Thanks for my guffaw-of-the-day.
:eek:
Now I’m all a-quiver!
As I’ve told you before, the consequences presuppose that the actor or other people decide someone’s morally responsible. If the actor decides they’re morally responsible, they may change their behavior. If other people reach that conclusion, they may exert persuasive or coercive forces to enact a change in their behavior.
The fact of moral responsibility is one that may be perceived, stipulating an objective morality.
How can you call morality objective when the determination is made by each individual and can’t be proved objectively?
You seem to think that “diamonds can cut glass” and “action X is immoral” are both objective statements, but the first is testable and the second isn’t.
That’s absurd. I do, however, think that Gates, like most black men, realizes that he will not be able to count on law enforcement to ensure his safety. I’d move as well. These are the incidents that lead me to the inevitable conclusion that the Federal government needs to disband police departments in racially-charged areas and replace them with federal troops.
[rant]
If U.S troops can free the slaves, lead Ruby Bridges to a “white” school (much to the chagrin of the onlooking police officers), and distribute food to hurricane victims without beating the darkies on the head and arresting them on spurious charges, then I fail to see the point of a police force Unlike individual States, the Federal government is able to imbibe recruits with simpliest idea that police officers don’t get: African-Americans are American civilians that deserve to be protected.
Obama doesn’t need to send Federal Troops to train Iraqi or Afgahn police. He needs to send them to Detroit. To Houston. To Cambridge. And other areas where the police are unable to deal with the “Negro Problem” without being a Mark Fuhrman or Larry Nevers.
[/rant]
- Honesty
Also, I asked what the consequences are of YOU determining action X is immoral, and you answer only with possible consequences someone else may take if theuy determine action X is immoral.
Other people may have different criteria for determining whether an action is immoral and different ideas on what to do abouÞ it.
Therefore, YOU determining that action x is immoral has zero consequences, so the exercise is meaningless.
You’re very stupid. I covered this already, but let’s be very clear, with an example.
Jim steals a candy bar every time he goes to the Mini-Mart.
If Jim decides he’s morally responsible, he may change his behavior. If other people reach that conclusion, they may exert persuasive or coercive forces to enact a change in Jim’s behavior.
Clearer?
I’d demand a cut, and if that doesn’t work, then rat him out.
And if a poster on the SDMB decides its immoral, what happens then?
Depends. Me or you?
Also, your example misses the mark because the person doing the action and the person morally responsible for the action are the same person. We are talking about deciding whether one person is morally responsible for the actions of another.
So who’s stupid now, stupid?!?!?
P.S. You are stupid.
That’ll ratchet down the tension.
Make sure to get Peregrine: Primus, Peregrine: Secundus, and The Adventures of Doctor Eszterhazy!
And you can find more titles on the Avram Davidson website.
I am so going to Hell . . .
I think you’ll find most people, and even most philosophers, will accept all of that, yet still maintain the existence of some objective ethical standards, even if they cannot agree as to how such standards can be known nor as to their content.
Interesting discussion by Martin Gardner here.
And BTW, Ayn Rand was no moral relativist. In her philosophy, the standard of ethics is as “objective” as everything else.
I agree and understand that people share largely the same moral standards. But each person has to apply those standards to the facts, which is why the outcome isn’t objective.
Re ayn rand–no kidding, and I disagree with her about that. Doesn’t stop some from calling me a Randian.
If I get there first, I’ll save you a spot. You realize, in Hell, its always Pledge Week?
Edit: holy crap, I misread what I was quoting. Mea culpa, and I hope I get this edit in before a response.
I’ll continue with the second part of my post.
I understand that your limited abilities preclude your carrying out this trivial exercise of imagination, so I’ll do it for you.
A poster on the SDMB–let’s stipulate that they don’t know Jim, to keep it from being a solved problem–decides such an act is immoral. There are three effects, which a decently intelligent second-grader could discern:
- They will abstain from such acts themselves, having used Jim’s example as grounds in which to test their understanding of the morality of the act; and
- They may engage in preventative persuasive efforts to convince other people that such an act is immoral, thereby hopefully preventing others from engaging in such an act; and
- If they realize that someone within their sphere of influence has committed such an act, they may use the previously-mentioned persuasive or coercive power at their disposal to punish or to rectify the situation.
Seriously, at this point you’re coming across as so dense that I’m afraid I’m being trolled by a 4chan reject.
Now that I’ve reread what you wrote, I realized that it’s still very stupid, but slightly less so than I thought. I’ve already talked about persuasive power, which most people believe in (the entire industries of marketing and political campaigning are based on it). A person may be morally responsible for that behavior enacted by others which they persuaded those others to engage in–thus we hold Hitler responsible for Treblinka even though he never gassed a single prisoner, thus we hold Gandhi responsible for the liberation of India even though he didn’t do it on his own.
To use less extreme examples, we have crimes like inciting to violence that reflect just such a dynamic. These crimes are in tension with the first amendment, and when in doubt our legal system tends to err in favor of the first amendment–but that doesn’t negate the moral responsibility of those who incite violence.
Now, look, my to-be-read backlog is already up over twenty – hell, maybe north of thirty* with this latest purchase! I’ve run out of bookcase room, even with books laid crosswise on top of the uprights, and don’t have wallspace for more racks! Stop doing this to me! :mad:
- (Returns from checking piles) Over forty. Actually, forty-nine. Not counting today’s four. Damn you.
OK LHOD, I think we are getting somewhere. Now, please apply the framework you set up to show that whether slaveowners are morally responsible for injuries incurred in slave uprisings is not meaningless. Thanks.