100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Intention of action vs. outcome | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Wed 08/11/10 09:32 PM
|
|
Murdering someone is ending someone's life on this earth. Who are you to judge when they are to leave? It's possibly causing someone a lot of remorse over the lost person. So you didn't just take this person's life away but you also effected and hurt others as well. People only get one life on this earth. ONE. They could be great in their life, cureing some diseases people can't cure to this day, saving someone's life, untelling what that person could have done if that someone handn't taken their life. And possibly destroying someone else's life, eg., spouse........ some spouses take the death of a loved one so hard, they have to be put into institues and many other possibilities and reasons it's wrong. Well, you have an opinion and you come by that opinion by considering a lot of emotional information. You could be causing remorse, you have affected others, the dead person could have done great things and so on. The question Who are you to judge when they are to leave? Isn’t really an explanation because there could be many valid reasons why a person would make that choice – protecting their children might be one reason to end another person’s life because that child might go on to do great things and loosing that child would cause sadness. But others would have a different opinion and may even apply some of the same concepts to explain their opinion – as I have done by showing that your thought process can be used to support murder as well. Knowing that your reasoning can be used to deffend murder then we could say that murder is wrong but sometimes is justified. But to say murder is wrong can restrict your actions to defend your self, and anyone seeking to do you harm can have their way -- wouldn't you be committing murder on yourself by choosing not to defend yourself? But we all agree that murder is wrong - but only in certain cases. Would you agree? If you do agree than we have to decide WHEN is murder wrong? correct? No murdering is never ok or justified. And yes even defending yourself is wrong. I have something for you to ponder on for a while. You can defend your physical self and kick everyone's butt who ever puts a hand on you. But this is wrong in God's eyes, so you don't make it to heaven for this. Or you can not do anything about it and let someone kill this mortal body. You'll then make good favor in our Father's eyes and receive the gift of heaven. And you'll NEVER have to feel any form of pain again. But this person that treated you this way when they pass away on this earth ceases to exist and never has any more joy or love or anything because they just simply don't exist anymore in anyway. This was a bit extreme and i'm not the judge of anyone's souls anyway. Just i know this physically harming someone weather it's self defence or not is wrong, and the only reward for sin is death. I would disagree here, much like suicide, refusing to protect your body from harm cannot be a good thing I believe we are not to be VENGEFUL, but i doubt that would extend to allowing another to physically harm us while doing nothing . exodus 22:2 "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed." I think it is only INTENTIONAL killing that carries guilt,, defense does not You quoted a verse from old testament, again people were judged on earth for their sins and the only reward for sin is death. I seem to know more about what's in the thumpers manual than the thumpers who thump away.. http://bible.cc/exodus/22-2.htm New International Version (©1984) "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; New Living Translation (©2007) "If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty of murder. English Standard Version (©2001) If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, New American Standard Bible (©1995) "If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder. King James Bible If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. American King James Version If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. American Standard Version If the thief be found breaking in, and be smitten so that he dieth, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him. Bible in Basic English If a thief is taken in the act of forcing his way into a house, and his death is caused by a blow, the owner of the house is not responsible for his blood. Douay-Rheims Bible If a thief be found breaking open a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die: he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood. Darby Bible Translation If the thief be encountered breaking in, and be smitten so that he die, there shall be no blood-guiltiness for him. English Revised Version If the thief be found breaking in, and be smitten that he die, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him. Webster's Bible Translation If a thief shall be found breaking through, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. World English Bible If the thief is found breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt of bloodshed for him. Young's Literal Translation 'If in the breaking through, the thief is found, and he hath been smitten, and hath died, there is no blood for him; Doesn't matter what translation you use. Still from book of Exodus, which is in the old testament. Verse Exodus 22:2 to be exact. Here is a case when 'murder' while not justified, is excused. So in at least one case, murder does not invoke the 'law' and no sin was committed. So it does not follow with the idea that murder and sin are related absolutely, obviously they are not. If there is one exception to the 'absolute' law may more exceptions exist with regard to all the law? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To me, evaluation of right/wrong can only be done against one’s own goals and purposes. That is, if an action produces positive progress toward my goals/purposes then it is “good”. If it produces negative progress, then it is “bad”. I know no better way of “being true to myself” than that. (Noting that any particular goal/purpose may be identical to anyone else’s, but that does not make it any less one’s own as well.)
The blame/responsibility/accountability thing starts to run over into the “reaction” side of the cycle and usually ends up at punishment or retaliation and is really just the exact same philosophical issue with the sides reversed. (“Is punishment right if it does not result in any desireable change in the actions/intentions of the punishee?”) Side note regarding Intention.vs.outcome: In a materialistic/billiard-ball world, can the “outcome” ever be said to be reached - other than by measure of an arbitrary time span? Aren’t the ripples always spreading? And because the ripples are constantly and continuously spreading, shouldn’t the intention and outcome necessarily be evaluated against each other in order for either to make any sense? I honestly don’t see how either of the two can be separated from each other and still have any significant meaning. Just some (admittedly not always too terribly coherent) thoughts.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Murdering someone is ending someone's life on this earth. Who are you to judge when they are to leave? It's possibly causing someone a lot of remorse over the lost person. So you didn't just take this person's life away but you also effected and hurt others as well. People only get one life on this earth. ONE. They could be great in their life, cureing some diseases people can't cure to this day, saving someone's life, untelling what that person could have done if that someone handn't taken their life. And possibly destroying someone else's life, eg., spouse........ some spouses take the death of a loved one so hard, they have to be put into institues and many other possibilities and reasons it's wrong. Well, you have an opinion and you come by that opinion by considering a lot of emotional information. You could be causing remorse, you have affected others, the dead person could have done great things and so on. The question Who are you to judge when they are to leave? Isn’t really an explanation because there could be many valid reasons why a person would make that choice – protecting their children might be one reason to end another person’s life because that child might go on to do great things and loosing that child would cause sadness. But others would have a different opinion and may even apply some of the same concepts to explain their opinion – as I have done by showing that your thought process can be used to support murder as well. Knowing that your reasoning can be used to deffend murder then we could say that murder is wrong but sometimes is justified. But to say murder is wrong can restrict your actions to defend your self, and anyone seeking to do you harm can have their way -- wouldn't you be committing murder on yourself by choosing not to defend yourself? But we all agree that murder is wrong - but only in certain cases. Would you agree? If you do agree than we have to decide WHEN is murder wrong? correct? No murdering is never ok or justified. And yes even defending yourself is wrong. I have something for you to ponder on for a while. You can defend your physical self and kick everyone's butt who ever puts a hand on you. But this is wrong in God's eyes, so you don't make it to heaven for this. Or you can not do anything about it and let someone kill this mortal body. You'll then make good favor in our Father's eyes and receive the gift of heaven. And you'll NEVER have to feel any form of pain again. But this person that treated you this way when they pass away on this earth ceases to exist and never has any more joy or love or anything because they just simply don't exist anymore in anyway. This was a bit extreme and i'm not the judge of anyone's souls anyway. Just i know this physically harming someone weather it's self defence or not is wrong, and the only reward for sin is death. I would disagree here, much like suicide, refusing to protect your body from harm cannot be a good thing I believe we are not to be VENGEFUL, but i doubt that would extend to allowing another to physically harm us while doing nothing . exodus 22:2 "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed." I think it is only INTENTIONAL killing that carries guilt,, defense does not You quoted a verse from old testament, again people were judged on earth for their sins and the only reward for sin is death. I seem to know more about what's in the thumpers manual than the thumpers who thump away.. http://bible.cc/exodus/22-2.htm New International Version (©1984) "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; New Living Translation (©2007) "If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty of murder. English Standard Version (©2001) If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, New American Standard Bible (©1995) "If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder. King James Bible If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. American King James Version If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. American Standard Version If the thief be found breaking in, and be smitten so that he dieth, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him. Bible in Basic English If a thief is taken in the act of forcing his way into a house, and his death is caused by a blow, the owner of the house is not responsible for his blood. Douay-Rheims Bible If a thief be found breaking open a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die: he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood. Darby Bible Translation If the thief be encountered breaking in, and be smitten so that he die, there shall be no blood-guiltiness for him. English Revised Version If the thief be found breaking in, and be smitten that he die, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him. Webster's Bible Translation If a thief shall be found breaking through, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. World English Bible If the thief is found breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt of bloodshed for him. Young's Literal Translation 'If in the breaking through, the thief is found, and he hath been smitten, and hath died, there is no blood for him; Doesn't matter what translation you use. Still from book of Exodus, which is in the old testament. Verse Exodus 22:2 to be exact. Here is a case when 'murder' while not justified, is excused. So in at least one case, murder does not invoke the 'law' and no sin was committed. So it does not follow with the idea that murder and sin are related absolutely, obviously they are not. If there is one exception to the 'absolute' law may more exceptions exist with regard to all the law? There is no exception. The ONLY way to die is by not receiving the gift of heaven. If our mortal bodies pass away on earth, that is NOT dieing. That is merely passing away. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with those who believe (right and wrong)/(good and bad) to be subjective determinations. In the example given, if I were the woman being murdered, and someone actually did come out and try to help me and in the process, they were murdered also, I would feel so bad for them and their families. So, I would rather someone not come out and risk their own life, especially if they had children to take care of.
Someone else, though, in the same situation, may feel extremely upset with all those people who did nothing, and curse them from the grave. So, it is possible, that the inaction of the people would have been the ultimate preference of the victim. Without her feelings known, we can never truly know. I just have to live in faith that everything happens as it should. What my action/inaction or good/bad intention ultimately leads to is for the greater good of all. This is purely my subjective philosophy in living, and it suits me to think this way. I can understand, though, that others would choose to live their life by judging right/wrong or good/bad; it all works out in the end. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Sun 08/29/10 04:07 PM
|
|
exodus 22:2 "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed." I sense that the thief did not make a graceful exodus from the premises in the above instance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intention is a hard thing to determine.
Knowing the nature and character of the person who being evaluated for "intention" would be a must in the case of harm coming to others because of their action. Determining my intention may still be irrelevant to the outcome anyway. I drove my car and a child ran in front of it and died. My intention while driving was not to cause anyone harm. The child is still dead. Was I paying enough attention while driving? Was I going to fast? Were my reflexes as sharp as they should be? A child running in front of a car can really not be held responsible for himself. So my intentions are irrelevant to the outcome of this event. I killed a child while driving my car. Oh it give me chills just to type that, let me knock on wood or something. As to the bible example given if a person is in the process of a crime and becomes hurt, in most cases they are guilty by their intention so the outcome if bad for them is their fault. Our laws are the same for the most part. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Intention is a hard thing to determine."
It is indeed. The OP's wording allowed for "judgement" to be interpreted both in the legal and in the moral sense. Or maybe even in the religious sense. You answered with the above quote, Dragon, with the assumption that we are talking about a legal judgment. It does not matter what we talk about, as long as we all talk about the same thing. If one talks about legal judgement, and the other, moral, and third, spiritual/ devine, then nothing will come out of the discussion. It's like talking about apples, oranges and bananas. It's good you pointed that out, Dragon. I think we should consider deciding which judgment we are all talking about. I think Ridiqulos should have the say, since she proposed this topic. |
|
|
|
|
