Faith

[dilloduck]

Nothing to be confused about. How much clearer can it be? <blockquote>"...That action I mught desire to perform is an action that might lead to the harm of others and might lead to the harm of both, this action is unskilled, its yield is anguish." - an action like this, Rahula, is certainly not to be performed by you...</blockquote>

In short if what you do leads to the harm of yourself, others or both, it is not to be done. Where's the confusion?

the confusion lies in the fact that you can't please everyone

 

[rtwngAvngr]

the confusion lies in the fact that you can't please everyone

You can tell bully tries too. Look how limber his jaw is. And when he takes out his dentures...

 

[no1tovote4]

Nothing to be confused about. How much clearer can it be? <blockquote>"...That action I mught desire to perform is an action that might lead to the harm of others and might lead to the harm of both, this action is unskilled, its yield is anguish." - an action like this, Rahula, is certainly not to be performed by you...</blockquote>

In short if what you do leads to the harm of yourself, others or both, it is not to be done. Where's the confusion?

And you didn't answer the direct question. The person posted a hypothetical, if what you do will hurt a few but help millions should you do it? What if doing nothing hurts more people than the few you would hurt? Then your choice to do nothing would be evil, while doing something would also be evil because it hurt some people regardless of the amount of help you gave to the millions?

What if you are attacked? You cannot defend yourself because you may hurt another? What if by doing nothing and allowing yourself to be killed you allowed a killer to continue a rampage while defending yourself would free the future victims from this degradation?

Are you sure that you thought this "absolute" all the way through?

 

[Bonnie]

Nothing to be confused about. How much clearer can it be? <blockquote>"...That action I mught desire to perform is an action that might lead to the harm of others and might lead to the harm of both, this action is unskilled, its yield is anguish." - an action like this, Rahula, is certainly not to be performed by you...</blockquote>

In short if what you do leads to the harm of yourself, others or both, it is not to be done. Where's the confusion?

So if today something you do hurts someone but not tommorrow is it suddenly okay???

Pleasing everyone means pleasing no one........Look at Communism

 

[Bullypulpit]

the confusion lies in the fact that you can't please everyone

It's not about pleasing everyone old son. It's about causing them harm, objective, quantifiable harm.

 

[Bullypulpit]

So if today something you do hurts someone but not tommorrow is it suddenly okay???

Pleasing everyone means pleasing no one........Look at Communism

non sequitur.

 

[Bullypulpit]

And you didn't answer the direct question. The person posted a hypothetical, if what you do will hurt a few but help millions should you do it? What if doing nothing hurts more people than the few you would hurt? Then your choice to do nothing would be evil, while doing something would also be evil because it hurt some people regardless of the amount of help you gave to the millions?

What if you are attacked? You cannot defend yourself because you may hurt another? What if by doing nothing and allowing yourself to be killed you allowed a killer to continue a rampage while defending yourself would free the future victims from this degradation?

Are you sure that you thought this "absolute" all the way through?

Never said it was perfect, but it's a start on a personal level. It's the path I try to walk.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

non sequitur.

Bonnie made perfect sense, you tard.

 

[no1tovote4]

It's not about pleasing everyone old son. It's about causing them harm, objective, quantifiable harm.

Interesting, therefore a person Drunk Driving who gets home okay has done nothing wrong according to your vision. However if he gets in an accident and kills himself and hurts no other, he has only then done evil?

One day shooting into the air with your gun hurts nobody, the next day the bullet falls and kills somebody a mile away. The first day nothing wrong was done, the second day they were doing evil?

What if doing nothing hurts more people than doing something? Is there an act more evil than another or is evil all the same?

What if you catch the flu but haven't yet succumbed to any of the disease's symptoms and therefore don't know you have the flu, is it then evil for you to walk around and perform the regular functions of your life?

What if somebody is attacking somebody else, should you defend the innocent or would harming the attacker be evil? What if it is yourself? What about your children, would I be evil if I stopped somebody from kidnapping your child but in doing so broke the kidnapper's arm and nose? How much harm must I do to become evil?

There are so many questions that your "absolute" has left to answer.

 

[no1tovote4]

Never said it was perfect, but it's a start on a personal level. It's the path I try to walk.

Okay, then ignore my quasi-fascetious tone in my questions in my previous post. It is an admirable thought but there are definitely questions that need to be answered.

Assume I am serious in my questions rather than just attempting to make a point about the difficulties and questions that were left. How do you deal with each of the situations?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Okay, then ignore my quasi-fascetious tone in my questions in my previous post. It is an admirable thought but there are definitely questions that need to be answered.

Assume I am serious in my questions rather than just attempting to make a point about the difficulties and questions that were left. How do you deal with each of the situations?

Ok. All social ethics start on the individual level, and working with such an ethic as I have described would have a ripple effect throughout a socisety that chooses to adopt it The "greatest good for the greatest number" ethic of John Stewart Mills permits any minority to be sacrificed to the cause of the interests of the majority. This paradigm is flawed. If we look to the greatest good for all, there is no need for such sacrifice. In the case of saving those facing a natural disaster, such as we have recently seen as a result of the Indian Ocean Tsunami, you can only do what you can do to save the lives of those affected. It is not a matter of conscious choice to cause harm to others, it is a matter of the reality of the situation at hand.

Can exceptions be made in the event your are in real and imminent danger of being harmed by another? The short answer is "Yes." But more to the point, only the force needed to dissuade the attacker is to be used. If you have training in the martial arts, this is something ingrained in the training. A good side-kick to a knee-cap will put most anyone down. Of course, if you haven't such training, whatever means you have at hand may be used. A 9mm, a round to the knee-cap will have the same effect. There is no need to kill your attacker with deliberate intent to do so.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bonnie made perfect sense, you tard.

Only if you accept the moral relativism she is positing. I don't.

Get a grip on something besides your privates old son.

 

[dilloduck]

Only if you accept the moral relativism she is positing. I don't.

Get a grip on something besides your privates old son.

I'm assuming you have a nice rationalization for the people you harm without meaning to do so?

 

[no1tovote4]

Ok. All social ethics start on the individual level, and working with such an ethic as I have described would have a ripple effect throughout a socisety that chooses to adopt it The "greatest good for the greatest number" ethic of John Stewart Mills permits any minority to be sacrificed to the cause of the interests of the majority. This paradigm is flawed. If we look to the greatest good for all, there is no need for such sacrifice. In the case of saving those facing a natural disaster, such as we have recently seen as a result of the Indian Ocean Tsunami, you can only do what you can do to save the lives of those affected. It is not a matter of conscious choice to cause harm to others, it is a matter of the reality of the situation at hand.

Can exceptions be made in the event your are in real and imminent danger of being harmed by another? The short answer is "Yes." But more to the point, only the force needed to dissuade the attacker is to be used. If you have training in the martial arts, this is something ingrained in the training. A good side-kick to a knee-cap will put most anyone down. Of course, if you haven't such training, whatever means you have at hand may be used. A 9mm, a round to the knee-cap will have the same effect. There is no need to kill your attacker with deliberate intent to do so.

Nobody said anything about killing, I specifically said broken arm and nose. What about protecting another? A stranger? Harming from protection is good, we see that now and it would be an exception to your "absolute" from before. We are beginning to get into very grey areas...

The point was that your "absolute" is not nearly as clear as you stated it was. You simplify it to a level that it simply cannot be followed. What level of harm counts?

What if you buy coffee at the grocery store. During the picking of the coffee they used child labor, assume it is a family farm and not simply slave labor, one of the children is punished for not picking fast enough. Are you evil for supporting the people that would cause harm or is it your intent that matters? What if they actually do use child labor wage-slaves? Is that more evil?

What if you are driving down the road and somebody commits suicide by jumping in front of your car? Were they evil in harming themselves or are people allowed to commit suicide?

And what should we avoid harming? What about all the plants that we kill so that we can drive on nice roads to work every morning? Was it evil to do that? If so is it evil to travel to work on those roads?

There are so many questions that I could ask, but a more complete explanation of your morals system would be better.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I'm assuming you have a nice rationalization for the people you harm without meaning to do so?

Intentionality is the key. If your actions unintentionally cause harm to someone it is your responsibility to make amends. You are still responsible for the consequences of your actions, but culpable to a much lesser degree than that of intentional harm.

 

[no1tovote4]

Intentionality is the key. If your actions unintentionally cause harm to someone it is your responsibility to make amends. You are still responsible for the consequences of your actions, but culpable to a much lesser degree than that of intentional harm.

So the guy with the gun celebrating the fourth of July who shoots the gun in the air and who has no intent to harm but kills somebody a mile down the road. He has less culpability than somebody actually who gets mad at a jerk at the bar and punches him in the face? The bloody nose is more evil than the unintentional murder?

The guy speeding down the road at 100 MPH who hits an unsuspecting person crossing the street, since he had no intention of harming that person, is less evil than somebody who intentionally kills an ant?

As I said, at what level is the culpability? Which forms of life count and which do not?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Nobody said anything about killing, I specifically said broken arm and nose. What about protecting another? A stranger? Harming from protection is good, we see that now and it would be an exception to your "absolute" from before. We are beginning to get into very grey areas...

The point was that your "absolute" is not nearly as clear as you stated it was. You simplify it to a level that it simply cannot be followed. What level of harm counts?

What if you buy coffee at the grocery store. During the picking of the coffee they used child labor, assume it is a family farm and not simply slave labor, one of the children is punished for not picking fast enough. Are you evil for supporting the people that would cause harm or is it your intent that matters? What if they actually do use child labor wage-slaves? Is that more evil?

What if you are driving down the road and somebody commits suicide by jumping in front of your car? Were they evil in harming themselves or are people allowed to commit suicide?

And what should we avoid harming? What about all the plants that we kill so that we can drive on nice roads to work every morning? Was it evil to do that? If so is it evil to travel to work on those roads?

There are so many questions that I could ask, but a more complete explanation of your morals system would be better.

I never posited an absolute. Bonnie first mentionend the term, not I. You jumped to a wrong conclusion. Were this, or any other ethic, raised to the status of an absolute it would be unobtainable by us mere mortals. As for harm, any actual, verifiable harm.

<blockquote>What if you buy coffee at the grocery store. During the picking of the coffee they used child labor, assume it is a family farm and not simply slave labor, one of the children is punished for not picking fast enough. Are you evil for supporting the people that would cause harm or is it your intent that matters? What if they actually do use child labor wage-slaves? Is that more evil?</blockquote>

If you know for a fact that slave labor was used, it behooves you to refrain from buying the product. Unfortunately, with slave labor and sweatshops being used to produce so many products imported from third world, and other, countries it can be difficult to know what was and was not produced in such a manner. It then falls upon us, then, to try to change the system so that people are no longer abused in such a manner.

<blockquote>What if you are driving down the road and somebody commits suicide by jumping in front of your car? Were they evil in harming themselves or are people allowed to commit suicide?</blockquote>

They brought harm to both themselves and to you. Were they evil? No, just misguided.

<blockquote>And what should we avoid harming? What about all the plants that we kill so that we can drive on nice roads to work every morning? Was it evil to do that? If so is it evil to travel to work on those roads?</blockquote>

The consequences to <i>this</i> human life in <i>this</i> world are the yardstick by which our morals, ethics, laws and actions are measured.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Socialism causes economies to shrink, people to lose jobs and starve, here, in this world.

 

[Bullypulpit]

So the guy with the gun celebrating the fourth of July who shoots the gun in the air and who has no intent to harm but kills somebody a mile down the road. He has less culpability than somebody actually who gets mad at a jerk at the bar and punches him in the face? The bloody nose is more evil than the unintentional murder?

The guy speeding down the road at 100 MPH who hits an unsuspecting person crossing the street, since he had no intention of harming that person, is less evil than somebody who intentionally kills an ant?

As I said, at what level is the culpability? Which forms of life count and which do not?

No evil, just ignorance. Negligence and wrecklessness are not evil in and of themselves, merely ignorance. They are responsible for their actions and may be punished to the extent that law allows.

Culpability depends upon circumstances. Read carefully...The consequences to this human life in this world are the yardstick by which our morals, ethics, laws and actions are measured...Got it?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Socialism causes economies to shrink, people to lose jobs and starve, here, in this world.

Unless you have something useful to add to the conversation...Go away.