder is wrong I'm asking why murder is wrong and if it is only subjectively wrong then we look for why you feel it is wrong. You say it is because you wouldn't want to be murdered. If that is likewise a subjective opinion then we should ask what makes treating others as you would want to be treated moral? You have already said that some individuals may want to be treated in ways you would not enjoy so that standard doesn't objectively eliminate any behavior as immoral except that you have taken a few crimes and declared them the evil things that are evil. Why of all possible things people disagree about is this the moral standard? How have you made your moral judgement?

I think the vast majority, i would bet above 90% of people in this world, would at the very least consider the things i've listed as bad if not evil. I think where the moral arguments start to become choppy is when you introduce what religion finds as evil. Religion finds stealing evil, sex evil, lying evil, etc... in any case, it's evil. That in my opinion is what muddies the water and makes it so difficult to talk about morality since the vast majority of the world is religious. When there is a large group of people that think homosexuality is just as evil as rape. People like this have obfuscated the definition of evil and make the conversation difficult... i also personally think that it contributes to the true evils by being a distraction but i digress (different topic). What i've listed as evil is most definitely subjective in the end of the day... but, it seems objective in that a vast majority would agree that those things are not cool when done to them or even someone else.    

I'm not sure if the vast majority do agree though I too would like to think so. There is just to much violence in the world to make that argument. Some religious and some not so religion clearly isn't the only problem just not the answer to the problem.

Yeah it doesn't seem like people care if it is evil or not. My bet is that on a personal level the vast majority would agree it's evil. They just justify it's for good when they do decide to go to war or kill others. Humans are weird creatures. 

They justify it? Dors that make it right? If not why doesn't it? You said your moral judgements are subjective.

Remember the way i look at it doesn't make it right... it's still an evil act. It depends on the specifics if there is any underlining good in doing the evil act. If you have to kill 10 people to save a bunch of high school girls they were trying to kidnap to sell on the sex market than i would say the evil act is justified. Unfortunately there are situations where we just have to be evil. It's ultimately interesting to me that almost every human is capable of this evil given the right situation. Some people are even more malleable which isn't a good thing... that's how you get people that strap bombs to themselves to go to heaven... To be honest, i only see religions and cults take evil to another level in the fact that they can justify killing another that, by most standards, is innocent and good. But they have found ways to brainwash people in killing good people by obfuscating the definition of evil... i.e. "none believers are evil." That's one way i meant earlier before i digressed that these groups can make evil worse. 

My moral judgments are subjective but i truly think on a personal level they are almost objective... well, never objective but most people would think the three are evil acts. It's just this world that has gone to hell in a hand basket in regards to what counts as evil. I think groups like religions and cults are the biggest contributors to jacking the definition of what counts as evil. I really can't think of too many secular views that aren't cultish that justify killing good people by painting them as evil for not being one of them. In today's age anyways. Maybe Viking days but even then these cults played a factor. 

Political systems often demonize others as well. And just to be clear drone strikes kill their fair share of inocent people.

No, I am not offering circular definitions, that is incorrect.

Yes.

Ok then what does intentionally mean in this context. What makes an act intentional.

Are you serious? Do you not know what intentional means? What is your problem?

I asked you what your preferred definition and you essentially told me to look it up, which I did for both of our conveniences. The definition offered by Google was circular therefore largely meaningless. If you have a different preferred definition then please offer it.

Then, don't use Google.

I suppose it would depend on whether one was just defending themselves or were trying to intentionally do harm to the other person?

We don't have to use Google but if not please supply your preferred definition.

I think you spend waaaay toooo much time in the minutia of definitions when someone else is talking but you yourself will be as vague as possible. Not interested.

Unless we can agree on definitions we may not be having the same conversation. As for myself I do try to be careful to limit my claims to my epistemology.

If you defend yourself by shooting an attacker, then you are intentionally harming them, but it is not evil. So any definition of evil needs something more than just intentional harm.

It's still evil, however "You" may not have acted immorally.  The intent of self defense is to stop/void/avoid the threat, and outside of pacifistic restriction physical means may be warranted, or not practically possible to prove guilt.  Then there is purportionality, did you risk others well being with restraint, only go as far as you need to, and did you reasonably assume a better alternative, or have the opportunity to?  Did your actions cause harm which you are responsible for?  In the current state, assuming one is in the right, physical intervention may still be necessitated in the face of evil to restore the peace.  Is this getting a little ahead of the thread development?  

Yes political systems do, but i don't think to the same level as religions and cults. Someone might think a leftist is ignorant and misinformed, but most wouldn't think said leftist is the spawn of satan and must be eradicated... unless of course said righty is religious. But i know what you mean, politics does divide people and the people that are quite literally dunces may look at the other political party as evil. The scary thing about religions and cults are that even smart people can fall under its effect. 

Drones do kill people... that is evil. Not sure what you were trying to clarify there. 

Forgiveness is one aspect of all that must be assumed in compensation for evil.