Moderator: Moderators
Is 'intention' the deciding factor as to whether something can be regarded as immoral or moral?
If one knows that using these things causes harm, but one is using them for harmless reasons, how is using them for those harmless reasons not contributing to harm, and thus immoral?Yes.
Doing harm accidentally and intending harm are not the same thing.William wrote: If one is to say "My intention was good. I cannot help that the thing I used to make that happen, also caused harm" , how is that not immoral?
Not - when I wrote;Doing harm accidentally and intending harm are not the same thing.
Harm is harm, and if one knows what creates harm, then one cannot be said to be contributing to the harm 'accidentally' and still claim to be within ones definition of 'what is moral.' Even ones definition of 'accidental' is iffy.If one is to say "My intention was good. I cannot help that the thing I used to make that happen, also caused harm" , how is that not immoral?
William wrote:Not - when I wrote;
Harm is harm, and if one knows what creates harm, then one cannot be said to be contributing to the harm 'accidentally' and still claim to be within ones definition of 'what is moral.' Even ones definition of 'accidental' is iffy.If one is to say "My intention was good. I cannot help that the thing I used to make that happen, also caused harm" , how is that not immoral?
So - even that you know when you use a vehicle you are contributing to harming the whole planet, because you have to engage with many material things which pollute and harm the environment, it is ethical to do so, because ... you have no choice but to engage?If one has to eat meat to survive that is not immoral but it causes harm in so far as it kills a living creature. These days we must engage, to an extent, with many material things that pollute and harm the environment. That is not immoral. To be immoral is to wilfully damage something we could have avioded damaging.
yesWilliam wrote: [Replying to post 34 by mgb]
So - even that you know when you use a vehicle you are contributing to harming the whole planet, because you have to engage with many material things which pollute and harm the environment, it is ethical to do so, because ... you have no choice but to engage?If one has to eat meat to survive that is not immoral but it causes harm in so far as it kills a living creature. These days we must engage, to an extent, with many material things that pollute and harm the environment. That is not immoral. To be immoral is to wilfully damage something we could have avioded damaging.
So, when at last the harm done is great enough and almost everyone suffers from the affect this will cause, will you still think your choices were ethical - or will you change your mind about that?
So are you saying then, that you will no longer think that your choices were ethical?If the harm done is so great it will only be because so many unethical things added up.
Of the three groups, which are being ethical, according to your position on morality?
So those who looked on and did nothing are the same as those who know they are contributing to the harm but feel they are forced by circumstance to participate.Perhaps the 1/3 that were victims were ethical because the 1/3 that looked on did nothing.
I am saying that moral choices must be informed choices. We need to consider what is and what is not moral.William wrote:So are you saying then, that you will no longer think that your choices were ethical?
It depends on whether they could have done something to prevent the violence.So those who looked on and did nothing are the same as those who know they are contributing to the harm but feel they are forced by circumstance to participate.
