RE: Objective morality as a proper basic belief
July 16, 2017 at 12:08 pm
(This post was last modified: July 16, 2017 at 12:21 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(July 16, 2017 at 12:02 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:Who said it was? Why would it be? If you want to respond to what other posters have said, then you'll have to respond to what other posters have said. Try my 1-2-3(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?
The moral fact of the matter, the agency of the subject, and moral desert pursuant to 1 and 2.
Or maybe assess moral compulsion by a reference to 1, 2, and 3.
Is a society which promotes or ignores betrayal and disloyalty a harmful society, or a society which by it;s action or inaction becomes complicit to harm? Why yes, yes it is. Can society understand and do something about that? Why yes, yes it can. Does a society which prevents or discourages such harm deserve our moral support? Why, yes, it does. See how we could, if we wanted to, completely leave out the man in question? There's no need, really, since...you've contradicted yourself by the end of the breath claiming that he causes no harm but then asking about betrayal and disloyalty, which -is- harmful. Apparently, he did cause harm....and intentionally so, he simply hasn't been caught yet.
Being a supernice guy otherwise, and trying to hide his acts -betrays- the fact that he knows it's harmful, that you know it's harmful, that we all know it's harmful. Does your own betrayal, here, imply or uggest that you are an immoral person? Or could there be something in the 1-2-3 that gives you a pass for actively continuing to supply dishonest argumentation? Ignorance, perhaps? Diminished agency?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
