Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you have no idea its happening? Of course not, if you do, then you are morally responsible, to, at the very least stop contributing - since you have no way to completely stop it, though it could be argued that you would be held to a degree to help.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If they choose to not send money? It is possible that they makes them murderers. However, it is also possible that the criminal is lying, even likely; furthermore this is also something which in lots of cases you do not have the opportunity to do, therefore you are not responsible, as I have already concluded. It is also possible that this can cause greater harm to people, therefore you would still be justified in not doing it. Next, as I already said, you would be morally responsible to a lesser degree than the murderer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Can rocks commit action? No, that question is nonsense, the reason why inaction can be immoral is because it is opposed to being able to do something. Hence why you are not morally responsible for something which you have no opportunity to stop.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Prove that claim.
If you were to choose to not do something, then it is comparable to asserting that something is not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You can, however, abide murder by inaction. Such is standing aside as a trolley is about to murder a person and not even attempting to turn the tracks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Furthermore, IF you have consciously decided to NOT do something, THEN it is comparable to positively affirming a negative proposition.
For example:
God does not exist
still requires evidence because it is a claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The action of NOT DOING SOMETHING in response to specific stimuli is still an action
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
as I said, the principle is fairly basic. That does not mean that someone who does not accept it is necessarily wrong, it means that the principle I am affirming is not very complex in it's nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Furthermore the likelyhood of something happening is EXTREMELY PERTINENT, especially in moral law; the reason that (if you value human life) that harming someone is bad is because it always leads to harm, that is how it works inherently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Oh but I have
Second of all, that means that nobody has any moral obligation to not murder people, if you accept that people have moral obligation to not do something, then you accept that they have moral obligation to stop things which people should not do.
You simply haven't acknowledged it's existence
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Incorrect.
You can not assault others:
You are being attacked and will die if you do not defend yourself, therefore you have the right to defend yourself with assault. Exceptions are not only preferable they are NECESSARY
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You have not provided sufficient objection to convince me that someone who has the ability to prevent something which they "know" is bad, and has done nothing, is not, at the very least, indirectly responsible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
First of all, you completely ignored the core point in that rebuttal, second of all; guilt by association and being an accomplice are slightly different.
I am more referring to accessories whereas you seem to think of accomplice , but they are different
What Is an Accomplice?
Accomplices (commonly called aiders and abettors) are more connected to the crime itself than accessories and are therefore usually subject to harsher penalties. The key difference between accessories and accomplices is that accessories are not present at the crime scene, while accomplices are present and usually have an integral part in the criminal act. Sometimes, depending on the extent to which someone contributes to a crime, an accomplice will be designated as a “principal in the second degree.” In that vein, many states will seek to punish accomplices to the same extent as the first-degree principal. Even if the main principle goes to trial and is found not guilty, the accomplice could still be tried as a principal.
What Is an Accessory?
Accessories are usually people who cover up the crime after it has been committed. A common designation you may have heard is someone being charged as an “accessory after the fact.” This can mean hiding stolen money or providing safe harbor to the principal or accomplices to avoid capture by the authorities. “Accessories before the fact” do exist, but states will often seek to prosecute them as accomplices.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Second of all, that means that nobody has any moral obligation to not murder people, if you accept that people have moral obligation to not do something, then you accept that they have moral obligation to stop things which people should not do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Is this logical though? You claim this to be "instinctive", so what? why do I care what you instinctually feel? Lying to cover up harmful actions you commited is instinctual, yet that is still bad. You have made a fallacy of nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
the context of situations can clearly change the intended moral point of an action, furthermore - none of these things are likely to happen, and thus using it to declare anything of that sort all wrong is faulty, these are outliers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Oh? Foreknowledge that something will hurt somebody, and you are immediately able to use that knowledge to save them isn't analogous? I beg your pardon? Do you have an actual rebuttal, or just claims?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
To answer the trolley question - though the "super-scientist" might seem immediately more appealing there are a couple wrenches. What exactly does that scientist specialize in? Archeology? Researching bugs? The answer is much to vague to give any utilitarian advantage to the scientist. furthermore, unless you are ableist or interested in eugenics, focusing on traits such as intelligence will not lead to morally surperior odds, therefore you ought to rescue, you have no justifiable reason to ignore your moral obligation to save the more lives, assuming you accept moral principle and value in humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And I would like for you to specifically answer how "consequentialism" is incoherent. You seem to not fully understand its implications.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
YOU CAN NEVER BE HELD MORALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR AN EVENT YOU DID NOT CAUSE.
false
IFF) I am morally responsible for EVERY DEATH I could possibly prevent (THEN) I am a mass-murderer.
also false
Firstly: if you had the opportunity to stop something "bad" and refused to do so, in other words doing nothing, then you are morally culpable. Because you are indirectly responsible this is easily seen in law: guilty by association and all that
Secondly: there are different degrees of moral culpability: this comes from the distinction of being indirectly or directly responsible for an action, thus, no - as the vast majority of murderers you have no opportunity to stop, therefore you are not morally responsible for them
This is a fairly basic principle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Actually.. if god created everything then god neccesarily made evil, that's how that works. If there is no mind to comprehend it then there is no good nor evil, as god created everything which is material and not him, according to your world-view, then he would need have created evil... or do you not comprehend basic cause and effect, ah, no my bad you believe in god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
In other words, you have no defense of your claims? Simply continued , "I'm a tough guy" speak, well perseverant questioning does often reveal the true nature of less sturdy individuals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Again, I could care less what you believe god is ethically obligated to do, I am talking of what god is necessarily obligated to do if he were to be a moral being. IF he made humans with inherent value, THEN he is neccessarily obligated to protect them. Furthermore, IF god is responsible for human's lowering threshold of understanding, THEN the bad decisions made by humans are his fault.
For example: If you were to code a robot to walk in a straight line and it walked right would that be its fault or your fault? Your fault clearly - you were to the one to program it.
I've noticed you've made several claims yet you decline to either, A) engage the so-called "stupid" analogy, or B) provide any sort of evidence or demonstration for your claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
uhuh... I'm talking intellectual honesty, you seem to have nothing of the sort. Again, very interesting for someone who claims to be endlessly logical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I mean, if I had the powers of god? Sure. But to be fair I don't think thats a very high bar - I mean.... I'm pretty sure anybody could be a better god than what god allegdedly is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Um...no... I suggested that god save people, using a comparison of a child about to be run over, you have refused to engage this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Um... I just rephrased what you said, simply for the formatting, you see your "interpretation" was a dependent clause after a indepedent clause, in order for it to work grammatically I had to make the dependent clause an independent clause, but thats all semantic. Furthermore, you said you would not defend the claim because you "did not make it" now you claim I never addressed your refutation.... you've literally refused to answer... Secondly, how is "doing it in a just way" a consequence? No, god has all power according to your holy book, he could literally just not make evil or make evil so small it wouldn't matter, heck that god could do a million things with literally no effort if it existed. The thing is, if it did exist, it has done none of those things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Neither of those views are true, you have established a false dichotomy
The third view is that there is a single characteristic which establishes this: personhood. Seeing as you never addressed my responses to your "criticisms" I consider this unchallenged. Fetuses simply do not have personhood, therefore they have no moral value, it is that simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
uhuh, and I should trust your claims without any evidence? Sure. you have fun being "logical"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
This is again only bald assertion, but there is consequence to God, that is why He is ridding the universe of evil in a JUST way, and not as a despot
Didn't make the claim huh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What a good point, not that I think that "Oh what about Freewill" was ever a very strong defense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
humans, scientifically speaking, and humans with moral value are two different things. The latter only has moral value because of subjective axioms built into objective arguments, furthered into pragmatic ethics. Without this no human has value. Fetuses lack this trait and therefore are not worth the same, morally, as people with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would say that there isn't any evidence for the claim, "everything is here for a purpose" whereas there is evidence that eveerything is here by chance... which is the pure fact that we are here and there was a chance that we wouldn't be here. I'm not sure what specifically you mean by "a degree of uncertainity" I think every claim is a little uncertain, its impossible to know almost anything for certain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
So... you don't have any evidence of your claims? I thought you were supposed to be "logical" about things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Wait so if god existed they wouldn't be a creature? That's funny:
Furthermore, this is an ethical dilema, for the sake of conversation a god exists and that god has the power to stop all evil, you have made a claim: that the reason there is still evil is because god is being "just" about his clean up efforts, that is a claim. Justify it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
interesting, not exactly something I wasn't aware of, or at least generally I was aware of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I don't believe in god and you have yet to justify ones existence
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I don't accept the claim, provide demonstration.
At least not without more justification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
technically everything is pure chance, its to the degree that's the real question
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't care about legal definitions here, I care about moral weight and worth - they are distinct
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
demonstrate god, demonstrate that a god gives people value, that is two claims provide the evidence which supports this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The point is that a person, as in, a human - does not have inherent value. There must be something that gives it value, something which we can form, hence my argument. My argument gives value in the form of personhood. Therefore, if something does not have personhood it does not have value, which in this case refers to moral value. Human rights are given to those with personhood.
You seem to have the axiom that humans are inherently valuable, I do not share that consideration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The economy had one of the worst recessions in decades.... and the man directly responsible? Trump! His response to Covid-19 is exactly what caused it. Obama actually responded to disease and stopped it before it ever became a pandemic.... Trump has committed impeachable offence after offence, and... please present evidence of A) significant voter fraud, and B) that Biden will "tank" the economy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No...this is saying, IF god is a moral creature, THEN that god has a moral obligation to help those that they are able too. IF you can do so without any consequent to yourself, THEN you ought to eliminate all evil.
This is a question of ethics, and god does not fulfill that burden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Science is the observation of nature, and extrapolation of natural principles to achieve technology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You should want to suffer...
yeah that doesn't sound like an abusive spouse at all.. as someone who's starting to study pyschology, all of these scream red flags of a toxic relationship to me... as in, the checklist we have to learn about... this checks all the parameters..
If I had to come up with the archetype of abusive relationship, this is the one I would choose without a doubt.
Furthermore you said, "Incorrect god says" and then quoted the quote I already quoted which is directly from the bible... so then that was just filler because you didn't know what you were talking about. Nothing about this point morphs, all it says is that god has a moral obligation to help any of his children just as a parent would, regardless if it was the fault of the child. I don't care what the bible says, I'm talking about proper ethics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Incorrect... god says
"John 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God"
So even if I grant that claim, that means that no christian should be harmed... as they are all children of god... also, okay.. a random child ran into the middle of the street. Someone can stop the child from being harmed without any danger to them, I suppose you think you should just let them die because, "they choose to."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No. but if the god of the bible existed they would have a moral obligation to help all of humanity, regardless of who caused the harm. Does a parent let their child be run over because, "they didn't listen" or, "they choose their fate!" no, hell no, fuck the kid's "free-will" you care more about the kid then their choice to run into the street.
Created: