Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

115 (44.7%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.7%)

Total Members Voted: 252

[Schmaven]

- that’s a flawed question anyway: actions don’t have morality, it’s the intent behind them that matters.

While any action could be good or bad depending on the circumstances, some can be seen as just plain immoral for 99.9recurring% of the time.  What makes war crimes immoral for example?  Only when the other side does it?  Or are some actions simply never justified?  And what would those commiting such attrocities have to say about why they do them?

For the more neutral actions, intent absolutely is the main factor in whether something is moral or not.

[MaxTheFox]

Honestly I just rely on a combination of weighted utilitarianism + gut feeling.

[Frumple]

Eh, that’s a flawed question anyway: actions don’t have morality, it’s the intent behind them that matters.

That's definitely the kind of heuristic folks that beat children like to hold to, heh. If the intent is "good", why, it's okay to break their arm to teach them right and wrong, yeah! All the pain and suffering in the world is a-okay if you're inflicting it with the right mindset... nevermind that sort of behavior's horribly flawed at best and actively detrimental more often. It's the intent that matters, not what you're doing.

Similar sort of canard that gets trotted out about raping someone straight, at times, now that I think about it.

... intent can make a difference in regards to whether or not something is moral, but there's quite a few actions that really do have a morality baked right into them, and no amount of (what someone thinks is) good intent or authority or anything can mitigate it. It's definitely not something I'd recommend holding as an absolute, 'cause it leads to some damn terrible places. Some shit just ain't right, and there ain't no making it right.

[Strongpoint]

Eh, that’s a flawed question anyway: actions don’t have morality, it’s the intent behind them that matters.

To simplify: Morality is a set of some group's standards (including a group of one) of what is Good or Evil.

It can apply both when evaluating the action and the intent of the action.

Going around and killing random people is absolutely, undoubtedly immoral even if the person in question is mentally ill and their intent is killing demons.

[dragdeler]

Yeah that's BS if intent is the measure of all things then all got to do is say you didnt mean it or didnt think about it to be absolved from evertything. It's not something that can be measured either so it will allways be at the discretion of a third party.

Im sorry that is some weak minded shit people tell themselves to paint everything as inevitable, and whats the big deal anyway, I said I'm sorry stop ruminating.

[Strongpoint]

Note that intent without action has no morality whatsoever. Who cares if some person desires to rape and kill all children in the neighborhood if they never do anything harmful to anyone?

It may only be considered immoral if there are some supernatural mind-reading beings around (even then - not their business) or if such evil thoughts have some magical influence on the world.

[TD1]

I care?

Such a person does not spread their blackness. But they're still black.



Edit: To head off any criticism at the pass - -  - -  moral blackness/depravity.

[Rolan7]

I fully disagree.  A kleptomaniac who successfully avoids stealing is not a bad person for having a vice.  It's either neutral or good that they avoid acting on it.

[TD1]

The action of resisting? Good.

The fact of being? Bad.


I'd not say that those two things even each other out into neutrality. I suppose you could call her a Schrödinger's Kleptomaniac. Both bad and good, depending on how it is considered.

Moving beneath the surface of what you said, I understand it is meant to carry emotional undertones. You are invoking the plight of people with mental handicaps. The implication is that for these people, it is something done to them, and not by them. ((Please correct me if I am misrepresenting you - I'm riding the long black train of inference here.))

I'm saying this in the anticipation of future appeals to mental illness. My stance is that, for the purposes of judging moral worth, mental illness is not separable from the individual. The key word in 'insane murderer' is 'murderer.'

[Strongpoint]

I care?

Such a person does not spread their blackness. But they're still black.

What exactly is "black?" Define it.

I vaguely define evil as "someone or something that causes harm". Naturally, no action = no harm = not evil.

[TD1]

Is a seething, tentacled mass which desires rape and murder with its entire being only evil when its cage door is opened?

[MaxTheFox]

I take a middle ground between "intent is all that matters" and "intent doesn't matter".

I think a wannabe child rapist, for example, is evil even if he keeps it under control. But he's less evil than one who acts on his desires. The ratio and value both change depending on how bad the desired crime is. A wannabe thief, or wannabe vandal... meh. I don't mind them at all as long as they do indeed keep themself together. Hell, I get vandalism impulses at times. But I don't do it.

Evil to me is not purely something based on actions. It is a state of being that only sapient beings can have. A tornado is not evil even if it kills and displaces thousands. A tiger is not evil if it eats a baby. And so on.

[Strongpoint]

Is a seething, tentacled mass which desires rape and murder with its entire being only evil when its cage door is opened?

No. Because we know that it not only desires it but will also do it.

I wasn't clear with my example. I meant not a person who has "evil thoughts" and doesn't do it because they are outright unable to do it or don't act yet out of fear or inconvenience and will do that at the first opportunity (such a person is evil but it is impossible to detect because it is contained) but chooses not to.

I mean mostly stuff like "If you look at your friend's wife and feel the desire to have sex with her you are an immoral sinner and should pray to God for forgiveness"

I think a wannabe child rapist, for example, is evil even if he keeps it under control

Funny. I think being aroused by the idea of sex with children or rape or a combination of the two is not that different from any other sexual preference, fetish, or even orientation. It is not something. The tragedy of such people is that they can't pursue what they want without harming other people and their only moral option is constant self-restraint. Those are victims, not evil. And if it is God's test... He is a cruel bastard.

(also there are degrees of that - one may have minor pedophilic tendencies but enjoy normal sex with adults. But there are people who just can't be aroused by adults because their brain is wired in a weird way)

[McTraveller]

Ok so I'll expand: morality is all about intent, people lie (to others and themselves) about intent, and the ends don't justify the means.

The examples of a mentally ill person going on a rampage: that's tragic, but it's not immoral. It's no more immoral than a person with rabies going on a rampage - there is no agency there.

Things like physical harm to "build character" - that's lying to oneself about intent. The intent there is to harm and use "build character" as a justification.  Same for any other "I'm doing this for your own good!" kind of reasoning - if the focus was on "your own good" you'd find another way to do it, not the way that lets you indulge in violence or self-aggrandizement.

It's also why having malicious thoughts but not acting on them is still immoral, and why "thoughts and prayers" without action is also immoral.

The ultimate conclusion is not a new one: every single person is immoral to some extent.

I mean mostly stuff like "If you look at your friend's wife and feel the desire to have sex with her you are an immoral sinner and should pray to God for forgiveness"

This example is... incomplete at best. Stopping at merely forgiveness is where it falls short - the better prayer is to ask also to change your desires, so that you no longer want something you don't have. Pining after someone not your spouse is, if nothing else, not good for yourself even from a selfish standpoint.

The tragedy of such people is that they can't pursue what they want without harming other people and their only moral option is constant self-restraint. Those are victims, not evil.

This presupposes the highest aim is self fulfillment, and not everyone shares that belief.  Also children aren't victims when you try to teach them restraint from wasteful activities "that're what they want" - so why would it be universal that simply because an "adult" wants something, asking them to exercise restraint makes them a victim? It also presupposes a narrow definition of "harm" limited generally to discomfort rather than a more broad meaning like perpetuating misunderstandings of the universe - take flat earth belief for an example of "harm that doesn't cause physical or emotional pain."

[dragdeler]

So if you're just too dense to plan 2 seconds ahead, or if you lack any kind of sensibility you get to be a brute because your intents are so pure?

If you get to repress your bad thoughts so that they don't verbally swim at the surface of your attention, you considered an angel, but if you have some self introspection suddenly the thing does a 180?



It's a bad system just because the justice the justice system overly relies on this system so there is some wiggleroom in which well paid lawyers get to exercise their spiel, doesn't make it a good system. If justitia were truely bliind, sentences should be uniform, wit all the paper they wasted you can't tell me that we couldnt have a catalogue with every possible infraction at every degeree of severity imaginable for the same effort worth. But how would we favor the rich then.