Libertus Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 > I certainly wouldn't judge you to be an immoral person because of it. What you would do is irrelevant. Also, only actions, not persons are moral or immoral. Bombing a school is immoral no matter what the reason behind it is, because you're going to be hurting innocents. I also think you gravely misjudge society's reaction. Can you give an example of a situation where things played out similar to what you're describing? You're also very close to making your argument circular: Murdering someone, while being threatened, is not immoral, because society wouldn't judge him, because it isn't immoral.
John R Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 > I certainly wouldn't judge you to be an immoral person because of it. What you would do is irrelevant. Also, only actions, not persons are moral or immoral. Bombing a school is immoral no matter what the reason behind it is, because you're going to be hurting innocents. I also think you gravely misjudge society's reaction. Beautiful!
jpahmad Posted April 15, 2016 Author Posted April 15, 2016 You're also very close to making your argument circular: Murdering someone, while being threatened, is not immoral, because society wouldn't judge him, because it isn't immoral. so you would regard this person as a murderer?
shirgall Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 You're also very close to making your argument circular: Murdering someone, while being threatened, is not immoral, because society wouldn't judge him, because it isn't immoral. The term "murder" has a moral judgement in it already, since it means "unjustified intentional killing of a person". I think the situation is more clearly phrased, "Duress taints moral choices with considerations of survival."
jpahmad Posted April 15, 2016 Author Posted April 15, 2016 You're also very close to making your argument circular: Murdering someone, while being threatened, is not immoral, because society wouldn't judge him, because it isn't immoral. I gave reasons why society wouldn't judge him. None of them included "because it isn't immoral"
John R Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 I gave reasons why society wouldn't judge him. None of them included "because it isn't immoral" I think he agreeing with you. Because you used 'murder' and 'not immoral' he reasoned your idea.
Libertus Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 OK then, I'll abandon the term "murder", I don't need it to discuss the issue at hand, and its legal definition brings irrelevant aspects into the conversation. An innocent kid is not threatening you in any way (therefore "innocent"), so when you bomb a school you're not acting in self-defense by any stretch of the imagination. Since the only permissible justification for an attack is self-defense (according to the non-aggression-principle) it logically follows that bombing a school under the described circumstances is a breach of the NAP and therefore an immoral action. That's the argument...1. premise: any breach of the NAP is an immoral action2. premise: attacking someone who has not harmed you and isn't credibly threatening you is a breach of the NAP 3. premise: there are people in the school building who have not harmed or threatened you 4. conclusion: bombing a school is an immoral action. Note that nowhere in this argument appears the threat of a third person (mafia boss etc.) you would have to either demonstrate how one of my premises are incorrect, or how the conclusion 4 does not logically follow from premises 1-3. Or you can reject the NAP altogether, and I haven't seen you make the case. Your objections so far: 1. But, but, what if someone is threatening me? Can I then initiate violence against the innocent? Doesn't matter, still a breach of the NAP, still selfish, still immoral. 2. But, but, what if someone is threatening someone I care about? Can I then initiate violence against the innocent? Doesn't matter, still a breach of the NAP, still selfish, still immoral. 3. But, but, what if society says it's OK? Can I then initiate violence against the innocent? Nope. Also, note how you are, maybe unknowingly, make the case for a government. "But what if Saddam has WMD, can we then kill a million innocent Iraqis?"
labmath2 Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 My questions are still being ignored. When a police officer comes to arrest you for smoking weed or not paying taxes, who is initiating force against you? By your logic the police officer is solely to be blamed for the initiation of force. When an American soldier goes and attacks people in the middle east, who is responsible for the initiation of force? Here, there is no obvious answer. The soldier could go to prison for refusing orders. Plus the propaganda element is present (for many people who come from military families), but who is resppnsible for that? The Hitler example in the video gails your own argument. Hitler did not brsinwash anyone as a child. When do brainwashed kids become moral agents? If moral culpability is all or none, then you will have a hard time making the case that most of government is bad since only the enforcement wing ever actually initiate force directly.
Libertus Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 Who said it was all or none? It's definitely not all or none. You need to establish a definitive causal chain for each of your examples. Does the mafia boss hiring a killer cause a person to be killed? If so, both actions are immoral, the hiring and the killing. Does an abductor threatening to kill your son cause you to blow up a school? If so, both actions are immoral, the (credible) threatening and the blowing up. When a slave votes for being caned instead of being whipped, does he cause his and his cellmates' slavery? Without a causal chain, you're not going anywhere definitive.
John R Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 Who said it was all or none? It's definitely not all or none. You need to establish a definitive causal chain for each of your examples. Does the mafia boss hiring a killer cause a person to be killed? If so, both actions are immoral, the hiring and the killing. Does an abductor threatening to kill your son cause you to blow up a school? If so, both actions are immoral, the (credible) threatening and the blowing up. When a slave votes for being caned instead of being whipped, does he cause his and his cellmates' slavery? Without a causal chain, you're not going anywhere definitive. Right on! The government has grown so large it has confused our moral thought process. This is a good way at looking at it.
dsayers Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 The government has grown so large it has confused our moral thought process. Are you saying that when government was smaller, it was correct to pretend that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories?
John R Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 Are you saying that when government was smaller, it was correct to pretend that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories? Nope. I'm saying the larger the government, the worse it gets. Zero government is best.
labmath2 Posted April 25, 2016 Posted April 25, 2016 Who said it was all or none? It's definitely not all or none. You need to establish a definitive causal chain for each of your examples. Does the mafia boss hiring a killer cause a person to be killed? If so, both actions are immoral, the hiring and the killing. Does an abductor threatening to kill your son cause you to blow up a school? If so, both actions are immoral, the (credible) threatening and the blowing up. When a slave votes for being caned instead of being whipped, does he cause his and his cellmates' slavery? Without a causal chain, you're not going anywhere definitive. I was leaning more in this direction but wanted to get the OP to arrive here himself through questions, instead of me just asserting it.
Libertus Posted April 26, 2016 Posted April 26, 2016 Well, OP does not see the necessity to answer questions, as he explained to me. Socratic method doesn't work with these kind of people.
Recommended Posts