Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3291022" data-attributes="member: 4937">My point is that it really doesn't.  It's worth noting that in some ethical systems, this is in fact true.  That, because the universe is flawed and every consequence likely to lead to ill, that no one can be righteous or innocent (except someone who could see every consequence down the road).  Foreseeability is a good place to start in a court of law because the judge also cannot foresee consequences and has no standing to judge someone for not foreseeing consequences that he himself probably could not have foreseen either.  But again, the court isn't necessarily a good place to start because when we speak of objectively good and evil from the stand point of an observer outside of the frame of the universe this is not necessarily the case.Again, whether the law excuses something or not is not particularly relevant.  The law excuses people and does not generally prosecute them for lying outside of a few particular contexts, but that does not mean that the law is because it excuses and does not find culpable, maintaining that to lie in those other contexts is moral.Which is pretty much precisely my point.  Both have to be taken into account.Maybe, but it has a great deal of bearing on whether or not a mortal court is a good place to start exploring what is good and what is evil precisely because, being mortal, it is also inextricably bound by the same foreseeability standard and so - even if good and evil were not bounded by the foreseeability standard - it wouldn't be just for the court so bounded to make judgements that were not so bounded.</blockquote>

Verification