(July 16, 2017 at 12:02 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(July 16, 2017 at 4:20 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: It is not immoral because Jack did not intend harm, however Jack can still feel awful because intentionally or not he caused harm.
At that point the harm is the issue rather than the intent.
I can feel sorry for my wife when she stubbs her toe, I had no part in the stubbing but I have empathy.
Keep in mind, that I was just examining the reasons given by the other poster. In doing so, I'm not making any assumptions, beyond what they had said (because it causes harm, and that you can equate harm and immorality).
I agree, that most people are going to come to a similar conclusion as you did. And thus come to the outcome that the syllogism is wrong. While harm may normally be involved in what we call immoral, harm alone, isn't a sufficient basis. Intent also comes into play. I would say that the intent is more important in the matter than the harm (actualized or not). Would you agree?
What of a man who is cheating on his wife and ensures that she never finds out. There is no harm done (physical or emotional). There is not an intent to harm, which is why he keeps it from her. But there is betrayal and disloyalty. Is this immoral?
It is wrong in my mind because it opens the possibility to hurt for the other half and makes the introduction of sexual diseases more likely.
In fact I know a serial adulteror who explained his reasoning thusly. He weighed the concequences of his actions against the amount of enjoyment he would get and if the fun outweighed the concequences he would fill his boots.
I think what he did was wrong, but he seemed to enjoy it and the women lined up to be the other woman. He was an ex swimwear model for speedo so that may have had something to do with it.
But I'm curious as to what difference a god makes to the situation, how would there being a god be different from there not being one?
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.