By the way, I fully understand what you were attempting to get at.

I was just disagreeing that those constitute "unintentional harm".

So I wasn't misunderstanding you. I was disagreeing that your examples constitute "unintentional harm".

It was a disagreement in principle, not a misunderstanding of what you were attempting to say.

Well, I don't know precisely what you guys are attempting to convey to each other.

I was just disagreeing that lying to a spouse would constitute "unintentional harm".

I disagree with that notion entirely.

Anyone who thinks that lying to a spouse does not constitute harm just isn't thinking about it deeply enough, IMHO.

There are many conclusions we each came too; some may be the same, but if you read our posts, most were not.



That has nothing to do with it, as I understood (with 2 and 3) that you were putting lies in a particular context, without commenting on the morality of the context itself. I did think you were saying that many lies don't cause obvious tangible harm to others, and because of that are therefore often not intentionally, specifically harmful to others, yet those same lies may still be 'wrong', and therefore the idea that 'being 'wrong' requires intention to harm' is inadequate. In other words, I thought you were limiting harm to grosser, more obvious forms, (as opposed to issues like 'erosion of trust'). While my observation (on to itself, if not relevant to your post) still stands, your point (seems to be) more focused on the deliberateness of the harm, not at all the indirectness/subtlety of the harm.

I stumped him James, and there is no Christian site which can help with that one. To continue here he must separate from his faith, or face his own argument in actuality.

Hume's guillotine affirms the relative element inherent in morality, while simultaneuosly showing how one cannot prove why something ought to be so.

Personal morality is the personal sense of ought.

It's Miller time!



Bartender...

A round on me!

Regarding the husband's lie...

He lies intentionally. It harms himself. By harming himself - mentally - it causes what almost always amounts to damage in the relationship in some way, shape, or form.

Massage seems to have a good grasp on the underlying issues.

C'mon, guys, you oughtta be ashamed of yourself:
YOU COMPLETELY CRASHED POOR SPIDIE!

The poor fellow only meant impressing a few ladies with his high morals... And there you are -- preventing him from that, and making him look like a TOAL FOOL!

(and quite deservedely so!)

P.S. However, my Intuition says HE MEANT NO HARM!!!
(After all, A CRIME IS NOT A CRIME, IF ITS NOT INTENTIONAL! ) -- especially, if nobody else is aware of it...(i.e. it would be just at your concience!!!}

Well, sure. A marriage is supposed to be a commitment of love, which include trust and fidelity from both participants.

To lie in such a relationship is to harm the relationship. To harm to the relationship is to harm everyone who is involved in the relationship.

A husband cannot harm "his side" of the relationship without simultaneously harming his spouse's side of the relationship. It's a single relationship. So to harm that relationship in any way is to harm everyone involved in it.

Also if the couple has children, it's harming them as well because they too, are participants in that relationship whether their participation is obvious or not. It certainly should be obvious to any parent.

_____________THE MALE MORALITY__________

Wife asks her husband:
"Darling, I'm so good looking, and such a good lover, and love you so much... And you also seem to be in love with me... Yet, I don't understand, WHY would you cheet on me, every now and then???

Husband replies:
"You know, dear, when you eat a sweet cherry pie each and every day,
sometimes you need a piece of a simple toast!!!

___________________ _______________________

Declaring victory while I was in bed? Classy.

spider, i have a challenge for you.
convince yourself that you are wrong. try as hard as you can to make yourself believe that you are totaly and completely wrong and that everyone or anyone in particular is completely right. argue with yourself with the same determination you do with everyone else.

let me know what you come up with

Exactly. I was responding to CS saying



That is ignoring the fact that it is possible to sin through carelessness, self-interest or indifference. In neither case is the sin intentional.

Imagine a man getting drunk to celebrate a promotion and he kills a pedestrian on the way home. Our laws recognize that while he committed murder, he didn't do so intentionally but rather carelessly.

The law also recognizes "Depraved Indifference"


A man who lies to his wife about an affair is committing a sin of self-interest. He might say it's to save his wife's feelings, but it's really to avoid a black eye and a divorce.

So what CS said was just plain wrong and I think quite obviously so. I would love to hear some arguments against the existence of sins that are not intentionally committed to harm another, but I fear that they wouldn't be very strong based on what has been offered so far.

Ok. I havent read any of the posts and dont know who spider is, so this is not personal, but I love this challenge for people who feel they are never wrong, very clever response...

Hey, welcome to the forums. I hate to disappoint, but I'm not here for the ladies. I'm here for the stimulating debate.

well, negligent homicide is not intentional but is a crime.Thats the only one I can think of now though.

I'm not totally and completely wrong, but I am fallible. If you look back a bit, you will see the I misunderstood someone's post and apologized. People get offended that I can debate 5+ people and not only hold by ground by rip their arguments to shreds. They have to wait until I've been in bed for an hour so that they can claim victory because I didn't respond to a post made while I was sleeping.

To quote Fezzik "It's not my fault I'm the biggest and the strongest, I don't even exercise."

Anyways, it's all in good fun. You should really try to calm down. This is a debate on philosophy, it's not life or death.

I'm spider, it's nice to meet you. You are going to hear a lot of bad things about me, some of them aren't true. I'll leave it to your good judgment to decide which ones.

If you honestly believe that you've ripped anyone's arguments to shreds you're truly in denial.

Sky blew your arguments out of the water, as did I, as did dragoness as well.

You haven't even come back with a sound argument much less tearing anyone else's arguments to shreds.

We see people come on here all the time who are in complete denial of how weak their arguments are. You're not even a rare occurance.

I've proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that your appeal to a religious doctrine (i.e. the one containing the 10 commandments) can't possibly represent any absolute sense of right and wrong, because even the most devoted religious scholars can't agree with each other on how to even interpret it.

That totally invalidated your argument right there.

Yet you continue to pretend that you still have a valid point.

That's just denial on your part is all. Nothing personal but you just can't seem to even recognize when you're arguments have been totally obliterated.

So do everyone a favor and go back to bed. Maybe you can win a debate in your dreams.

Thanx, though, in case you haven't noticed, I've been here for quite a while...
Regarding "the stimulating debate":
IF you appreciate being stumped, disagreed with, humiliated, etc...
then, certainly, you raised your opinion at the right place (NOT! ) Haven't you seen my previous posts in this particular topig??