Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Thought of the Day #1

GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 8:04:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If a shark drowned and killed a seal, we wouldn't call that murder, but if I killed a child in a similar manner, I would be classified as a murderer. Why is that?

If a breed of monkey activity forced it's fellow primate to have sex, it wouldn't be considered as rape, but as natural, but if I or YOU did such, it would be. Why is this?

Now reply with reason and logic.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 8:10:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 8:04:28 PM, GodSands wrote:
If a shark drowned and killed a seal, we wouldn't call that murder, but if I killed a child in a similar manner, I would be classified as a murderer. Why is that?

If a breed of monkey activity forced it's fellow primate to have sex, it wouldn't be considered as rape, but as natural, but if I or YOU did such, it would be. Why is this?

Now reply with reason and logic.

If my 1 year old child is in your house and tears a book of yours up to pieces, he didn't do anything wrong. Now, if I was in your home and tore a book into pieces I would be doing something wrong. What's the difference? I have the capacity to fully understand what I'm doing, to make rational choices, to know in advance the negative impact it may cause or the disrespect it may cause.

Now, an animal and a baby are good examples of creatures who simply don't have the brain power we do to understand reality as well, and to understand who their actions effect.

Therefore, animals are not responsible morally for what they do like we are, because they of not fully capable of understanding the negative implications of what they do.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 8:48:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 8:10:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2012 8:04:28 PM, GodSands wrote:
If a shark drowned and killed a seal, we wouldn't call that murder, but if I killed a child in a similar manner, I would be classified as a murderer. Why is that?

If a breed of monkey activity forced it's fellow primate to have sex, it wouldn't be considered as rape, but as natural, but if I or YOU did such, it would be. Why is this?

Now reply with reason and logic.

If my 1 year old child is in your house and tears a book of yours up to pieces, he didn't do anything wrong. Now, if I was in your home and tore a book into pieces I would be doing something wrong. What's the difference? I have the capacity to fully understand what I'm doing, to make rational choices, to know in advance the negative impact it may cause or the disrespect it may cause.

Now, an animal and a baby are good examples of creatures who simply don't have the brain power we do to understand reality as well, and to understand who their actions effect.

Therefore, animals are not responsible morally for what they do like we are, because they of not fully capable of understanding the negative implications of what they do.

Fair reply. But I want to further my original point. Consider that rape and murder are evil acts. Which I hope you would agree. However, you haven't really given a great answer, if your 1 year old destroyed one of my books, I would still be obligated to conclude it as wrong or theological said, as evil. A lack of brain power or understanding of ones surroundings, doesn't redefine what good and evil is. However what I would say is that because one has a lacking in brain power or understanding, one ought to be more tolerant towards the individual.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 8:54:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 8:04:28 PM, GodSands wrote:
If a shark drowned and killed a seal, we wouldn't call that murder, but if I killed a child in a similar manner, I would be classified as a murderer. Why is that?

Because we were created in Gods image - Souls.

If a breed of monkey activity forced it's fellow primate to have sex, it wouldn't be considered as rape, but as natural, but if I or YOU did such, it would be. Why is this?

Same answer.

Saying because we have rationality only begs the question.

Why does rationality matter?

Why am i more right to follow logic then to just be a creature of reaction and self-preservation?
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 9:06:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 8:48:19 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/23/2012 8:10:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2012 8:04:28 PM, GodSands wrote:
If a shark drowned and killed a seal, we wouldn't call that murder, but if I killed a child in a similar manner, I would be classified as a murderer. Why is that?

If a breed of monkey activity forced it's fellow primate to have sex, it wouldn't be considered as rape, but as natural, but if I or YOU did such, it would be. Why is this?

Now reply with reason and logic.

If my 1 year old child is in your house and tears a book of yours up to pieces, he didn't do anything wrong. Now, if I was in your home and tore a book into pieces I would be doing something wrong. What's the difference? I have the capacity to fully understand what I'm doing, to make rational choices, to know in advance the negative impact it may cause or the disrespect it may cause.

Now, an animal and a baby are good examples of creatures who simply don't have the brain power we do to understand reality as well, and to understand who their actions effect.

Therefore, animals are not responsible morally for what they do like we are, because they of not fully capable of understanding the negative implications of what they do.

Fair reply. But I want to further my original point. Consider that rape and murder are evil acts. Which I hope you would agree. However, you haven't really given a great answer, if your 1 year old destroyed one of my books, I would still be obligated to conclude it as wrong or theological said, as evil. A lack of brain power or understanding of ones surroundings, doesn't redefine what good and evil is. However what I would say is that because one has a lacking in brain power or understanding, one ought to be more tolerant towards the individual.

I would have to disagree, you are assuming that a negative effect automatically implies a moral responsibility. I mean if your books got torn up that would be a negative effect, but if my 1 year old wasn't fully aware of what he was doing and wasn't aware of his actions, then he cannot logically be held morally responsible.

Imagine this:

(i) Person A takes a 5 dollar bill because he wants it, not knowing what money is, or that things that lay around probably belong to someone.

(ii) Person B takes a 5 dollar bill because he wants it, knowing it didn't belong to him, and it would result in somebody losing what was taken which was probably worked for.

Person A cannot obviously be held morally responsible even there was the
same damage done, because Person A was just acting on instinct and didn't realize they were effecting someone else negatively.

The concept of Mens Rea ("guilty mind") is even used in courts. If you know you are doing something negative, and you do it anyway, that's wrong. However, if you do an action completely ignorant of it's implications, how could you logically be held morally responsible?

Even though the cause of the negative effect must be removed from situations where the cause could do more harm of the such, that doesn't mean that cause is morally responsible.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 9:14:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The most logical answer to what you've specifically asked:

At 4/23/2012 8:04:28 PM, GodSands wrote:
If a shark drowned and killed a seal, we wouldn't call that murder, but if I killed a child in a similar manner, I would be classified as a murderer. Why is that?

We wouldn't call that murder because murder is the unlawful premeditated murder of an individual. As of yet, we have not made it illegal for sharks to kill seals, so it is not considered murder. You killing a child would be committing the unlawful act of murder.

If a breed of monkey activity forced it's fellow primate to have sex, it wouldn't be considered as rape, but as natural, but if I or YOU did such, it would be. Why is this?

Again, rape is defined by the fact that it is a crime, it's one person forcing sex onto another.

Now reply with reason and logic.

I think you might be meaning to ask different questions?
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 9:15:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh - nevermind all that garbage, i see what you're asking now.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 9:15:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 8:04:28 PM, GodSands wrote:
If a shark drowned and killed a seal, we wouldn't call that murder, but if I killed a child in a similar manner, I would be classified as a murderer. Why is that?

If a breed of monkey activity forced it's fellow primate to have sex, it wouldn't be considered as rape, but as natural, but if I or YOU did such, it would be. Why is this?

Now reply with reason and logic.

Thus, human beings (demonstrating the height of evolution on this planet) who can actually understand the negative effects of an actions have moral values and duties to uphold. A shark doesn't know that he is causing pain to it's prey however, he thinks he's just eating a meal, completely ignorant. Obviously, the shark isn't doing anything morally wrong.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 9:59:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would have to disagree, you are assuming that a negative effect automatically implies a moral responsibility. I mean if your books got torn up that would be a negative effect, but if my 1 year old wasn't fully aware of what he was doing and wasn't aware of his actions, then he cannot logically be held morally responsible.

It is not a case of negativity thus implying responsibility, it is a case that every action implies a moral responsibility. A negative action (the destruction of my book) or a positive active both produce moral responsibility. If I hurt someone, I am responsible for the persons pain, or if I give away money to a charity, I am responsible for those who will benefit. All moral actions lead to moral responsibility and as I've just clarified, all actions lead to moral responsibility. If your 1 year old destroyed all my books, then he or she would be morally responsible. A 1 year old person's awareness is not relevant in relation to responsibility, what is relevant is the fact that your 1 year old did the action. Therefore, your 1 year old is responsible, and accountable. However the degree of the accountability will depend on tolerance.

Imagine this:

(i) Person A takes a 5 dollar bill because he wants it, not knowing what money is, or that things that lay around probably belong to someone.

(ii) Person B takes a 5 dollar bill because he wants it, knowing it didn't belong to him, and it would result in somebody losing what was taken which was probably worked for.


Person A and B do the same action, which has the same effect. Sin or crime is defined by it's end result. Both end in the same result, both are either wrong or neither good or wrong. Not wrong in the sense that I got a question wrong, but in the sense that they are both morally wrong. If Hitler was ignorant of pain and suffering, you would still say that he was an evil man. You would still say that his choices to kill millions were wicked and evil. But if a 1 year old, yet ignorant of responsibility, you say that his or her actions have no moral implications whatsoever. Therefore as both person A and B's actions lead to the same end result, both person's are responsible. I would also condone that the person who left his money lying around is foolish and should take full responsible of the 1 year old person's actions given a sufficient reason to. (I will keep my last replies short).

Person A cannot obviously be held morally responsible even there was the
same damage done, because Person A was just acting on instinct and didn't realize they were effecting someone else negatively.

True, but our instinct is corrupt, it is also our instinct to steal and murder. Otherwise no one would steal and murder.

The concept of Mens Rea ("guilty mind") is even used in courts. If you know you are doing something negative, and you do it anyway, that's wrong. However, if you do an action completely ignorant of it's implications, how could you logically be held morally responsible?

Agreed, however this does not exclude something being good or evil. If I murdered 10 men in my sleep, that would still be evil in the same way if I did it awake. Evil is both a state of action and a state of mind. There's a new concept worth thinking about. You seem to only think it is a state of mind.

Even though the cause of the negative effect must be removed from situations where the cause could do more harm of the such, that doesn't mean that cause is morally responsible.

I don't quite understand you here, perhaps you could clarify this?
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 10:02:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 9:59:17 PM, GodSands wrote:
: I would have to disagree, you are assuming that a negative effect automatically implies a moral responsibility. I mean if your books got torn up that would be a negative effect, but if my 1 year old wasn't fully aware of what he was doing and wasn't aware of his actions, then he cannot logically be held morally responsible.: :

Sorry that's all yours above.

It is not a case of negativity thus implying responsibility, it is a case that every action implies a moral responsibility. A negative action (the destruction of my book) or a positive active both produce moral responsibility. If I hurt someone, I am responsible for the persons pain, or if I give away money to a charity, I am responsible for those who will benefit. All moral actions lead to moral responsibility and as I've just clarified, all actions lead to moral responsibility. If your 1 year old destroyed all my books, then he or she would be morally responsible. A 1 year old person's awareness is not relevant in relation to responsibility, what is relevant is the fact that your 1 year old did the action. Therefore, your 1 year old is responsible, and accountable. However the degree of the accountability will depend on tolerance.

Imagine this:

(i) Person A takes a 5 dollar bill because he wants it, not knowing what money is, or that things that lay around probably belong to someone.

(ii) Person B takes a 5 dollar bill because he wants it, knowing it didn't belong to him, and it would result in somebody losing what was taken which was probably worked for.


Person A and B do the same action, which has the same effect. Sin or crime is defined by it's end result. Both end in the same result, both are either wrong or neither good or wrong. Not wrong in the sense that I got a question wrong, but in the sense that they are both morally wrong. If Hitler was ignorant of pain and suffering, you would still say that he was an evil man. You would still say that his choices to kill millions were wicked and evil. But if a 1 year old, yet ignorant of responsibility, you say that his or her actions have no moral implications whatsoever. Therefore as both person A and B's actions lead to the same end result, both person's are responsible. I would also condone that the person who left his money lying around is foolish and should take full responsible of the 1 year old person's actions given a sufficient reason to. (I will keep my last replies short).

Person A cannot obviously be held morally responsible even there was the
same damage done, because Person A was just acting on instinct and didn't realize they were effecting someone else negatively.

True, but our instinct is corrupt, it is also our instinct to steal and murder. Otherwise no one would steal and murder.

The concept of Mens Rea ("guilty mind") is even used in courts. If you know you are doing something negative, and you do it anyway, that's wrong. However, if you do an action completely ignorant of it's implications, how could you logically be held morally responsible?

Agreed, however this does not exclude something being good or evil. If I murdered 10 men in my sleep, that would still be evil in the same way if I did it awake. Evil is both a state of action and a state of mind. There's a new concept worth thinking about. You seem to only think it is a state of mind.

Even though the cause of the negative effect must be removed from situations where the cause could do more harm of the such, that doesn't mean that cause is morally responsible.

I don't quite understand you here, perhaps you could clarify this?
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 10:05:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Person A cannot obviously be held morally responsible even there was the
same damage done, because Person A was just acting on instinct and didn't realize they were effecting someone else negatively.


True, but our instinct is corrupt, it is also our instinct to steal and murder. Otherwise no one would steal or murder.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 5:32:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 9:59:17 PM, GodSands wrote:
I would have to disagree, you are assuming that a negative effect automatically implies a moral responsibility. I mean if your books got torn up that would be a negative effect, but if my 1 year old wasn't fully aware of what he was doing and wasn't aware of his actions, then he cannot logically be held morally responsible.

It is not a case of negativity thus implying responsibility, it is a case that every action implies a moral responsibility. A negative action (the destruction of my book) or a positive active both produce moral responsibility. If I hurt someone, I am responsible for the persons pain, or if I give away money to a charity, I am responsible for those who will benefit. All moral actions lead to moral responsibility and as I've just clarified, all actions lead to moral responsibility. If your 1 year old destroyed all my books, then he or she would be morally responsible. A 1 year old person's awareness is not relevant in relation to responsibility, what is relevant is the fact that your 1 year old did the action. Therefore, your 1 year old is responsible, and accountable. However the degree of the accountability will depend on tolerance.

Imagine this:

(i) Person A takes a 5 dollar bill because he wants it, not knowing what money is, or that things that lay around probably belong to someone.

(ii) Person B takes a 5 dollar bill because he wants it, knowing it didn't belong to him, and it would result in somebody losing what was taken which was probably worked for.


Person A and B do the same action, which has the same effect. Sin or crime is defined by it's end result. Both end in the same result, both are either wrong or neither good or wrong. Not wrong in the sense that I got a question wrong, but in the sense that they are both morally wrong. If Hitler was ignorant of pain and suffering, you would still say that he was an evil man. You would still say that his choices to kill millions were wicked and evil. But if a 1 year old, yet ignorant of responsibility, you say that his or her actions have no moral implications whatsoever. Therefore as both person A and B's actions lead to the same end result, both person's are responsible. I would also condone that the person who left his money lying around is foolish and should take full responsible of the 1 year old person's actions given a sufficient reason to. (I will keep my last replies short).

Person A cannot obviously be held morally responsible even there was the
same damage done, because Person A was just acting on instinct and didn't realize they were effecting someone else negatively.

True, but our instinct is corrupt, it is also our instinct to steal and murder. Otherwise no one would steal and murder.

The concept of Mens Rea ("guilty mind") is even used in courts. If you know you are doing something negative, and you do it anyway, that's wrong. However, if you do an action completely ignorant of it's implications, how could you logically be held morally responsible?

Agreed, however this does not exclude something being good or evil. If I murdered 10 men in my sleep, that would still be evil in the same way if I did it awake. Evil is both a state of action and a state of mind. There's a new concept worth thinking about. You seem to only think it is a state of mind.

Even though the cause of the negative effect must be removed from situations where the cause could do more harm of the such, that doesn't mean that cause is morally responsible.

I don't quite understand you here, perhaps you could clarify this?

No. If my 1 year old picks up a gun and shoots someone he cannot logically be morally responsible because he doesn't know what he is doing. If I shoot someone, I can be.

Look up the concept of Mens Rea ("Guilty Mind"), you obviously don't understand what moral responsibility is

The answer to the question in this thread has gone logically answered, it's not my fault if you don't accept it.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 5:36:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 10:05:55 PM, GodSands wrote:
Person A cannot obviously be held morally responsible even there was the
same damage done, because Person A was just acting on instinct and didn't realize they were effecting someone else negatively.


True, but our instinct is corrupt, it is also our instinct to steal and murder. Otherwise no one would steal or murder.

Yes it's in our nature to kill, same with a tornado. Is a tornado morally responsible? No, because it doesn't know what it is doing!
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 5:52:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 5:36:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2012 10:05:55 PM, GodSands wrote:
Person A cannot obviously be held morally responsible even there was the
same damage done, because Person A was just acting on instinct and didn't realize they were effecting someone else negatively.


True, but our instinct is corrupt, it is also our instinct to steal and murder. Otherwise no one would steal or murder.

Yes it's in our nature to kill, same with a tornado. Is a tornado morally responsible? No, because it doesn't know what it is doing!

I would actually say that a tornado is just as responsible as much as the people who choice to live in Tornado Ally are responsible for building their homes there in the firing line. Or in other words, there is a shared responsibility. Although a tornado is not conscious, it can still be to blame, thus it can still hold responsibility. Indicating that responsibility is not only subjected to people that have understanding of their actions.

Another thing is if your 1 year old is ignorant of what is good and evil or right and wrong, then your 1 year old is surely excused from any type of discipline, as it would be unfair to tell off or correct a child if what he or she did had no good or bad intentions, but merely instinct.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 8:22:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 8:04:28 PM, GodSands wrote:
If a shark drowned and killed a seal, we wouldn't call that murder, but if I killed a child in a similar manner, I would be classified as a murderer. Why is that?

Laws.


If a breed of monkey activity forced it's fellow primate to have sex, it wouldn't be considered as rape, but as natural, but if I or YOU did such, it would be. Why is this?

Laws.


Now reply with reason and logic.

The classification of "murder" and "rape" are legal ones invented by us with specific criteria that you're scenarios don't meet.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 3:34:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 5:52:02 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/24/2012 5:36:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2012 10:05:55 PM, GodSands wrote:
Person A cannot obviously be held morally responsible even there was the
same damage done, because Person A was just acting on instinct and didn't realize they were effecting someone else negatively.


True, but our instinct is corrupt, it is also our instinct to steal and murder. Otherwise no one would steal or murder.

Yes it's in our nature to kill, same with a tornado. Is a tornado morally responsible? No, because it doesn't know what it is doing!

I would actually say that a tornado is just as responsible as much as the people who choice to live in Tornado Ally are responsible for building their homes there in the firing line. Or in other words, there is a shared responsibility. Although a tornado is not conscious, it can still be to blame, thus it can still hold responsibility. Indicating that responsibility is not only subjected to people that have understanding of their actions.

You just implied that tornado can be morally responsible for it's actions...No offense, but I'm not sure you are rational enough to continue this conversation.

Another thing is if your 1 year old is ignorant of what is good and evil or right and wrong, then your 1 year old is surely excused from any type of discipline, as it would be unfair to tell off or correct a child if what he or she did had no good or bad intentions, but merely instinct.

This is a better point, however it still fails and I'll explain why:

Something still has to be done about someone's actions, even if they are not morally responsible.

For example, lets say I black out, and I wake up with a bloody knife in my hand and a dead body underneath me. Lets say I cry because I don't know what happened, and I didn't remember doing it or have any will to do it. I wouldn't go to prison because I obviously didn't do anything morally wrong, I would go to a mental hospital because there is obviously something with me that needs fixing. So even though I'm not morally responsible, something still has to be done..

So in retrospect, if I my 1 year old tore up books, even though he was not morally responsible at the time due to lack of understanding, something would still have to be done. Therefore, it still would make sense to discipline him and try to help him even though he wasn't morally responsible for his actions at the time.

So your question as been answered, why aren't animals immoral when they kill be we are immoral when we do? Simple, we have the capacity to reflect on our actions, to think rationally, and to understand the negative implications of our actions. Animals underneath us, simply don't have that capacity, so how can they be morally responsible?
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 3:35:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 8:22:12 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/23/2012 8:04:28 PM, GodSands wrote:
If a shark drowned and killed a seal, we wouldn't call that murder, but if I killed a child in a similar manner, I would be classified as a murderer. Why is that?

Laws.


If a breed of monkey activity forced it's fellow primate to have sex, it wouldn't be considered as rape, but as natural, but if I or YOU did such, it would be. Why is this?

Laws.


Now reply with reason and logic.

The classification of "murder" and "rape" are legal ones invented by us with specific criteria that you're scenarios don't meet.

Exactly.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts