Recently, there's been a focus on "distracted" or "impaired" driving. Among the proscribed impairments is exhaustion.
But alertness lies on a continuum -- from right after your first coffee in the morning, until you fall asleep at 2am.
Across this continuum, the risk you're posing to other drivers by getting on the road yourself increases. In contrast to drunk driving, there's no clear line in this case, yet the risk you pose from driving while extremely tired may be greater!
The getting milk vs. driving drunk are NOT the same thing. The danger has increased. That's the difference. Beyond that, no there isn't much difference, unless you believe that you will probably kill someone. Most think they can handle it, as wrong as many of them are.
How is it unforeseen? Have you not seen sober people in accidents? Ever turn the dial on your radio? Ever look out the window? Accidents are caused by these things and people are often aware that this is the case. It's easily preventable too. Don't use the radio. At least TRY not to look out the window. Don't talk to anyone else in the car.
Now we don't because we think we can handle this, and most of the time we are right. Same thing with DUI, just people are wrong a little more often.
This isn't about justifying drunk driving. It's about showing that drunk driving isn't wrong objectively and how that applies to other things. All of those other scenarios are negligence. Unless you are doing everything in your power to prevent yourself from causing an accident, including not driving, you are putting others at risk. In our minds we've created a subjective line. Risks above that line are deemed "wrong" and ones below are "acceptable".
Is there a JUSTIFIABLE reason to get into your car drunk and take someone's life, yes or no?
I NEVER said that drunk driving was objectively wrong. I used it as an everyday example to illustrate my point about child molestation. That was all it was.
There is a justifiable reason to get into the car drunk, even though it is possible you could kill someone. You are out with your friend drinking and they trip and impale themselves on broken branch. They are still alive and you have no cell phone. It's late at night and no one to flag down. If you don't hurry they will die but your BAC is .015.
Again, we are still going off onto a tangent here. What were you and your friend doing out driving drunk in the first place? You couldn't have gotten out to the woods without a vehicle, not to mention the alcohol you brought with you.
By presenting a legit *reason* to get into the car drunk, your illustration proves my point about JUSTIFICATION.
So....I'm still waiting for a legitimate *reason* on HOW your pleasure justifies the damage you cause to your child by sexually molesting them.
And I'm waiting for a legitimate reason HOW your pleasure for eating ice cream justifies you getting into a car and killing someone.
Or show me any justification that doesn't address the reason why it is wrong.
Maybe you could tell me how your need to get rid of a headache justifies you taking the last asprin that your house guest a week later needed to survive a stroke.
These things ARE justifiable, but not if limited to intentions.
I'm using this to show why you're wrong about CM. You'll probably ask if getting drunk is a reason to kill someone, but these are unrelated. Getting drunk has nothing to do with the consequences, Being drunk has consequences but the desire to get drunk is not accomplished specifically through killing.
You can't ask if something that doesn't address the negative consequences justifies the negative consequences happening. Incentive to do something and dissentive to do something are separate.
But what you are asking for is unfair. You're asking for an intention to justify a negative consequence.
Your desire to eat ice cream does not justify the pain you cause the little girl across the street that sees you eating it and can't have any. But you ARE justified for a number of reasons. You don't know the girl was watching you, someone else wanting something doesn't mean you can't have it, etc. Intentions aren't supposed to justify negative consequences.
It's unfair for a person to molest a child in the first place.
This is WHY they would have to present a good REASON for doing what they did.
But we all know there is NO good reason to do this.
And I CAN ask for an intention to justify a negative consequence. We do this all of the time HD. If I kill Hitler (negative consequence) to prevent him murdering innocent (justifiable intent) people, I am justified.
Ah, but that's not your pleasure justifying eating the ice cream. You are saying the negative consequences doesn't make your action wrong for "x" reason, which you wouldn't let me do.
So how does your pleasure justify the pain the girl felt?
See what you are doing? Your pleasure was the reason you did it, and there was a negative consequence. Now the pleasure itself wouldn't justify it, what would justify it is exactly everything you mentioned, plus many other things. The point is under your problem pleasure doens't justify ANYTHING that has any negative consequence. Pleasure doesn't address consequences, you have to have a reason the consequences aren't enough to make it wrong.
My pleasure was the reason I ATE THE ICE CREAM. That's it.
What does this have to do with anyone else? My pleasure was between me and the ice cream, no one else was involved. No one else has a stake in what I am doing here. I don't owe anything to anybody.
In regards to CM, my pleasure IS THE REASON I MOLEST THE CHILD.
I am not getting my pleasure from an inanimate object, or from food.
I am getting my pleasure at the expense of a child.
The only difference is that the affect is indirect vs direct.
So in that case my pleasure to play music as loudly as I want at any time of the day or night justifies it? Your pleasure is between you and the music. You don't owe anyone anything. You are getting your pleasure from an inanimate object.
If you argue that the music is disrutping someone else then so does the ice cream.
Again, I am NOT arguing this position. This is NOT the topic of our conversation. We are primarily talking about child molestation. This Hitler example was given to illustrate my point.
But to address what you said:
1. I gave you the consequence AND the intent of that consequence.
2. I did NOT say that I killed Hitler for enjoyment.
3. I said that I killed Hitler because he was murdering millions of innocent people.
Do you see?
Intent + consequence = what sort of action it was.
Yes, and to address what I said, you did the same thing I did with CM. The same thing that you rejected. I gave a justification for CM but you asked to justify CM with only pleasure. I'm asking you to justify killing hilter for only pleasure to prove a point..
People would be justified to kill hitler for pleasure, because the intentions justify themselves, UNTIL a negative comes in, then you have to show why the negative isn't enough to make it wrong.
I'm reminded of Dexter. Dexter kills for pleasure, that is his justification. Is it enough? Some would argue yes in his case, because he doesn't kill innocent people, but bad people. Mind you none of this is objective.
You are trying to pin down one thing and isolate it in one situation as the only thing to be considered in justifying an action.
I can say I want something, and you can say its wrong because it hurts someone, and I can give a reason why what you consider harm is good.
Then it would be a different story. I'm not saying children aren't innocent. I'm not defending child molestation. I'm saying that while intent is something to take into consideration, you can cut it off from everything else. Morality isn't so insulated. You have to take as much as you can into consideration.
Killing hitler is wrong and unjustified if you just look at the pleasure the person gets from it, but when you zoom out, that same action was in reality justified.
"You have to take as much as you can into consideration."
Exactly, which is why you would include intent as well as the consequence, PLUS circumstance.
So you can't base objective morality COMPLETELY on the consequences. "Killing is wrong" for example.
You have to include intent and circumstance as well.
"Killing your mom to get money out of her purse" includes both the consequence and the intent. By including this the action acquires a moral identity. You know what sort of action it was.
Pleasure is a reason unto it self. It speaks to nothing outside itself. Pleasure should always be had UNLESS there is a negative consequence to that pleasure.
In the case of CM, there usually is a negative consequence, but it is possible that in the purportrators mind and in reality, that a positive good would come about from it.
1. Imagine that I am a pyromaniac, who burns down your house because of the rush I get from it.
2. Because your house and ALL of your belongings were completely destroyed in the fire, you are forced to collect insurance. So you build a new house.
3. As the person who burned your house down, am I even REMOTELY entitled to take credit for this? Am I entitled to SHARE in your new house?
The same can also be said for insulating the consequence APART from the intent.
And I don't know if killing Hitler for pleasure can be wholly justified in and of itself.
What you have to distinguish here is just because we are all better off that he's dead, and are happy about that, this does not necessarily justify the MOTIVES the person had for killing him.
Would anyone really complain about it?
I doubt it
But if it really came down to it and the motives were examined, it may be different
We often drive when we could walk, yet that isn't considered neglegence. We are putting others lives at risk because we don't feel like walking or don't want to spend the time. But again, if you get into the car to get milk that's half a mile away and kill someone, is anyone going to say your need to get milk didn't justify you killing the person? No, because we as a society have agreed being able to do such activities is worth the risk. The family might believe you were wrong to have drove.
Recently, there's been a focus on "distracted" or "impaired" driving. Among the proscribed impairments is exhaustion.
But alertness lies on a continuum -- from right after your first coffee in the morning, until you fall asleep at 2am.
Across this continuum, the risk you're posing to other drivers by getting on the road yourself increases. In contrast to drunk driving, there's no clear line in this case, yet the risk you pose from driving while extremely tired may be greater!
jagmarz 2 years ago
I'd have to ask you this then:
Give me an example of a justification for something that doesn't address the reason it is believed to be wrong.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
The getting milk vs. driving drunk are NOT the same thing. The danger has increased. That's the difference. Beyond that, no there isn't much difference, unless you believe that you will probably kill someone. Most think they can handle it, as wrong as many of them are.
You forgot the "2" in the title.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Yes there is still a huge difference at the base level.
One is willful negligence which IS PREVENTABLE.
The other is UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES.
vbfl920 2 years ago
How is it unforeseen? Have you not seen sober people in accidents? Ever turn the dial on your radio? Ever look out the window? Accidents are caused by these things and people are often aware that this is the case. It's easily preventable too. Don't use the radio. At least TRY not to look out the window. Don't talk to anyone else in the car.
Now we don't because we think we can handle this, and most of the time we are right. Same thing with DUI, just people are wrong a little more often.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Ok, is pointing out EVERY OTHER possible, exhaustive scenario, going to somehow JUSTIFY drunk driving?
vbfl920 2 years ago
This isn't about justifying drunk driving. It's about showing that drunk driving isn't wrong objectively and how that applies to other things. All of those other scenarios are negligence. Unless you are doing everything in your power to prevent yourself from causing an accident, including not driving, you are putting others at risk. In our minds we've created a subjective line. Risks above that line are deemed "wrong" and ones below are "acceptable".
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Ok, this is going off into a tangent.
Is there a JUSTIFIABLE reason to get into your car drunk and take someone's life, yes or no?
I NEVER said that drunk driving was objectively wrong. I used it as an everyday example to illustrate my point about child molestation. That was all it was.
It was never the topic of conversation.
vbfl920 2 years ago
There is a justifiable reason to get into the car drunk, even though it is possible you could kill someone. You are out with your friend drinking and they trip and impale themselves on broken branch. They are still alive and you have no cell phone. It's late at night and no one to flag down. If you don't hurry they will die but your BAC is .015.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Again, we are still going off onto a tangent here. What were you and your friend doing out driving drunk in the first place? You couldn't have gotten out to the woods without a vehicle, not to mention the alcohol you brought with you.
By presenting a legit *reason* to get into the car drunk, your illustration proves my point about JUSTIFICATION.
So....I'm still waiting for a legitimate *reason* on HOW your pleasure justifies the damage you cause to your child by sexually molesting them.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Camping and spending the night.
And I'm waiting for a legitimate reason HOW your pleasure for eating ice cream justifies you getting into a car and killing someone.
Or show me any justification that doesn't address the reason why it is wrong.
Maybe you could tell me how your need to get rid of a headache justifies you taking the last asprin that your house guest a week later needed to survive a stroke.
These things ARE justifiable, but not if limited to intentions.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
No man.
I presented a scenario that you had an issue with.
If my scenario is wrong, or if you have an issue with it, present arguments otherwise.
Don't ask me to resolve additional problems you may present.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Even so, getting ice cream is NOT what killed those people.
This has no connection to the accident.
That would merely be the reason I got into the car, NOT the reason I lost control of the car.
Whatever killed those people would have to have a DIRECT connection with my ability to drive a car.
Driving drunk and being impaired by alcohol, has a DIRECT connection with my ability to drive a car, hence killing someone.
vbfl920 2 years ago
And INTENT has everything to do with an action, and the morality of that action. Intent is what justifies or condemns an action.
We judge these sorts of things all of the time HD. Even courts of law look at intent, not just the consequence.
This is why there is such a thing as 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree murder on down to manslaughter.
Intent is what tells us what sort of action it was.
There is WHAT you did and also WHY you did it.
And you can't disconnect these two.
vbfl920 2 years ago
I'm using this to show why you're wrong about CM. You'll probably ask if getting drunk is a reason to kill someone, but these are unrelated. Getting drunk has nothing to do with the consequences, Being drunk has consequences but the desire to get drunk is not accomplished specifically through killing.
You can't ask if something that doesn't address the negative consequences justifies the negative consequences happening. Incentive to do something and dissentive to do something are separate.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
I'm talking about REASONS to get into your car drunk.
Do those *reasons* justify taking someone else's life because you were impaired by alcohol?
But here is the clincher HD
Even IF you provide me a *good* reason to get into your car drunk, you are still proving my point.
By the mere fact that you provide a good reason from which to argue, is what proves my point.
Because GOOD REASON is what justifies an action.
Now, is your pleasure a *GOOD ENOUGH REASON* to cause damage to your child?
vbfl920 2 years ago
But what you are asking for is unfair. You're asking for an intention to justify a negative consequence.
Your desire to eat ice cream does not justify the pain you cause the little girl across the street that sees you eating it and can't have any. But you ARE justified for a number of reasons. You don't know the girl was watching you, someone else wanting something doesn't mean you can't have it, etc. Intentions aren't supposed to justify negative consequences.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Unfair?!
It's unfair for a person to molest a child in the first place.
This is WHY they would have to present a good REASON for doing what they did.
But we all know there is NO good reason to do this.
And I CAN ask for an intention to justify a negative consequence. We do this all of the time HD. If I kill Hitler (negative consequence) to prevent him murdering innocent (justifiable intent) people, I am justified.
Unfair?
I think you mean to say, UNJUSTIFIABLE.
vbfl920 2 years ago
And my desire to eat ice cream is inconsequential. I am taking NOTHING from that little girl that was hers in the first place.
But if I molest someone, I AM taking something that belongs to them. I am directly affecting them. It is their body.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Ah, but that's not your pleasure justifying eating the ice cream. You are saying the negative consequences doesn't make your action wrong for "x" reason, which you wouldn't let me do.
So how does your pleasure justify the pain the girl felt?
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
The point is, you wouldn't have to justify anything.
You ate ice cream, it was yours, and someone else got upset about it.
What is there to justify?
vbfl920 2 years ago
The pain you caused that girl.
See what you are doing? Your pleasure was the reason you did it, and there was a negative consequence. Now the pleasure itself wouldn't justify it, what would justify it is exactly everything you mentioned, plus many other things. The point is under your problem pleasure doens't justify ANYTHING that has any negative consequence. Pleasure doesn't address consequences, you have to have a reason the consequences aren't enough to make it wrong.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
My pleasure was the reason I ATE THE ICE CREAM. That's it.
What does this have to do with anyone else? My pleasure was between me and the ice cream, no one else was involved. No one else has a stake in what I am doing here. I don't owe anything to anybody.
In regards to CM, my pleasure IS THE REASON I MOLEST THE CHILD.
I am not getting my pleasure from an inanimate object, or from food.
I am getting my pleasure at the expense of a child.
See the difference?
vbfl920 2 years ago
By eating my ice cream, I am not taking anything from the little girl.
I am deriving my pleasure solely FROM THE ICE CREAM.
I owe no explanation for this.
But by molesting the little girl, I am TAKING SOMETHING from her, because it is her body.
I am deriving my pleasure FROM HER.
See?
vbfl920 2 years ago
The only difference is that the affect is indirect vs direct.
So in that case my pleasure to play music as loudly as I want at any time of the day or night justifies it? Your pleasure is between you and the music. You don't owe anyone anything. You are getting your pleasure from an inanimate object.
If you argue that the music is disrutping someone else then so does the ice cream.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Please explain to me WHY I need to justify my eating ice cream to that girl. How is she involved in my eating of it HD?
I'm telling you that I am not required to, and you keep insisting that I am.
So explain to me how I am.
This is NOWHERE near CM.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Ah, but now your changing it slightly. Now you are opening it up to any intention justifying something.
Three questions:
1. Could someone enjoy killing Hitler?
2. Does the pleasure ALONE they get by killing Hitler justify killing Hitler?
3. Regardless of question 2, could they still be justified in killing Hitler?
I think you'd answer yes\no\yes to that. Someone can do something for pleasure but it still not be wrong because of the positive consequences (cont).
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Again, I am NOT arguing this position. This is NOT the topic of our conversation. We are primarily talking about child molestation. This Hitler example was given to illustrate my point.
But to address what you said:
1. I gave you the consequence AND the intent of that consequence.
2. I did NOT say that I killed Hitler for enjoyment.
3. I said that I killed Hitler because he was murdering millions of innocent people.
Do you see?
Intent + consequence = what sort of action it was.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Yes, and to address what I said, you did the same thing I did with CM. The same thing that you rejected. I gave a justification for CM but you asked to justify CM with only pleasure. I'm asking you to justify killing hilter for only pleasure to prove a point..
People would be justified to kill hitler for pleasure, because the intentions justify themselves, UNTIL a negative comes in, then you have to show why the negative isn't enough to make it wrong.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
What was your justification that would allow a person SUFFICIENT REASON to molest a child?
Please repeat it.
Remember I probably addressed it in the video, so make sure it wasn't one of those.
vbfl920 2 years ago
I'm reminded of Dexter. Dexter kills for pleasure, that is his justification. Is it enough? Some would argue yes in his case, because he doesn't kill innocent people, but bad people. Mind you none of this is objective.
You are trying to pin down one thing and isolate it in one situation as the only thing to be considered in justifying an action.
I can say I want something, and you can say its wrong because it hurts someone, and I can give a reason why what you consider harm is good.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
And what is wrong with narrowing down the action, and the INTENT of that action, to find out the morality of that action?
We do this ALL of the time HD.
So, you say that you can give reasons for how YOU molesting a child for pleasure is a good thing?
I've been asking you for that for at least a day now:) I'm all ears.
One thing to point out is the subtle insertion of how Dexter kills BAD people. This is a subtle attempt to redeem his actions
What happened if Dexter killed INNOCENT people?
vbfl920 2 years ago
Whoa whoa whoa man let's get one thing straight . . I'M not molesting anyone here. At least no one under the age of 26. :-P
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Lol!
Don't try to front dog. Everyone knows this lol
love ya man!
vbfl920 2 years ago
Then it would be a different story. I'm not saying children aren't innocent. I'm not defending child molestation. I'm saying that while intent is something to take into consideration, you can cut it off from everything else. Morality isn't so insulated. You have to take as much as you can into consideration.
Killing hitler is wrong and unjustified if you just look at the pleasure the person gets from it, but when you zoom out, that same action was in reality justified.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
"You have to take as much as you can into consideration."
Exactly, which is why you would include intent as well as the consequence, PLUS circumstance.
So you can't base objective morality COMPLETELY on the consequences. "Killing is wrong" for example.
You have to include intent and circumstance as well.
"Killing your mom to get money out of her purse" includes both the consequence and the intent. By including this the action acquires a moral identity. You know what sort of action it was.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Yes, but you've been saying to justify CM with only intent and not take into account circumstance or consequence.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
No no.
Action PLUS intent.
I have provided the action PLUS the intent this whole time.
Molesting a child (action) for pleasure (intent/motive).
Is pleasure a SUFFICIENT REASON to molest a child?
vbfl920 2 years ago
And WHAT possible circumstance would necessitate that pleasure be the motive?
HOW is pleasure a necessary goal?
vbfl920 2 years ago
Pleasure is a reason unto it self. It speaks to nothing outside itself. Pleasure should always be had UNLESS there is a negative consequence to that pleasure.
In the case of CM, there usually is a negative consequence, but it is possible that in the purportrators mind and in reality, that a positive good would come about from it.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
No man. Not at all. I've already addressed this.
Let me give you another example:
1. Imagine that I am a pyromaniac, who burns down your house because of the rush I get from it.
2. Because your house and ALL of your belongings were completely destroyed in the fire, you are forced to collect insurance. So you build a new house.
3. As the person who burned your house down, am I even REMOTELY entitled to take credit for this? Am I entitled to SHARE in your new house?
vbfl920 2 years ago
The same can also be said for insulating the consequence APART from the intent.
And I don't know if killing Hitler for pleasure can be wholly justified in and of itself.
What you have to distinguish here is just because we are all better off that he's dead, and are happy about that, this does not necessarily justify the MOTIVES the person had for killing him.
Would anyone really complain about it?
I doubt it
But if it really came down to it and the motives were examined, it may be different
vbfl920 2 years ago
We often drive when we could walk, yet that isn't considered neglegence. We are putting others lives at risk because we don't feel like walking or don't want to spend the time. But again, if you get into the car to get milk that's half a mile away and kill someone, is anyone going to say your need to get milk didn't justify you killing the person? No, because we as a society have agreed being able to do such activities is worth the risk. The family might believe you were wrong to have drove.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Gosh darn it I just uploaded a response to Wildcard. I didn't know you'd be so fast.
Wow, almost forgot the "s" in fast. That would have been bad. I'd have to do an apology video BEFORE the response video then.
Anyway, let's get started.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago