General Pace is Immoral

Generally, yes. There are some beliefs that can't be justified, however. Emotions are just emotions: it's all in how you deal with them. An opinion is what comes later, and for those we are each responsible.

Yeah but seemingly from what you have said before it doesn't matter if people have bad opinions as long as nothing bad comes of them and if bad opinions result in good actions the good it creates should be the only thing it is judged by.

Am I correct?
 
IHG,Depends on the definition of good and bad, which is also subjective.

$4 /gal gas is good for profits, but bad for the consumer, but good for conservation in the long run. Is this what you mean ? If so my response is yes and no :D
 
IHateGovernment said:
Generally, yes. There are some beliefs that can't be justified, however. Emotions are just emotions: it's all in how you deal with them. An opinion is what comes later, and for those we are each responsible.

Yeah but seemingly from what you have said before it doesn't matter if people have bad opinions as long as nothing bad comes of them and if bad opinions result in good actions the good it creates should be the only thing it is judged by.

Am I correct?
Click to expand...
In criminal matters and for public policy, yes: actions alone matter. One could believe, for example, that the African "race" (sic) is inherently inferior without being a criminal. Freedom of belief is a sound public policy. The opinion the African "race" (sic) is inherently inferior is still immoral, however.

It's emotions and motives that I usually discount. Opinions are different. We all have prejudices and emotions that are generally classed as negative. I certainly do. I try very hard not to let those prejudices and emotions determine my considered opinions, however.

Consider this as a concrete example. I tend to dislike evangelical Christians intensely. That is a prejudice and an emotional reaction. My opinion, however, is that there are many good and decent evangelicals out there. I haven't personally met any but then I haven't looked either.

It doesn't matter to me why someone might believe that homosexual behavior is immoral. The opinion itself, if genuine and not just a hasty judgment, is unacceptable to me.
 
I always thought Gay neighborhoods were a weard concept. I never quite understood how they came about or why they existed. I am glad they are begining to blur away as it means we are getting healthier as a society.

I always enjoyed Key West and Parts of Washington, D.C. that were considered Gay. I only vistitd San Fran twice but had a great time both times.
 
In criminal matters and for public policy, yes: actions alone matter. One could believe, for example, that the African "race" (sic) is inherently inferior without being a criminal. Freedom of belief is a sound public policy. The opinion the African "race" (sic) is inherently inferior is still immoral, however.

It appears that what you previously said only applies to the judicial system then. I can understand that though I still disagree. A persons motives make a difference to me though in the justice system. The justice system is a social remedy to cure criminals of their propensity for crime. If a person robs and shoots a clerk for money the problem is not as difficult to resolve as if someone shot someone because they enjoyed the act of killing. Thus sentences should be different and I do judge the latter as more immoral than the former regardless of whether the result is the same because the solution is different.

It's emotions and motives that I usually discount. Opinions are different. We all have prejudices and emotions that are generally classed as negative. I certainly do. I try very hard not to let those prejudices and emotions determine my considered opinions, however.

Emotions and motives are important though in predicting future behavior and also how best to deal with an individual. You are crippling yourself if you disregard such information.

Consider this as a concrete example. I tend to dislike evangelical Christians intensely. That is a prejudice and an emotional reaction. My opinion, however, is that there are many good and decent evangelicals out there. I haven't personally met any but then I haven't looked either.

Ok I accept that.

It doesn't matter to me why someone might believe that homosexual behavior is immoral. The opinion itself, if genuine and not just a hasty judgment, is unacceptable to me.

It doesn't change the fact that it is unacceptable to you but it does affect how you may interract with such a person. If a person is a sheep of the flock and believe that homosexuality is immoral merely because their religion says so or their pastor says so that is qualitatively different then if a person through some kind of ethical calculus determines homosexuality is immoral because it is a waste of energy toward more productive pursuits.

Weighing rationale and reasons may not change how we accept an outcome but it is a good predictor of future behavior and how best to deal with it.
 
IHateGovernment said:
In criminal matters and for public policy, yes: actions alone matter. One could believe, for example, that the African "race" (sic) is inherently inferior without being a criminal. Freedom of belief is a sound public policy. The opinion the African "race" (sic) is inherently inferior is still immoral, however.

It appears that what you previously said only applies to the judicial system then. I can understand that though I still disagree. A persons motives make a difference to me though in the justice system. The justice system is a social remedy to cure criminals of their propensity for crime. If a person robs and shoots a clerk for money the problem is not as difficult to resolve as if someone shot someone because they enjoyed the act of killing. Thus sentences should be different and I do judge the latter as more immoral than the former regardless of whether the result is the same because the solution is different.

It's emotions and motives that I usually discount. Opinions are different. We all have prejudices and emotions that are generally classed as negative. I certainly do. I try very hard not to let those prejudices and emotions determine my considered opinions, however.

Emotions and motives are important though in predicting future behavior and also how best to deal with an individual. You are crippling yourself if you disregard such information.

Consider this as a concrete example. I tend to dislike evangelical Christians intensely. That is a prejudice and an emotional reaction. My opinion, however, is that there are many good and decent evangelicals out there. I haven't personally met any but then I haven't looked either.

Ok I accept that.

It doesn't matter to me why someone might believe that homosexual behavior is immoral. The opinion itself, if genuine and not just a hasty judgment, is unacceptable to me.

It doesn't change the fact that it is unacceptable to you but it does affect how you may interract with such a person. If a person is a sheep of the flock and believe that homosexuality is immoral merely because their religion says so or their pastor says so that is qualitatively different then if a person through some kind of ethical calculus determines homosexuality is immoral because it is a waste of energy toward more productive pursuits.

Weighing rationale and reasons may not change how we accept an outcome but it is a good predictor of future behavior and how best to deal with it.
Click to expand...

I'm of two minds on this. I think Ornot makes some very compelling arguments on the irrelevence of intentions. But, I would find it hard, if I were on a jury, to discount intent. I can't help feeling there is a difference between someone who kills someone while driving drunk, and someone who stalks someone with the sole purpose of murdering them.

And yet, I see that in both cases, the victims are equally dead.
 
Darla said:
I'm of two minds on this. I think Ornot makes some very compelling arguments on the irrelevence of intentions. But, I would find it hard, if I were on a jury, to discount intent. I can't help feeling there is a difference between someone who kills someone while driving drunk, and someone who stalks someone with the sole purpose of murdering them.

And yet, I see that in both cases, the victims are equally dead.
Click to expand...
Oh, I may overstate my contempt for discrimination based on intent just a wee tad. ;)

Of course intent matters when we're talking about justice. Particularly criminal justice. That's the whole distinction between murder and manslaughter, for example.

Where I think that intent should be largely or entirely ignored is in judging public policy. There, we're talking about large groups of people and generalizations of intent. Generalizations of emotional state are, in my view, almost entirely worthless.
 
Are you suggesting he not be allowed to speak about what he believes? He has every right to say he thinks it is immoral. Just as you have the right to disagree with him.

He isn't giving his opinion as a private citizen but as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

If he had a moral objection to, for example, Muslims, should he air it a cJCS?
 
'm of two minds on this. I think Ornot makes some very compelling arguments on the irrelevence of intentions. But, I would find it hard, if I were on a jury, to discount intent. I can't help feeling there is a difference between someone who kills someone while driving drunk, and someone who stalks someone with the sole purpose of murdering them.

And yet, I see that in both cases, the victims are equally dead.

That is why we have different degrees of murder as well as a distinction with manslaughter. The justice system can more easily remedy a drunk driving manslauterer than a homicidal lunatic.
 
Where I think that intent should be largely or entirely ignored is in judging public policy. There, we're talking about large groups of people and generalizations of intent. Generalizations of emotional state are, in my view, almost entirely worthless.

I can think of some things where this is true and some things where it is false. However would you provide examples so I am not arguing against phantoms?
 
Not if its a political issue about the military. Pace is the one who has to deal with the consequences of what the politicians do.

I think he is wrong and an ashhole actually. But him speaking his mind was warranted. I don't think if a general came out against don't ask don't tell that you guys would be as critical.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Not if its a political issue about the military. Pace is the one who has to deal with the consequences of what the politicians do.

I think he is wrong and an ashhole actually. But him speaking his mind was warranted. I don't think if a general came out against don't ask don't tell that you guys would be as critical.
Click to expand...

This guy feels the same about the keep em in the closet policy. If we mix men and women I see no problem mixing gays and hetros as long as they do their job.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Not if its a political issue about the military. Pace is the one who has to deal with the consequences of what the politicians do.

I think he is wrong and an ashhole actually. But him speaking his mind was warranted. I don't think if a general came out against don't ask don't tell that you guys would be as critical.
Click to expand...
If the CEO of my company said in an interview that homosexuality is immoral there would be consequences. First and foremost, he'd lose several very good employees. The morale of everyone else would take a hit too. Saying such a thing, whether he believed it or not, would be irresponsible.





For the record, Tom would never say such a thing because he doesn't believe anything so stupid. :)
 
If the CEO of my company said in an interview that homosexuality is immoral there would be consequences. First and foremost, he'd lose several very good employees. The morale of everyone else would take a hit too. Saying such a thing, whether he believed it or not, would be irresponsible.





For the record, Tom would never say such a thing because he doesn't believe anything so stupid.

No argument here. My point was about whether it is appropriate for Pace to comment at all not whether his rationale is appropriate.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Generally, yes. There are some beliefs that can't be justified, however. Emotions are just emotions: it's all in how you deal with them. An opinion is what comes later, and for those we are each responsible.
Click to expand...

hmmmm???

is adultery immoral? is incest immoral? is pedophilia immoral? is rape immoral? is stealing from another immoral?

all just individual emotion as you say...?
 
Different people have different standards for what is immoral.

My standard is that which is done to cause harm to another or that which is totally indifferent to the harm caused to another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top