Is intention more important than action?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder

Post Number:#16  Postby anarchyisbliss » March 20th, 2008, 11:30 pm

MarkE wrote:Thank god too. If everyone viewed everything like that we'd be in anarchy. Strangely enough, that seems to be something you wouldn't mind.

If it was the last thing left on earth then are you saying you would kill for it?

You have a different set of morals and it doesn't make them any better, or smarter, or more advanced. You can't understand morality, it's not math, it's a feeling.

There are always little loopholes for someone to have separate morals from others. Morals are completely subjective, and i'm only trying to understand where you're coming from. You could kill someone without moral obligation not to? Or could you not steal based on your morals?


My morals aren't superior its the way I see morality as a whole ,and not that it is superior per se its just on a different level. And the candy bar example is saying wouldn't stealing a candy bar if it were the last thing left to eat on Earth be equally as immoral as murdering?

I would never kill a person because it is wrong to me, but it isn't wrong action in general and I don't think it should be illegalized simply because someone or even a group of people thinks that it is wrong action. I don't think that stealing is wrong action in all cases to me, but it is still illegal no matter the circumstances.

Regardless of one person or a group of people's moral perspective on a topic it shouldn't necessarily be legally dealt with in the same way, that is oligarchy.

I hope you see what I'm trying to say.
"If there is hope, it lies in the proles." - George Orwell, 1984
anarchyisbliss
 
Posts: 515 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 28th, 2008, 4:23 pm
Location: Maryland



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Post Number:#17  Postby MarkE » March 21st, 2008, 12:26 am

I sort of see. But the problem is that the situation determines the moral righteousness. If you stole that candy bar then essentially no one else could eat. But it's not like it could feed the whole world anyway (i suppose it's just not a perfect analogy).

I surely hope you're speaking in generalities and not about murder. Murder should always be wrong, life should be precious, and those who take lives should be treated with thusly.

I would say it's the moral majority, not a group. Society shapes people to learn that murder (and other things) are wrong and the consequences are well known - which is why i figure punishment is fine.
MarkE
 
Posts: 49 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 6th, 2008, 2:13 am

Post Number:#18  Postby anarchyisbliss » March 21st, 2008, 11:42 am

MarkE wrote:Murder should always be wrong, life should be precious, and those who take lives should be treated with thusly.


We live in a society and around other societies who are famous for capital punishment - the murdering of murderers. Murder isn't always wrong, as I have said before, it is simply inconvenient. People should be able to formulate their own morals and not be forded to agree with this moral majority you speak of. I do think live is precious, but for this country to send thousands of people to the electric chair or to give them lethal injections and then turn around and say that life is precious and should be appreciated - HYPOCRISY :!: . Like I said I would never murder, and maybe you would never murder and maybe the whole world would never murderer but that doesn't make it wrong.
"If there is hope, it lies in the proles." - George Orwell, 1984
anarchyisbliss
 
Posts: 515 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 28th, 2008, 4:23 pm
Location: Maryland

Post Number:#19  Postby MarkE » March 21st, 2008, 1:05 pm

that's a punishment though, not an unjustified killing (not saying all murders are unjustified)
MarkE
 
Posts: 49 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 6th, 2008, 2:13 am

Post Number:#20  Postby anarchyisbliss » March 21st, 2008, 1:10 pm

MarkE wrote:that's a punishment though, not an unjustified killing (not saying all murders are unjustified)


By punishing murder with murder we are just perpetuating immorality. Murderers don't need to punished they need to be helped, in fact if people would just talk and really make an effort to help other people I might be a little more proud of my own species.
"If there is hope, it lies in the proles." - George Orwell, 1984
anarchyisbliss
 
Posts: 515 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 28th, 2008, 4:23 pm
Location: Maryland

Post Number:#21  Postby MarkE » March 21st, 2008, 1:16 pm

it's not perpetuating immorality if it helps to prevent other people from being murdered. People with different sets of morals don't act on them because of the consequences of the law. I'm not saying i support the death penalty or saying murderers are a lost cause, just that this is the most direct course of action that can be applied to the majority.
MarkE
 
Posts: 49 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 6th, 2008, 2:13 am

Post Number:#22  Postby anarchyisbliss » March 21st, 2008, 3:00 pm

MarkE wrote:it's not perpetuating immorality if it helps to prevent other people from being murdered. People with different sets of morals don't act on them because of the consequences of the law. I'm not saying i support the death penalty or saying murderers are a lost cause, just that this is the most direct course of action that can be applied to the majority.


It does perpetuate immorality because your solving murder with more murder wchich just inspires people to murder. The best way to prevent murder would be to keep people from becoming murderers as children Besides murdering might even be a natural thing. Lions kill other lion who intrude on their property same with many other animals psecies and we probaby have somethign in us that tells us to murder someone who is in our way.
"If there is hope, it lies in the proles." - George Orwell, 1984
anarchyisbliss
 
Posts: 515 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 28th, 2008, 4:23 pm
Location: Maryland

Post Number:#23  Postby MarkE » March 21st, 2008, 3:18 pm

that might be true that murder is natural, but it's clear to everybody that murdering is against the law. Therefore, unacceptable. Which also happens to be one of the ways that we prevent people from becoming murderers.
We can't spend all our time teaching children about how killing is wrong... it's something that should be in everyones mind. Learning the consequences is an excellent deterrent.
There will always be deviants. But you can't attribute that to societies legal system.
MarkE
 
Posts: 49 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 6th, 2008, 2:13 am

Post Number:#24  Postby anarchyisbliss » March 21st, 2008, 8:20 pm

MarkE wrote:that might be true that murder is natural, but it's clear to everybody that murdering is against the law. Therefore, unacceptable. Which also happens to be one of the ways that we prevent people from becoming murderers.
We can't spend all our time teaching children about how killing is wrong... it's something that should be in everyones mind. Learning the consequences is an excellent deterrent.
There will always be deviants. But you can't attribute that to societies legal system.


Just because it's against the law doesn't mean it is wrong. It used to be against the law for blacks to hold office, that doesn't mean that blacks are incapable of being politicians. However I do agree that it is clearly against the law, although I don't think that seeing consequences prevents murderers from surfacing. obviously there are people who need to be talked to and given attention and thats all they need a simple conversation with someone could be the difference between a murderer and preventing the creation of one.
"If there is hope, it lies in the proles." - George Orwell, 1984
anarchyisbliss
 
Posts: 515 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 28th, 2008, 4:23 pm
Location: Maryland

Post Number:#25  Postby Scott » May 26th, 2009, 12:33 pm

MarkE wrote:I surely hope you're speaking in generalities and not about murder. Murder should always be wrong, life should be precious, and those who take lives should be treated with thusly.

But murder is defined in part by intent. A person cannot be convicted of murder unless they are convicted of intent. Without the horrific intent, a homicide could be manslaughter not murder. Crazy people often kill and do not get convicted of murder because they are judged to be too out of their mind to have the understanding and intent of murder. It is intent the makes the difference. Criminal liability depends on the mens rea.

So intent is very important when judging the actions of people, which MarkE has unwittingly shown by giving the example of murder.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4206 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic

Post Number:#26  Postby ape » May 26th, 2009, 2:52 pm

Scott wrote:But murder is defined in part by intent. A person cannot be convicted of murder unless they are convicted of intent. Without the horrific intent, a homicide could be manslaughter not murder. Crazy people often kill and do not get convicted of murder because they are judged to be too out of their mind to have the understanding and intent of murder. It is intent the makes the difference. Criminal liability depends on the mens rea.

So intent is very important when judging the actions of people, which MarkE has unwittingly shown by giving the example of murder.

ape:
Xlnt!
Thus Mens Rea/Guilty Mind/Malice-afore-thought makes me guilty of murder even when I don't take physical life. qed.
Matthew 5: 21Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:
and [you have heard that] whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but [I say to you that] whosoever shall say [in Hate of fools], Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

People are only angry with others without cause when they first hate others.
And all hatred for any person, place or thing is without cause and thus is the MR: Mens Rea because all are owed Love and Respect.
John 15:
25But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
ape
 
Posts: 3323 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Previous

Return to Ethics and Morality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST