Proselytizing: sometimes morally unsound?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its hard to say. I think someone capable of calming down and walking away deserves more credit than some who isn't so capable. But I fail to see how the intention of one was any less blameworthy than the other.

Now suppose person C gets to the managers office and he isn't in. Is he less blameworthy than person B who actually punched his manager? If not ...[text shortened]... of planning to punch him, you might as well go ahead? I think there are flaws in that argument.

Where did person C come from? 😲

It could be argued of course that 'going to the office' is a commencement of the action itself, not helpful when we're comparing action with intent. The question is, is an intent 'not acted upon' as bad as an act carried out. (In other words, is person D sitting at home thinking about punching his manager as bad as Person B who actually went through with it).

(My manager was out of the office).

Originally posted by FMF
If his point is that going around 'telling people what to think' (whatever that may actually mean) is morally unsound, then that might be an interesting thing to talk about.

In common usage the phrase 'telling people what to think' is taken to convey disapproval of that act. But we all do it, at least if we try to get people to think a certain way about something. We use devices: logical argument, appeal to emotions, authority, etc. the moral judgment seems to involve the legitimacy of the devices, and perhaps the likely outcomes of the thoughts conveyed.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Where did person C come from? 😲

Accounting.

It could be argued of course that 'going to the office' is a commencement of the action itself, not helpful when we're comparing action with intent. The question is, is an intent 'not acted upon' as bad as an act carried out. (In other words, is person D sitting at home thinking about punching his manager as bad as Person B who actually went through with it).
I would say yes, if the intent is real. If D genuinely has every intention of punching his manager, and given the opportunity will do it. I say lack of opportunity or other accidental circumstances should not reduce culpability.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Accounting.

[b]It could be argued of course that 'going to the office' is a commencement of the action itself, not helpful when we're comparing action with intent. The question is, is an intent 'not acted upon' as bad as an act carried out. (In other words, is person D sitting at home thinking about punching his manager as bad as Person B who actually ...[text shortened]... o it. I say lack of opportunity or other accidental circumstances should not reduce culpability.

lol I never trust those chaps in Accounts.

Does it matter about time duration, in regards to intent? What if Person D only has the intent for a short while, and then decides against it? Is he still as culpable as Person K who punches the manager and steals his car?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Attempted murder.
It is the motivation and intention that matter, not the actions.

I would go as far as to say that all bad intentions are as bad as the actions they intend, the only reason why typically do not punish them is that we cannot easily determine someones intentions or read their thoughts ie thought crimes are rarely punished, not because t ...[text shortened]... ure that that warranted charging him with anything, but it is clear that the law thought it did.

You are seriously advocating similar penalties for just thinking about doing something bad.
I'm pretty sure , unless you fully and unequivocally admit to the murder being planned in your mind, you'd have to have some physical evidence first, right?

I bet a lot of people have the intention to murder but never go through with it when it comes to actually committing the crime.
If anything I would commend those people for pulling themselves up in time, rather than punish them for perhaps having revenge fantasies. I dunno, just thinkin out loud here

edit: This post is made without reading the rest of thread yet

Originally posted by twhitehead
They are strongly related. We charge people with crimes when:
1. They are very morally bad.
2. We can prove it.
Criminal codes are a very good indication of what societies believe to be morally wrong.

what about corporate codes? Who are above the law and holden only to their shareholders?

Originally posted by twhitehead
An intention that is just a 'dark fantasy you cannot go through with' is not equivalent to an intention that you will go through with.
I am saying that it remains the intention not the action that renders one morally guilty - although I do recognize the concept of compensation.
I also recognize that intuitively we think there is reduced guilt if an acti ...[text shortened]... sizing about having an affair with her, is not the same as intending to have an affair with her.

What if I fantasize about preparing to murder someone?
Fantasize exactly about how I'm going to do it?

It's still only fantasizing no?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It depends. If your plan includes shouting 'Allah Akbar', then it is immediately a crime that does not even require a trial.

That's ridiculous. of course it requires a trial.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Does it matter about time duration, in regards to intent? What if Person D only has the intent for a short while, and then decides against it? Is he still as culpable as Person K who punches the manager and steals his car?

I don't know. Judging crimes relative to each other is always difficult. Was D also planning to steal the car? What if D was planning to blow up the offices?

I do know that premeditated murder gets a higher sentence than spur of the moment murder.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
That's ridiculous. of course it requires a trial.

That's what all the inmates of Guantanamo believe too. Sadly, reality does not conform to our wishes.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
You are seriously advocating similar penalties for just thinking about doing something bad.

Yes, if it could be proven. It can't, so no, I am not actually advocating it. And I am talking about real intent here, not fantasizing.

I'm pretty sure , unless you fully and unequivocally admit to the murder being planned in your mind, you'd have to have some physical evidence first, right?
I am pretty sure that charges of attempted murder have been made and successfully prosecuted on little more than a phone conversation or chat in a bar.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
What if I fantasize about preparing to murder someone?
Fantasize exactly about how I'm going to do it?

It's still only fantasizing no?

If there is no real intent, then it is only fantasizing.

Originally posted by FMF
There are some Christians here who subscribe to notions promoting the "perfect" nature and "ultimate" morality of inconceivably angry violence as an active and never ending revenge for thoughtcrimes.

If that's what some people believe happens, then so be it. I don't think them having such ideas is morally unsound, in and of itself ~ good luck to them i ...[text shortened]... y imbued with such extraordinary violence and anger be morally unsound in certain circumstances.

Are you trying to say that your view in judgement is correct?

Or do you allow yourself to have a skewed view making your judgement lacking validity?

Originally posted by twhitehead
That's what all the inmates of Guantanamo believe too. Sadly, reality does not conform to our wishes.

but you didn't say guantanamo bay before...
sure you're not pissed at me?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, if it could be proven. It can't, so no, I am not actually advocating it. And I am talking about real intent here, not fantasizing.

[b]I'm pretty sure , unless you fully and unequivocally admit to the murder being planned in your mind, you'd have to have some physical evidence first, right?
I am pretty sure that charges of attempted murder hav ...[text shortened]... been made and successfully prosecuted on little more than a phone conversation or chat in a bar.[/b]

yes, a conversation is a type of action.