Random theological stuff - moved from Q about God

[derek]

Exactly what I'm getting at.

 

[hexwind]

No context isn't an excuse for goods and bad although it is when it comes to right things and wrong things. It's wrong to sent an innocent to prison but it is right to sent a proven guilty.

 

[derek]

Now you'll need to elaborate on what difference you see between good/bad and right/wrong.

 

[hexwind]

Now you'll need to elaborate on what difference you see between good/bad

no, personally I think right and wrong are subjective and depend on contexts. For me, what I consider Bad is whatever hurt any human being (me included) like killing, manipulating, deceiving, cheating, stealing, lying and so on. And Goods are the things that an individual/group of people can benefit from it over no one, i mean, without causing any harm whatsoever to anyone.
oops, sorry, i've just realized that (right and wrong) isn't (Good and Bad) !
well.. about right and wrong, it's up to the context and it's all about logic !

and right/wrong.

1+1=2 => right.
1+1=4 => wrong.

Going back to your Roman example, the theory they had was right, it was proved practically. BUT it was Bad coz it was dangerous to the slaves and caused their death.

Are you a philosophy teacher
Thank you for making me thinking.

 

[Einherjar86]

Going back to your Roman example, the theory they had was right, it was proved practically. BUT it was Bad coz it was dangerous to the slaves and caused their death.

I think we can say that the Romans' exploitation of the mines had both good and bad effects; but it's a whole other matter to try and actually assign the event itself a moral quality of "good" or "bad."

The exploitation of the mines was good for economical purposes; it brought money into the state, and probably stimulated its interal markets. It was bad because of the harm caused to the slave population. Now, maybe we can weigh these two factors to try and decide which one is more impactful, and thus make a choice as to whether this event was "good" or bad;" but logically, I don't think you can say the event was wholly one or the other.

 

[hexwind]

I think we can say that the Romans' exploitation of the mines had both good and bad effects; but it's a whole other matter to try and actually assign the event itself a moral quality of "good" or "bad."

The exploitation of the mines was good for economical purposes; it brought money into the state, and probably stimulated its interal markets. It was bad because of the harm caused to the slave population. Now, maybe we can weigh these two factors to try and decide which one is more impactful, and thus make a choice as to whether this event was "good" or bad;" but logically, I don't think you can say the event was wholly one or the other.

That's what I'm talking about. From a moral perspective, it was a "bad" event, but economically ,it was "good", and from my own standing point, the way I recognize good from bad is,as I said, if it does harm me or anyone else, I consider it a "bad" thing.
Another example, the "right" solution to stop the Japanese was a nuclear strike, which succeed but it's a "bad" solution while it killed innocents !

 

[monoxide_child]

I'm not sure how pointing out these particular incongruities helps to form some structure that we can work with.

the intent behind an action should be used to determine whether or not the action was a crime

in the example of the underage girl using a fake id for the purpose of getting laid, i feel that the the girl should be considered the criminal, instead of the guy, but in America, the girl can't be held accountable for lying about her age in that specific situation because she's under the age of sexual consent

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

the intent behind an action should be used to determine whether or not the action was a crime

in the example of the underage girl using a fake id for the purpose of getting laid, i feel that the the girl should be considered the criminal, instead of the guy, but in America, the girl can't be held accountable for lying about her age in that specific situation because she's under the age of sexual consent

You need to think more creatively about how you could use a legal loophole to convict her. The most obvious charge against her would be fraud but with a convincing enough argument, you could probably also get her for child trafficking, facilitating the sale of alcohol to a minor, and facilitating statutory rape. Any one of those things could put her away for a while, even if she were only charged as a child.

 

[forbidden fruit]

I think we can say that the Romans' exploitation of the mines had both good and bad effects; but it's a whole other matter to try and actually assign the event itself a moral quality of "good" or "bad."

The exploitation of the mines was good for economical purposes; it brought money into the state, and probably stimulated its interal markets. It was bad because of the harm caused to the slave population. Now, maybe we can weigh these two factors to try and decide which one is more impactful, and thus make a choice as to whether this event was "good" or bad;" but logically, I don't think you can say the event was wholly one or the other.

You'd also have to question why they used slave labour to begin with...
Wouldn't it also be good for their economy to pay their own citizens to work the mines?
Perhaps they needed fast cash to pay for, say, services that would benefit the population to the extent of deeming "mine fodder" slave labour perfectly acceptable? (Health services, aquaducts, or other infrastructure... the end justifying the means...
I think you'd need to look at more than just the details given by Derek to even come close to deciding whether these actions were 'good' or 'bad'... 'right' or 'wrong'

 

[Dak]

In general, people who were kept as slaves were usually considered "less than human" compared to the "free peoples". Why pay someone to do work for you when you could just give them enough food to live and a pallet to sleep on and keep more money to go to those who run things?

 

[monoxide_child]

You need to think more creatively about how you could use a legal loophole to convict her. The most obvious charge against her would be fraud but with a convincing enough argument, you could probably also get her for child trafficking, facilitating the sale of alcohol to a minor, and facilitating statutory rape. Any one of those things could put her away for a while, even if she were only charged as a child.

thank you for understanding what i was trying to say

 

[derek]

I'm still not sure what you are trying to say.

If you're saying that not all cases of statutory rape are black and white, then I agree. If you're also saying that the law fails to recognise this, then I also agree.

the intent behind an action should be used to determine whether or not the action was a crime

In that case you are ignoring the end product of any sequence. If you intend to disable but not kill someone but accidently kill them, then did you no longer commit a crime? Is the person not still dead?

Are you a philosophy teacher
Thank you for making me thinking.

I've taught low level undergrad philosophy and still do classical philosophy, so yes.

 

[forbidden fruit]

I'm still not sure what you are trying to say.

If you're saying that not all cases of statutory rape are black and white, then I agree. If you're also saying that the law fails to recognise this, then I also agree.



In that case you are ignoring the end product of any sequence. If you intend to disable but not kill someone but accidently kill them, then did you no longer commit a crime? Is the person not still dead?




I've taught low level undergrad philosophy and still do classical philosophy, so yes.

But don't the laws that govern such things generally take into account intent and action first and foremost?
These are the things that any person, doing good, or bad, can control... the outcomes of these actions are beyond anyone's control.

Can you not also fully intend to kill someone, and fail, but still have committed a crime, because the intent and action was there, but the outcome was lacking?

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

But don't the laws that govern such things generally take into account intent and action first and foremost?
These are the things that any person, doing good, or bad, can control... the outcomes of these actions are beyond anyone's control.

Can you not also fully intend to kill someone, and fail, but still have committed a crime, because the intent and action was there, but the outcome was lacking?

I don't really know what the other guy's point is, because (at least here in the US) intent is considered, hence why someone who commits a murder while attempting a robbery will be sentenced as a murderer, while someone who kills in their own self defense will have the charge dismissed as a justifiable homicide.

As for trying to kill someone and not succeeding, there is a charge for that called "attempted murder."

 

[derek]

My point was that intent alone cannot be the judge.

 

[monoxide_child]

You need to think more creatively about how you could use a legal loophole to convict her. The most obvious charge against her would be fraud but with a convincing enough argument, you could probably also get her for child trafficking, facilitating the sale of alcohol to a minor, and facilitating statutory rape. Any one of those things could put her away for a while, even if she were only charged as a child.

most of the time when "statutory rape" happens, (which is to say the specific instances of statutory rape that involve people that know me) i really feel like the younger person has commited the crimes you described

for the purposes of this discussion, i feel i need to make a distinction between "statutory rape" and "child molestation" and not even really the legal definitions of those 2 terms either

when i say "statutory rape" i'm talking about when the younger person has the sex drive, and the younger person is sexually enjoying the sexual experience,
when i say "child molestation" i'm talking about and adult sexually assaulting somebody that's pre-sex-drive

 

[monoxide_child]

My point was that intent alone cannot be the judge.

my point was that intent cannot be excluded from the judging proccess

 

[monoxide_child]

I don't really know what the other guy's point is, because (at least here in the US) intent is considered, hence why someone who commits a murder while attempting a robbery will be sentenced as a murderer, while someone who kills in their own self defense will have the charge dismissed as a justifiable homicide.

As for trying to kill someone and not succeeding, there is a charge for that called "attempted murder."

yes
but when it comes to sexual type crimes, intent isn't really measured or considered the way you just described, especially when it comes to charging a person with having sex with someone that's under the age of sexual consent, parents get so fucking paranoid about the safety of their children, that they just don't want to admit to themselves that, in most humans, sex drive starts at 13, not 18

 

[Einherjar86]

my point was that intent cannot be excluded from the judging proccess

Honestly, I think it can be. If someone did not intend to kill someone, but ended up doing so (eg: a mugger did not mean to kill the person he robbed, but his gun went off and killed the victim), he or she should be judged the same as those who intend to kill their victims and did so.

The result is more important than the intent, in my opinion. You can't forgive a thief just because he did not mean to murder the person he was stealing from. If you kill someone, you have to be prepared to face the consequences.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

So you think those who kill in self defense should be judged the same as those who kill out of aggression?