In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> [..]
> >>
> >> >> > Could you please clarify "not wrong".
> >> >>
> >> >> Could you please clarify what you mean by "please clarify "not wrong"?
> >> >
> >> >> Cute little game you have going.. continuously making objections and
> >> >> probing
> >> >> for clarifications, never making a point of your own.
> >> >
> >> > In my view, "not wrong" is an avoidance of stating that killing
> >> > animals,
> >> > for example, is right or morally netural. I find that you do that quite
> >> > often. In all of the discussions thus far, you have avoided stating
> >> > something as morally neutral or just plain "right".
> >>
> >> It's the same thing, just addressed from a slightly different
> >> perspective.
> >> Killing animals, under the proper circumstances, is "not wrong", "right",
> >> "acceptable", "moral", "ethical", "justifiable", "morally neutral",
> >> however
> >> you want to look at it. This is not an objection with any substance,
> >> you're
> >> grasping.
> >
> > Well, let me give you a few examples of what I experience when I read
> > your comments. It's not wrong to get married. It's not wrong to have
> > children. It's not wrong to go to work and be productive in society. How
> > odd is that I would label these acts as not wrong versus labeling them
> > as expected, normal, natural, right, and so on.
>
> I would not have called those things "not wrong" either because there is no
> indication to me that anyone would consider them wrong, i.e. there is no
> harm involved.

Then, when you use the term not wrong there is a sense of wrongness that
is, shall we say implied. So when you made statements to our vegan
friend that eating meat was "not wrong" there is some sense of wrongness
in the act. Do I understand your perspective correctly?

> >> >> > I find you more confusing than
> >> >> > ever.
> >> >>
> >> >> Maybe your game isn't so functional as you wish it were. If your
> >> >> objections
> >> >> and requests for clarification game was working you should be in a
> >> >> better
> >> >> position to understand my position.
> >> >
> >> > I do. You avoid responsibility for actions and you make excuses for
> >> > others.
> >>
> >> Never.
> >
> > Frequently. You've done it with respect to pot use, veganism, child
> > abuse, and killing in several situations.
>
> Wrong.
>
> >> > The person who kills the animal is killing the animal.
> >>
> >> Tautology.
> >>
> >> > They do
> >> > so because they want to, otherwise they wouldn't.
> >>
> >> They probably do it because it's the only job they can get and they need
> >> the
> >> money.
> >
> > Absolution, forgiveness, excuses, justification, mitigation, etc. The
> > language is filled with words that describe what you accomplished in
> > that sentence.
>
> Nope, just a fact, they are doing a difficult, unpleasant, low wage job
> because they need the money. They are not looking for forgiveness.

It's a big world -- there are a multitude of jobs available. People
often create jobs for themselves or find ones. Self-punishment and
seeking forgiveness is an inherent flaw with such a moral system. the
irony is that no one typically knows of the wrong doing, or demands the
forgiveness.

> > Of course, how could anyone want to hurt an animal? There _must_ be
> > another reason. How could we function as humans to know that we are
> > aggressive animals on this planet with behaviours that span a spectrum
> > from "gentle" to "cruel". How could we maintain a guiding principle of
> > not doing harm unless we created motivation and intent to exhonerate
> > ourselves from our actions.
>
> Was that a question? It kinda sounded like a speech, and it didn't make much
> sense.

One must 'live with one's self' as they say. Awareness requires that one
be able to accept the reality of life. You made similar observations of
the pot user. Being unwilling or unable to accept the reality is well,
there are many labels for it.

There are times when I act as a "good person" and times where I act as a
"bad person". I accept that I am a combination of all my actions and not
any one thing specifically. Any label of good or bad that I can ascribe
to any act that I engage in, as I've stated, is merely a social
perception attached to that behaviour. To make any assessment of such
actions as an existential statement about me the person, is simple
irrational.

> >> > Justification and
> >> > mitigation are just ways the human beast satisfies it sense of guilt
> >> > and
> >> > shame at publicly accepted and enforced codes.
> >>
> >> Hogwash.
> >
> > Are you disputing this?
>
> What do YOU think?

I'm more accustomed to a more elaborate explanation when someone is in
disagreement. I'll accept this though if it is all your willing to state
at the moment.

> >> >> > There are a variety of possibilities such as wrong, neutral or
> >> >> > right. I imagine with could anything across a spectrum from almost
> >> >> > right
> >> >> > to not quite wrong.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are decribing the moral ambiguity of veganism. I think you should
> >> >> address the question to them.
> >> >
> >> > No. I'm addressing your fondness for using "not wrong". Please clarify
> >> > do you mean right, or morally netural when you use this term, or is
> >> > there some other explanation that you have for not wrong.
> >>
> >> Nope, all of those terms are synonyms with nearly identical meanings.
> >
> > Agreed. It's not wrong for a married couple to engage in sex for bonding
> > or to procreate. and, it's not wrong to kill humans in some circstances.
> > Does this demonstrate for you how you use the term.
>
> Not really. I would never have contemplated that married sex was wrong, it's
> not a moral issue to me.

As I established above, when you use the term not wrong, you still
consider some degree of wrongness attached. For example, when you state
that pot use is not wrong, you still believe at some level that there is
some wrong involved.

> >> >> > Please clarify what you mean by "not wrong."
> >> >> > For example, is paying my taxes "not wrong"?
> >> >>
> >> >> For the most part, yes, of course. I can see nothing wrong in paying
> >> >> one's
> >> >> taxes. What do *you* think?
> >> >
> >> > I think you continue to evade the question.
> >>
> >> What question?
> >
> > You did clarify somewhat. So can we discuss the functional difference
> > between wrong, not wrong, almost right and right or acceptable.
>
> Let's not, you're putting me to sleep.
>
> >> > As I've stated the act of giving money is morally neutral. As humans,
> >> > we
> >> > attach moral value to the purpose, function, motivation and so on.
> >> > Paying 10K to the taxman = good. Paying 10 K to a prostitue or drug
> >> > dealer = bad. The actions involved are the same. What is being "judged"
> >> > is the motive and intent.
> >>
> >> Yes, combined with the action. Thinking about doing a wrong act is not
> >> wrong. Thinking about doing an unselfish act is not commendable. The
> >> action
> >> is required. The circumstances are also required to assess the morality.
> >
> > The the action is not being assessed.
> >
> > A "john" pays a prostitute 10K for a weekend of sex. The general
> > perception is that this is wrong.
>
> Not really, not if it is mutally agreeable. It's not even illegal in this
> country.

There is the circular argument, that what is illegal is wrong and what
is wrong must there be illegal.

Slavery was legal, was it right? As you can see the use of circular
reasoning is problematic.

> > The prostitute uses the money to feed
> > her child, pay the rent so the child has a safe place to live and then
> > invests 5K in an education fund for the child's future. Her actions are
> > now the same as many parents. Is the act of her prostitution still
> > "wrong"? Her actions have not caused harm, but are beneficial for her
> > child.
>
> Yea, so?

A wrong can be a right.

> > You've argued that circumstances mitigate morality. Does it?
>
> Always.

How is this accepting reality as was insisted our pot using friend
should or ought to be doing.

Mitigating responsibility is also about avoiding punishment. Another
inherent flaw in the reasoning. Punishment is only one outcome for those
who do wrong.