If it was fallaciously proven to me that causing harm doesn’t cause harm I wouldn’t believe it…
His consent theory is clearly wrong. I don’t quite get what Lilburne is getting at either. Maybe that if something seems very wrong it probably is. I will try to explain my theory, but it might get a little long here. Anyhow, I got this free book from the 1930’s recently with 40K quotes categorized by subject and felt like sharing 2 from Goethe and Locke:
— We should treat children as God does us, who makes us happiest when He leaves us under the influence of innocent delusions.
— I would not have children much beaten for their faults, because I would not have them think bodily pain the greatest punishment.
Oh… so none of the Nazi’s who deliberately transported millions of Jews to be killed had no responsibility for it, because they didn’t do the actual gassing or shooting?
She made the decision to kill the baby by deliberately neglecting it. Without that decision, the baby would live. She is the sole responsible person for the baby’s death.
Yes, children need welfare to survive. From the parents - not the state. Rule enforcement doesn’t have to be coercive. Me parenting my child doesn’t confer the rights to that care to anyone else.
Thomas Aquinas commentary on Aristotle in “On Interpretations”:
"First he argues that the position taken is impossible in relation to human affairs, for clearly man seems to be the principle of the future things that he does insofar as he is the master of his own actions and has the power to act or not to act. Indeed, to reject this principle would be to do away with the whole order of human association and all the principles of moral philosophy. For men are attracted to good and withdrawn from evil by persuasion and threat, and by punishment and reward; but rejection of this principle would make these useless and thus nullify the whole of civil science.
Here the Philosopher accepts it as an evident principle that man is the principle of future things. However, he is not the principle of future things unless he deliberates about a thing and then does it. In those things that men do without deliberation they do not have dominion over their acts, i.e., they do not judge freely about things to be done, but are moved to act by a kind of natural instinct such as is evident in the case of brute animals. Hence, the conclusion that it is not necessary for us to take pains about something or to deliberate is impossible; likewise what it followed from is impossible, i.e. that all things take place of necessity."
I bolded my emphasis above. I’m for free-will, deliberation, and thus being able to morally judge my actions and not to rid the intellect and haphazardly not intellectually apprehend my nature, an objects nature, and therefore to not place value in the relationship. I find virtue in the relationship to be an act of deliberation - thus - a choosing on what I will or will not do. Outside of NR life has plenty of space for error, but within the dominion of NR - to not initiate coercion upon fellow man or woman - is intellectually and passionately within our nature to fulfill and thus flourish.
Humans made the gas and shooting happen. It is ill-informed humans partaking in the act. Not being able to breath isn’t the fault of any particular human, but the ill-capacity of a fetus to live on this earth - not by human makings.
While I agree that it’s probably better for homosexuals to be out of the closet, it doen’t change the point. Sex is something most of us do in private. If everyone had sex with the same gender, the race would die out. And yet it’s absurd to say there something wrong with, or non virtuous about, homosexual behaviour. You seem to have a problem with how other people act, even if they are harming no one.
What is your basis for presupposing the badness of murder and torture?
If you don’t believe it, then it wasn’t actually proven to you. You’re dodging the question.
I could further refine how I feel about this, but I’m going to stay on topic.
Right, I was stating a 2 condition argument: If an individual only does this act in private and if this act was engaged enmass it would lead to disaster then the act is probably objectively bad/immoral. Sex doesn’t fit this category, homosexuality does, bisexuality doesn’t on the face of it, I’m not sure about it.
I’m saying that whether something is wrong or not can only be an individual subjective judgment. And such judgment comes from feelings of conscience. Ethical systems that try to deduce universal objective laws of what is right and wrong are nothing but vain word-games.
They both imply injustice. If a moral theory justifies killing, well that isn’t clearly a problem. Similarly whatever the morally neutral version of torture is. Hence the self contradiction. You can’t equate justice to injustice.
twistedbydsign99, how is torture any less morally neutral than killing?
Because punishment is probably a better neutral word.
Are you making a universal statement? Are you trying to make your subjective judgement - objective and we all have to follow it now? Yet what is it that you are making objective? What is related to these feelings you are having?
torture |ˈtôr ch ər| noun
the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.
Since the purpose can be variable, the crux of the word is “inflicting severe pain on someone”. There is no normative connotation in that.
No you can’t. You can’t invite someone on your boat, go out to the middle of the ocean and then ask them to leave. Having invited someone into your care you are obligated to not harm them and to return them to their original state or into the care of another who will be providing the equal care you are providing now.
Just like a doctor can’t shutoff your oxygen during surgery because he’s changed his mind about wanting to continue the operation.
I’ve always considered something immoral if it hurts someone else. Since homosexuality does not, it’s not immoral. It’s a much simpler test. Occam’s razor and all.
By your definition of morality, becoming a celibate monk, spending all my time alone in prayer in a monestary would be immoral. Weird.
That definition is problematic for use in an argument because of its lack of a singular definition. So while maybe not self contradictory it is at least needlessly confusing.
Can you ask a stow-away to leave?
your whole post was one long non-sequitur