Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3662136" data-attributes="member: 4937">I think this is the crux of our disagreement, and if we continued to argue on different topics we'd probably find this one behind most of our disagreements.I think motive and intent can change the moral value of the actual individual action at hand only if that action is morally nuetral.&nbsp; If the action isn't morally nuetral, then all the good intentions you may have don't make it good.&nbsp; Actions with inherent moral qualities aren't transformed by what we think about them or what we were trying to do when we did them.That is not to say that some thing which are morally neutral might not more easily slip one way or the other.&nbsp; We might want to excercise more caution with regard to some things as to others because of thier capacity for harm when done waywardly, carelessly, or whatever.&nbsp; But being dangerous isn't the same as being evil.&nbsp; &quot;And you to are dangerous in your own way Gimli Gloin's son.&nbsp; You are beset by dangers.&quot; - LotR (from memory)I think that this is the strongest argument you've advanced so far, and I'll have to think about it before preparing a full response.&nbsp; To begin with, it seems to me that there might be many things absent from a world where there was no evil, which in the context of a world with evil we would want to say are morally good.&nbsp; For example, in a world without fatigue, what is the need for rest?&nbsp; In a world without pain, there would be no healing either for no reason but that we would lack the need.&nbsp; You argued that healing taken by itself is inherently good, but its missing from our completely good world.&nbsp; We would also no know grief, and being grieved is bad but surely grief is good.&nbsp; There would be no repentence, for needing to repent is bad, but surely repentence is good.&nbsp; Likewise, we would not need to oppose evil, for surely evil wouldn't be in a world of perfect good, but isn't opposing evil good?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 3662136, member: 4937"] I think this is the crux of our disagreement, and if we continued to argue on different topics we'd probably find this one behind most of our disagreements. I think motive and intent can change the moral value of the actual individual action at hand only if that action is morally nuetral. If the action isn't morally nuetral, then all the good intentions you may have don't make it good. Actions with inherent moral qualities aren't transformed by what we think about them or what we were trying to do when we did them. That is not to say that some thing which are morally neutral might not more easily slip one way or the other. We might want to excercise more caution with regard to some things as to others because of thier capacity for harm when done waywardly, carelessly, or whatever. But being dangerous isn't the same as being evil. "And you to are dangerous in your own way Gimli Gloin's son. You are beset by dangers." - LotR (from memory) I think that this is the strongest argument you've advanced so far, and I'll have to think about it before preparing a full response. To begin with, it seems to me that there might be many things absent from a world where there was no evil, which in the context of a world with evil we would want to say are morally good. For example, in a world without fatigue, what is the need for rest? In a world without pain, there would be no healing either for no reason but that we would lack the need. You argued that healing taken by itself is inherently good, but its missing from our completely good world. We would also no know grief, and being grieved is bad but surely grief is good. There would be no repentence, for needing to repent is bad, but surely repentence is good. Likewise, we would not need to oppose evil, for surely evil wouldn't be in a world of perfect good, but isn't opposing evil good? [/QUOTE]

Verification