(July 13, 2017 at 10:57 am)Khemikal Wrote: -as an interesting and related aside. A theft which causes -no- harm may still be illegal, but would not be immoral. Creative borrowing from an abandoned property on an indefinite timescale, for example. We make it illegal because to do otherwise would promote a society in which harmful theft was not adequately discouraged (which would, conveniently, be harmful to society)..but we generally do not attach the notion of moral desert to such a theft. Simple legalism suffices.
Or, my favorite....to Systematically Transfer Equipment to Another Location.
Has abandoned material been stolen in a meaningfully moral sense? Probably not...and provided that the person is willing to return it or make adequate compensation should the owner of said equipment suddenly find a need for it, we kindof let it slide.
"Billy, did you take Sally's pencil"
-"Yes sir, but she wasn't using it!"
"Okay, thank you for being honest, will you return her pencil?"
-"I can't, I used it, but I have another one just like it."
"That's great, now, Billy, apologize to Sally"
-"I'm sorry Sally, here's a brand new pencil, are we still friends?"
Sally would have to be a glass eyed, cold-hearted kindergartner (not that there aren't a few, lol) to maintain a grudge..agreed?
(July 13, 2017 at 10:52 am)Inkfeather132 Wrote: Ok, so you're saying morality involves two parts: Objective/subjective and absolute/relative? What you are describing is an objective (naturally right/wrong) and relative (changing depending on circumstance) morality. I might be starting to get it finally.
But you are also saying that the different circumstances doesn't make the deed "not wrong", just "less wrong"?
In a full assessment, generally speaking, at least three. The moral fact of the matter, the moral agency of the subject, and the moral desert pursuant to the previous two. It's only a -moral- wrong if there is a moral fact of the matter. It is only -immoral- if the subject possesses moral agency, and we can only apply moral condemnation and consequence if the previous two conditions are satisfied, and in proportion to each condition.
But, in the sense of it having two parts generally...you could say that there is the moral objective schema, and then the moral agents necessarily subjective assessment on how to apply that schema. Most objective moral theorists refer to a hypothetical being or ability in order to make comparative judgements of the moral weight of some x. Hyper or super rationality - with the caveat that no human being possesses this ability..but that we might all, by working real hard it at...more closely approach it.
-and yes, in some objective moral schemas there is no such thing as evil turned into good by the presence of a greater evil..only the necessity to -do- evil in order to prevent or end that greater evil. Shooting another man never makes you a good person, even if it might make you a hero. Stealing a loaf of bread makes you a thief, even if you did it to feed your children. It;s not that either thing, in and of itself, isn;t wrong, we simply understand the coircumstance and so..in that third part of the assessment up above...adjust or abandon our condemnation accordingly.
Toss some sticky shit at me, I'll give it the 1-2-3 for your enjoyment. Be an improvement over all the fairy bullshit.
Lol, not sure how good of an argument you'll have with me when I barely understand all this
For instance, I'm still a bit fuzzy on: Is there an objective moral standard? Does objective morality even need one? If it does and there is, what is that standard?
