Quantumm
Posts: 53
Joined: 1/28/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leonidas
quote:
ORIGINAL: Quantumm
In a moral sense, none of those extra remediations would be warranted if my breakage were a simple instance of clumsiness, yet any or all of them might be morally justified (and therefore legally imposed) if I had deliberately broken that vase.
You judge the man that is prone to agression and violence more harshly than the man who is to a greater or lesser degree unthinking and clumsy. That is a natural judgement. He is more dangerous. Where you and I may differ though is that your moral judgment sees his behavior wholly as a failing of his rational mind, rather than attributing it, at least to some degree, to the kind of man he is.
Tal, Leonidas.
My judgment of the man -- in this matter -- would begin with the observation of his behavior, but it certainly wouldn't end there.
Consider this idea: "behind every act, there's an intent; behind every intent, there's a belief."
Clearly the man behaved violently (the act). Is the mere perception of that act sufficient for us to know anything about his intent or belief? I say no.
On a practical note, it's utterly sensible for an observer to acknowledge the violence near him and to decide whether to flee or fight. That's more an estimation of the behavior and it's potential impact on us, regardless of who it is that's behaving that way, i.e., it matters not if the man is 5'11" or 6'4" -- the risk of being hit with a vase flying through the air is the same. That's a practical judgment.
On a moral note, what can an observer say about the violent man? Is he a 'good' man, or a 'bad' man? Is this kind of violence something he expresses consistently, or is this outburst an exception rather than the rule? Are his outbursts associated with some transitory traumatic event in his life or does there seem to be no rhyme or reason to his temper?
None of these questions need to be asked, or answered, before making a practical judgment, but they ought to be asked when we aspire to evaluate the man morally. And it's this kind of moral evaluation of a man that I think occurs far too often in this life, even by otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people.
To put this back into the realm of your reply, I remain persuaded that 'the kind of man he is' (a moral judgment) cannot reliably be concluded from a single exposure to a single behavior.
(Incidentally, the idea of being 'prone to' aggression and violence wasn't part of what I intended to convey in my hypothetical scenario; I chose a single instance of a single outburst precisely to simplify the discussion by intentionally eliminating additional variables: history of violence, motivating factors, etc.).
To further tie this back into the larger question of whether 'honor' is innate, I wonder now if I'm barking up the wrong tree? Am I arguing against a strawman idea of my own unintentional creation? I thought you were saying "honor undergirds 'right action,' and the reason some men behave dishonorably is because they have none of this quality -- honor -- from birth."
If that's what you meant, then I'll close with this:
If honor is innate at birth, and a man's behavior suggests the presence or absence of honor, it seems unreasonable to morally judge the man for something over which he had no choice.
For the record, I believe men are morally responsible for their actions, ergo, I believe it 'right' to hold men accountable for their actions.
If that's not what you meant, well... guess I'm having a dense moment here :)
_____________________________
I wish you well,
Quantumm
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
~ Arthur Schopenhauer
|
RE: Goreans on Earth - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread