Bob Ross

:up:

:up: :kiss:

I definitely do not pursue philosophy to feel righteous or a part of some sort of ‘elite’: I do it to uncover the truth, and to give myself (as well a...

I completely understand wonderer1: this OP is meant to explore, intellectually, the underlying justification for self-defense. Of course, the intellec...

I think the solution to this is to note that harming is not a proper act, because it is an action includes the intentionality behind it; so act of sel...

Absolutely no worries, Philosophim! If you don't want to continue the conversation, then I respect that; and, as always, I look forward to our next on...

I am unsure how to progress the conversation: I keep trying to get you to define what a choice and an action simpliciter are; and you seemed to just a...

The main issue is that we will not be able to find common ground until we both provide clear schemas of the concepts; and, dare I say, your definition...

I thought we made progress, but now that I have gotten you to try to define the concepts it is clear to me that you are still not agreeing on even the...

The circumstances can inform us of how to act, but they never dictate whether an action is right, wrong, or neutral. If stealing is wrong, then one sh...

Like I said before, you haven’t defined them clearly; and your attempts I outlined before: Under my definitions, sneezing upon entering a cave might c...

Since you continue to fail to give an internally coherent definition of the vital concepts at play (e.g., ‘to act’, ‘to choose’, ‘a choice’, etc.), an...

I appreciate the elaboration, and we are getting closer! Ok, so here’s the first problem: nowhere in your exposition of ‘choice’ and ‘to choose’ did y...

Unfortunately, we aren’t making any progress in our discussion so far. The main issue is that your use of the concepts of ‘to choose’ and ‘to act’ are...

I think I understand what you are going for, which is that ‘one must perform an action to avoid another action’. (1) This isn’t true; and (2) even if ...

I find this inadequate, although I appreciate the elaboration. According to your definition here, a person who is brain dead in a coma is ‘acting’ by ...

Good discussion! @"Lionino", I think our conversation went astray because I (or perhaps we) was (or perhaps were) focusing on the pain involved in the...

Unfortunately, I am still not following exactly what you are arguing. I responded with an analysis of “action” and you responded to that response shif...

No, because “harm” is more than just physical pain. My point with @"Lionino" was that the relevant difference between punching someone in self-defense...

They are same thing: what you are referring to is when I refer to a thing as in-itself vs. per accidens bad--e.g., an action that is in-itself bad.

Why is it bound to fail? That is what I want you to elaborate on, and provide justification for. Are you agreeing that self-defense cannot be justifie...

CC: @"Leontiskos" I see why you would say this, but let’s break down what is the act and what is the effect; because you are lumping them together her...

Also, I think I can anticipate the response you may give and I think it may be fruitful for me to anticipate it a bit (; I think you are going to say ...

I apologize Philosophim: I ran out of time to respond earlier. The biggest problem with your analysis is that you see no difference between making a c...

A non-consequentialist does not need to accept that all bad acts are equal: that simply doesn't follow from not being a consequentialist. The differen...

I am not making an argument from ethical egoism: if you would like to import it to explain how one can justify self-defense given the OP’s stipulation...

No. A means is something that facilitates the end: causing pain to the child is not a part of what facilitates the end of giving them immunity; which ...

All else being equal, both are being immoral; but one is an omission and the other a commission, and this can be morally relevant in some circumstance...

I am not beginning with moral principles with respect to my ethical theory: I am a virtue ethicist.

This is not a logical truth whatsoever. Choosing A may entail simultaneously choosing B (e.g., if I choose to go to the grocery store in my car and I ...

Not at all. Everyone who adheres to an ethical theory imports principles into any moral conversation.

No worries :smile: That solution has been grave consequences, though--e.g., rape is no longer bad in-itself, which seems absurd. It seems like we can ...

It is a choice, but not an action. There’s no 50/50 decision being made, because it is morally impermissible to do something bad for the sake of somet...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/926405

I am not suggestion with this OP that self-defense is impermissible: I am questioning how one justifies it with the stipulations made therein.

The vaccination example is disanalogous to the self-defense example: the principle of double effect can easily resolve the dilemma in the case of the ...

Hello Philosophim! I am glad to hear from you again. I purposely left out the analysis of the entire ethical framework which I implicitly imported in ...

Firstly, you have to clarify what you mean by “happiness”—e.g., hedonic, eudaimonic, autonomistic, etc. If by “happiness” you mean roughly ‘well-being...

CC: @"Fooloso4" Aristotle says, in the Metaphysics, that an essence, or form, is per se being (as opposed to per accidens being); or, in other words, ...

I may have been too loose with my terminology: a knife does not have more than one function—it has one function which is comprised of lesser functions...

I wasn’t talking about ‘injecting’ souls into other bodies: I was talking about the essence of a thing. Likewise, just because a thing has an essence ...

The problem with your example is that a knife has more than the function of cutting; but let’s hypothesize a new tool which has only the purpose of cu...

So we can further the discussion, please point out what is wrong with this claim within the context of Aristotelianism: P1: If something is 'good' IFF...

You are sidestepping the hypothetical. It is akin to if I asked you "if you had $1,000,000,000,000,000, then what would you buy?" and your response wa...

Whether or not such a species would fit well into the “ordered whole” of nature is irrelevant: if the good of a thing is relative to its telos such th...

The form of a thing is its nature (i.e., its essence), and its nature is not fully realized upon beginning to exist nor arguably ever. The form is its...

Nothing you said addressed anything I said...at all.

I've been reading through Aristotle's "Metaphysics", and I think I understand Aristotle's points enough to start tackling this post you made. This is ...

Physics cannot describe logic: the latter is presupposed for the former. E.g., to describe the physical relations of things, one must first presuppose...

There is no 'the good' in Aristotelian ethics and, consequently, there is no universal good which all species are geared towards. So I don't think Foo...