Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3661977" data-attributes="member: 4937">Need I remind you that this is the proposition you have to prove.&nbsp; You can't axiomaticly assert it at the beginning and then expect me to accept that without support.Yes, obviously.&nbsp; I believe that is my point.Only I may note if we accept the first proposition.&nbsp; If we disagree that violence used against another is inherently evil, no comprimise is needed and no inherent contridiction is found in the first place.Again, I believe that is the contrary position.&nbsp; If we start with, &quot;Violence is neutral.&nbsp; Before we can judge it, we must first take a measure of it.&quot;, then the rest of your argument remains intact completely without the need for your first proposition and without the contridiction it immediately raises (obviously, it can't be true that the act of saving someone is both good and evil).Look at it this way.&nbsp; The act of healing someone is also morally neutral.&nbsp; If I'm healing someone merely so I can prolong the torture I'm inflicting on them, all the goodness normally involved in the act is wiped away.&nbsp; This is because the goodness of the act is defined by the love and compassion it manifests (both in intention and in right action, in actually being the thing it proports and strives to be).&nbsp; Likewise, the evilness of the act is defined in the hate and indifference it manifests (both in intention and in its wrongness of not actually being good for the purpose it targets).&nbsp; The amount of violence involved isn't really the key issue.&nbsp; It's why (and how) the scapel is used.When its intended to or actually does cause harm rather than weal.&nbsp; Rhetorical.&nbsp; Is it wrong for me to fight off an adult in the act of harming a child?&nbsp; For a life guard to punch a drowning man, or to tackle terrorist about to commit arson on a building with people in it?&nbsp; For every example of violence being evil, I can raise a counter-example of it being good even by your own given standards.&nbsp; So why do you think that it is the violence that is the moral signifier? It's easier, I agree.&nbsp; My way makes things much harder to judge.&nbsp; But easier doesn't necessarily mean right.&nbsp; &quot;It's wrong to hit.&quot;, is sufficient moral instruction for a child.&nbsp; It's not a very grown up philosophy.Only because you refuse to address it, and keep throwing red herrings out.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 3661977, member: 4937"] Need I remind you that this is the proposition you have to prove. You can't axiomaticly assert it at the beginning and then expect me to accept that without support. Yes, obviously. I believe that is my point. Only I may note if we accept the first proposition. If we disagree that violence used against another is inherently evil, no comprimise is needed and no inherent contridiction is found in the first place. Again, I believe that is the contrary position. If we start with, "Violence is neutral. Before we can judge it, we must first take a measure of it.", then the rest of your argument remains intact completely without the need for your first proposition and without the contridiction it immediately raises (obviously, it can't be true that the act of saving someone is both good and evil). Look at it this way. The act of healing someone is also morally neutral. If I'm healing someone merely so I can prolong the torture I'm inflicting on them, all the goodness normally involved in the act is wiped away. This is because the goodness of the act is defined by the love and compassion it manifests (both in intention and in right action, in actually being the thing it proports and strives to be). Likewise, the evilness of the act is defined in the hate and indifference it manifests (both in intention and in its wrongness of not actually being good for the purpose it targets). The amount of violence involved isn't really the key issue. It's why (and how) the scapel is used. When its intended to or actually does cause harm rather than weal. Rhetorical. Is it wrong for me to fight off an adult in the act of harming a child? For a life guard to punch a drowning man, or to tackle terrorist about to commit arson on a building with people in it? For every example of violence being evil, I can raise a counter-example of it being good [i]even by your own given standards[/i]. So why do you think that it is the violence that is the moral signifier? It's easier, I agree. My way makes things much harder to judge. But easier doesn't necessarily mean right. "It's wrong to hit.", is sufficient moral instruction for a child. It's not a very grown up philosophy. Only because you refuse to address it, and keep throwing red herrings out. [/QUOTE]

Verification