Innocent? Need a definition

[o_mlly]

You are entitled to your ignorance.

I’m innocent as I readily admit my ignorance of your alleged ethical system. That’s not the issue, rather it is your ignorance of your own ethical system as demonstrated by your inability to articulate any principles. ?

 

[Babaganoush]

Of course your basic principles matter. That isn’t the question. You never asked what the basic principles are. What you asked was, what is innocence?

Consequentialism says that the consequences justify the means. So killing an innocent man is fine in order to save more lives.

Catholicism starts with the idea that the ends don’t justify the means.

With you assertion though anything can be justified based on personal philosophy and preference. A man can destroy the world if he thinks for some reason the universe would be better off, or simply if he is a misanthrope or resentful of his own existence. The destruction of the whole universe and all of reality wouldn’t be ‘intrinsically’ evil, because according to your logic nothing is intrinsically evil and all things can be justified because we can just choose whatever basic principles we want.

 

[Babaganoush]

Duress needs to be defined. If they literally force my hand you are correct. But that isn’t the case in the example I gave. You may not be liable according to the law, but you are liable according to what is right and wrong.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You just revealed your own absolute sense of morality! Welcome to the club.

Sorry, I don’t understand you.

You said:

“For example some people cry a river if they are prevented from discriminating against others.”

I guess you meant this as an example of where people claim to be negatively affected parties when objectively they are not. (Remember, this all relates to your rule of morality, that anything goes as long as all the affected parties agree.) So if all the affected parties got together and said “let’s make it a law that people cannot discriminate against others” and all the affected parties agree, then this would be a moral law in your ethical system. Then when someone “cries a river” that this law negatively affects their freedom to associate with whom they wish, you apparently dismiss their claim to being an affected party because they are objectively incorrect about…something…?

It seems that you think that in such a situation, those who claim to be negatively affected are objectively (and therefore morally) wrong. You see, that’s the trouble with your system. You say facts are facts. But it is rarely the case that facts are stated with such precision and clarity that everyone, if they are being honest, would have to agree that the fact is true.

 

[Zaccheus]

Sorry, I am interested in the rigorous, philosophical definition of this concept.

Is someone “innocent”, who does not know that he is endangering the lives of others? This could be an eight years old, who found a loaded gun? Or someone who is seriously retarded and about to detonate a bomb? I don’t think that this is a simple question.

I haven’t read the rest of the thread so maybe this point has been dealt with already: but I’d like to comment anyway.
A rigorous, philosophical definition is not the same as a legal definition. Legal definitions are meant for dealing with specific cases and practical issues of guilt and responsibility.
Somebody may be an innocent person under the law without being at all innocent in the philosophical sense.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Somebody may be an innocent person under the law without being at all innocent in the philosophical sense.

And, absent an understanding of the circumstances, someone who appears guilty may be innocent and vice-versa.

 

[Babaganoush]

Within your framework. The distain for people like hitler and Stalin breaks down to narrative. We reject them because our narratives tell us what they did was evil. Thanos was just misunderstood, and the avengers were just bullies forcing their narrative of reality upon him. He was just trying to save the universe from over population.

The truth is that someone can start from the wrong principles and develop a perfectly logical system of thought. Just because their logic is true and their system makes sense doesn’t imply that their principles are true or that their system of thought is true or even acceptable. The reality is that some things are just evil, and if you can justify those actions based on your principles then you need to reconsider your principles because they are wrong.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

But an absolute system of morality doesn’t allow for different situations. In the aircraft example above, a rigid adoption of the Catholic system of morality (or at least a version to which some people hold) means that rather than saving one person over another, everyone dies.

You will have to be more specific about which aircraft scenario you mean. Several have been mentioned.

Apologies. It was in the ‘trolley’ thread.

A terrorist shoots a pilot in order that the plane will crash and is then shot himself. You can only save one of them. Which is the obvious choice?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Wozza:

But an absolute system of morality doesn’t allow for different situations. In the aircraft example above, a rigid adoption of the Catholic system of morality (or at least a version to which some people hold) means that rather than saving one person over another, everyone dies.

You will have to be more specific about which aircraft scenario you mean. Several have been mentioned.

Apologies. It was in the ‘trolley’ thread.

A terrorist shoots a pilot in order that the plane will crash and is then shot himself. You can only save one of them. Which is the obvious choice?

I don’t see the problem here. Absolute morality and strict adherence to Catholic teaching does not stand in the way of treating the pilot first. But that’s what you said it would do. So…what’s up?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

LeafByNiggle:

Wozza:

But an absolute system of morality doesn’t allow for different situations. In the aircraft example above, a rigid adoption of the Catholic system of morality (or at least a version to which some people hold) means that rather than saving one person over another, everyone dies.

You will have to be more specific about which aircraft scenario you mean. Several have been mentioned.

Apologies. It was in the ‘trolley’ thread.

A terrorist shoots a pilot in order that the plane will crash and is then shot himself. You can only save one of them. Which is the obvious choice?

I don’t see the problem here. Absolute morality and strict adherence to Catholic teaching does not stand in the way of treating the pilot first. But that’s what you said it would do. So…what’s up?

I did specify ‘a version to which some people hold’. One of those people would be @Georgias. It was impossible for him to admit to the obvious solution. You and he seem to interpret the principles of this moral system in question differently.

Which has been the point all along. Which is the very reason for the trolley problem. Which is why we are discussing what ‘innocent’ actually means. Everyone, even those who claim to hold to the same moral system, come up with different answers to the same questions.

Notwithstanding that making a choice as to who lives and who dies is what you are doing in both problems. Although it does seem that most have a problem in the difference between taking a life and sacrificing that same life.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Wozza:

But an absolute system of morality doesn’t allow for different situations. In the aircraft example above, a rigid adoption of the Catholic system of morality (or at least a version to which some people hold) means that rather than saving one person over another, everyone dies.

A terrorist shoots a pilot in order that the plane will crash and is then shot himself. You can only save one of them. Which is the obvious choice?

I don’t see the problem here. Absolute morality and strict adherence to Catholic teaching does not stand in the way of treating the pilot first. But that’s what you said it would do. So…what’s up?

I did specify ‘a version to which some people hold’. One of those people would be @Georgias. It was impossible for him to admit to the obvious solution. You and he seem to interpret the principles of this moral system in question differently.

Which has been the point all along. Which is the very reason for the trolley problem. Which is why we are discussing what ‘innocent’ actually means. Everyone, even those who claim to hold to the same moral system, come up with different answers to the same questions.

I didn’t read all of your exchanges with Georgias, but I would be very surprised if Georgias said one could not choose to save the pilot first in the scenario you cited.

Notwithstanding that making a choice as to who lives and who dies is what you are doing in both problems.

That similarity is too general. There are times when it is moral to decide who lives and who dies and there are times when it is not. In the case of a choice to save one life and not save the other is clearly the former - especially given the weakness of the scenario to deliver a clear choice. As it is described, I may believe that saving the pilot will doom the terrorists, but I don’t know that. In fact I can save the pilot as quickly as I can and hope that the terrorist is still alive when I am done so I can then save him. You need a better scenario. But even if you could offer a better scenario that guarantees a clear either/or choice, my position is that the trolley problem is moral too, despite o_mlly’s objection. I would not draw any general conclusions about from that disagreement, though. You will always find edge cases where adherents to a particular ethical system disagree. But that is usually due to the parties having different understandings about what that ethical system is, and does not mean anything about the ethical system itself being subjective.

Although it does seem that most have a problem in the difference between taking a life and sacrificing that same life.

I don’t know what difference you refer to. They are obviously different in some ways and similar in others.

 

[Gorgias]

Legally, however, being found not guilty in a court of law does not mean the person charged with a crime is innocent. It means only that there is insufficient evidence to find the person guilty.

I know. I was being a bit facetious.

 

[SetInMotion]

The threat of disease emanating from a contagious human being is also a physical evil. Force may be used to contain the disease indirectly harming the infected one but no direct harm to the body-person of infected one is permitted because the person is innocent.

Act: Quarantine the infected and contagious person.

Moral Object: Good effect – protect the community from disease, bad effect – restrict the freedom of an individual.

Intent: Protect the community.

Circumstances: None

The right to health of the many is greater than the right to freedom of movement to the one.

Now, going from physical (fang) to spiritual (venom) - iow. heresy.

Would an obstinate unrepentant teacher of ‘heresy’ be a danger to society, and would they be considered ‘innocent’ or classed as ‘truly human’, or would they rather be considered a ‘rabid’ ‘beast’ and a threat to ‘common good’ (ie, Luther, etc)?

 

[o_mlly]

Now, going from physical (fang) to spiritual (venom) - iow. heresy.

?

Would an obstinate unrepentant teacher of ‘heresy’ be a danger to society, and would they be considered ‘innocent’ or classed as ‘truly human’, or would they rather be considered a ‘rabid’ ‘beast’ and a threat to ‘common good’ (ie, Luther, etc)?

And your answer is?

 

[SetInMotion]

And your answer is?

I am asking a question, not making a statement.

 

[Vico]

…

With no malice nor intent nor negligence nor recklessness. (Legal: also not while committing a crime.)

Example: guilty (vs innocent) of involuntary manslaughter.

 

[o_mlly]

I am asking a question, not making a statement.

The OP of this thread also asks a question: the definition of “innocent”. Your different question it seems would require a new thread.

 

[SetInMotion]

The OP of this thread also asks a question: the definition of “innocent”. Your different question it seems would require a new thread.

Not at all, since it is asking about what is “innocent” and what is not as the OP does.

 

[o_mlly]

Not at all, since it is asking about what is “innocent” and what is not as the OP does.

And you have no answer?

If you have an answer for the innocence of your heretic, why not provide it along with a rationale, i.e., the act, moral object, intent, circumstances?

 

[SetInMotion]

If you have an answer for the innocence of your heretic, why not provide it along with a rationale, i.e., the act, moral object, intent, circumstances?

I am asking for the answer, thus the question.