To keep things simple, I was saying they do it to other species; and this is how they are biologically wired to do in order to achieve their own well-...
How so? I don’t see how a devil species, as outlined, would be contrary to nature anymore than lions eating their prey, diseases killing people slowly...
Then why not reference that in the OP? Otherwise, it is simply too vague. This is a poorly translated sentence into logic: the fact that allen never l...
It is a species that, as per its nature, can only achieve a deep and persistent sense of happiness, flourishing, and well-being by committing egregiou...
The entirety of this debate revolves around a vague OP: If you are asking: "Is 'A -> B && A -> !B' a contradiction (i.e., itself contradictory)?" Then...
Of course. All branches of philosophy are interrelated; but we tend to focus on one or the other for the sake of the conversation. Ethics presupposes ...
Generally, yes. But would it be morally intuitive to say that a social species that maintains their society by torturing another social species as doi...
That's fair; but I mean a species that inflicts torture, suffering, etc. on other species for the sake of their own well-being; which is generally und...
This OP is about Aristotle's Eudemian and Nichomachean Ethics; not his Metaphysics, Politics, or Physics. If anything in those books is relevant to th...
You are reading the OP too literally: let me clarify. What I meant by “devil species” is what you are calling a “devilish species”. I am talking about...
It can be; but I think Aristotle is very clear that Telos is just contingent on an agent’s intentions or purposes for things. Wouldn’t you agree that ...
I think he definitely keeps definitions entirely too vague; but I don't see anything wrong with the concept of an essence or final causes (telos): do ...
This is a mischaracterization of evil as privation. No one reputable denies that a person can aim at being unjust, cruel, etc. It happens all the time...
Good exposition of Aristotle's thoughts; but it doesn't really address the OP: it seems to sidestep it. From what I can gather from your comment, you ...
I have no problem with the fact that we can reverse engineer, usually, the intention from the actions; but it does not follow that all the effects of ...
I think no matter which normative ethical view one takes, it will have to hold some set of absolute moral principles as fundamental; however, this doe...
Then you are not talking about intentionality as it is commonly and predominantly understood. So we are talking past each other. I am only interested ...
This is just an example of a thing not fulfilling its end properly; and NOT that it had no end. It is uncontroversially true that the body develops th...
I have no problem with the idea that our intentions are actualized imperfectly; and I don't deny that people can be held responsible for their neglige...
Just because something is caused by something done intentionally, it does not follow that that effect was intentional. You are forgetting or omitting ...
I don’t think he is. I think he is clarifying what is most good and noting that goods are what we aim at. Even the first sentence would contradict his...
Saying "we ought to be virtuous" is expressing a duty to being virtuous: I take those to be the same thing, so I am not following your distinctions he...
This doesn’t negate in the slightest that we are biologically predetermined in various ways: which is just to say that our bodies have functions. Thos...
You just described the essential difference between them. Yes, the cause and the effect can be separated in this way because, you are forgetting, inte...
Why would we have to choose between deontology or consequentialism? This kind of distinction, where what we ought to do is squarely in the realm of de...
I separated the hysterectomy abortion from a “traditional” abortion; and each were outlined with 1 good effect and 1 bad effect—totally two effects ea...
Your translations help clarify a bit. My translation says: Which is, compared to your citations, a poor translation (apparently). Irregardless, if I t...
Yes. No one would say I intentionally killed someone by drunk driving if they knew for certain that I genuinely did not foresee the serious possibilit...
Not necessarily. If the side effect is not easily foreseen, then we typically don't consider it intentional; or we might say that it was intentional i...
Most interesting. I am also a virtue ethicist; but wouldn't you agree that even a virtue ethicist needs to formulate generally or even absolutely appl...
@"Leontiskos" is using a very Aristotelian concept of choice; whereas @"Banno" is using it in the modern sense. For Aristotle, an act can be voluntary...
The OP is NOT contending with whether or not a standard abortion is wrong or not: it is just using it as an example for the principle of double effect...
If there is a foreseen effect to one's actions, then it is intentional. If it isn't foreseen, then I agree that it is accidental but that doesn't enta...
A direct intention is anything which is a part of the directional flow of what is aimed at (as the end); whereas indirect intention is anything which ...
That's not a definition of the concept of good: he just mentioned that it has been rightly (according to him) said that what is good is what everythin...
@"Count Timothy von Icarus" CC: @"Herg" I see a mention was made in this discussion board (OP) by Herg, but when I visit the link it says "not found":...
Comments