-->
@Tarik
Oh god here we go again
Why is murder actually wrong.
Posts
Total:
458
-->
@Tarik
Yet you question if I’m a troll, interesting 🤔.
This was the most recent example.
-->
@Username
Was it or was it not responsive?
-->
@Tarik
Was it or was it not responsive?
It responded to the thing I previously said, but...
You were joking right? Just to be clear.
-->
@Username
You were joking right? Just to be clear.
Why? Were you joking when you questioned my genuineness?
-->
@Tarik
Why? Were you joking when you questioned my genuineness?
Because you equated one hyperbolic comment with trolling. And no I was uncertain.
-->
@Username
It wasn’t exactly clear to me that it was a hyperbolic comment, I honestly thought we were making somewhat of a breakthrough and then you took that away by saying you weren’t being serious and then you tried to put it back under conditions (not sure it works that way) and if that’s not the literal definition of trolling then what is? Let me be clear I think I’ve spoken to you long enough to not be convinced your a troll but based on this specific encounter alone one can reasonably assume different.
-->
@Tarik
What are you talking about? You said you have the right to call me out on an inconsistency. I said sure do whatever you want (obviously hyperbole), since I already clarified why I thought it wasn't inconsistent. It seems that simple to me.
-->
@Tarik
Are you changing the meaning of your messages after you write them? If so that might play a part in it.
-->
@Username
since I already clarified why I thought it wasn't inconsistent.
But you didn’t.
-->
@Tarik
You realize that any unjust violation of people is procedurally wrong no matter what the consequences are? But maintaining a functional society is a consequential concept, and the significance of consequences in a moral calculus depends on their severity.
I've been quoting myself quite a bit recently.
-->
@Username
That quote was not what I was responding to.
-->
@Tarik
I was explaining the supposed inconsistency that you were responding to, no?
-->
@Username
...No
-->
@Tarik
Well I thought we were talking about a supposed inconsistency that you saw in my position.
-->
@Username
We were but not that specific comment that you quoted.
-->
@Tarik
Right but that comment addressed the supposed inconsistency you said you had the right to call out. So what's the problem?
-->
@Username
But maintaining a functional society is a consequential concept, and the significance of consequences in a moral calculus depends on their severity.
Yeah like whether or not they should receive the penalty should depend on the severity of the crime such as murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.
-->
@Tarik
Yeah like whether or not they should receive the penalty should depend on the severity of the crime such as murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.
Is that your opinion or is this another "inconsistency"?
Also, that's not what I meant by "consequences". By consequences I did not mean punishment, I meant literally the consequences of an action. Words have multiple meanings.
And I don't see any reason why they should be killed just because they committed a severe crime.
-->
@Username
By consequences I did not mean punishment, I meant literally the consequences of an action.
Isn’t the death penalty a consequence of the action of murdering someone? Please clarify.
-->
@Tarik
and the significance of consequences in a moral calculus depends on their severity.
The death penalty is a consequence, but if you substituted death penalty in that sentence it wouldn't make sense:
and the significance of death penalty depends on its severity.
Which is an obvious truism.
The point is that not all the importance of results of something (like a society being more or less functional) depend on how extreme those results are. if the consequences of a society becoming more or less functional are not very high, then I typically defer to respecting people's liberties, because violate someone's liberties is always a severe issue that outweighs small consequences as it is always procedurally wrong to violate someone's liberties. However, if consequences are extremely large, they can outweigh procedural wrongs. Hence, making society a little more functional is not worth a procedural violation of liberties, but ensuring that society is functional at all is (usually).
Take this for example: Say the government saved five people with the organs of one person that they killed. That would be totally unethical. However, say the government had to kill an innocent person or the entire would would end. It is far less clear that that is wrong.
-->
@Username
The death penalty is a consequence, but if you substituted death penalty in that sentence it wouldn't make sense:
No but it would if you substituted it with punishment.
and the significance of punishment in a moral calculus depends on their severity.
-->
@Tarik
and the significance of punishment in a moral calculus depends on their severity.
The significance of a punishment in a moral calculus depends on the severity of the punishment?
-->
@Tarik
In my initial statement, "significance" and "severity" refer to the same thing.
-->
@Username
of the punishment
...No of the crime.
-->
@Tarik
...No of the crime.
You can't just change the meaning of my sentence to something that is fundamentally different than what I initially expressed.
-->
@Tarik
*edited
-->
@Username
What’s the difference? I asked for clarification before and all you did was modify your own sentence.
-->
@Tarik
I said that the importance of the consequences of an action in a moral calculus depends on the severity of the consequence.
You implied that that's inconsistent with my positions because you thought I said that: What the consequences (of a crime for example) ought to be depends on the action that led to those consequences.
Those statements clearly express different things. What you think I said isn't actually what I meant and so nothing I said there is inconsistent with what I said before.
And don't start with the "I didn't actually say that" because I clearly expressed the meanings of what both of us just said.
The consequences in your statement are consequences that are linked to an action by choice. The consequences in my statement are the consequences that occur directly as a result of the action, like a ball moving as a result of it being pushed. That should be enough to show that the statement you extrapolated out of my statement and the actual meaning of my statement are two different things.
-->
@Tarik
In addition, you changed what the "severity" in my statement referred to. In my actual statement it referred to consequences, and in yours it referred to actions. So that should answer your question
What’s the difference?
But it probably won't because you may or may not come up with some other semantical argument.