Moral philosophy, conflict, I don't understand
I hear two things a lot:
I hear people tell me that I can't be evil because I'm always worried about doing the wrong thing. Which to me says, you can't be evil if you have morals.
Animals can't be evil, because they don't know that what they're doing is wrong, and they don't have morals.
So you can't be evil if you have morals, and you can't be evil if you don't have morals???
🅰️ ®️ ✝️ U
Moral philosophy, conflict, I don't understand
@OpenComputeDesign I think both "evil" and "can" are ambiuguous here.
"evil" is a concept that hardly exists in reality. The comic book villain that hurts others without any reason does not exist, there's always something leading up to harm - best we can do is distinguish if someone tries to reflect and keep to some ethical framework. But what if someone is convinced that some group is a threat or some harmful action was not actually harmful?
I think the word is not actually that helpful for detailed analysis.
"can" can mean someone/thing is unable to generally perform a task or that someone could, but for some reason chooses not to develop the practical expertise.
Other animals cannot understand ethics the way humans can. But some specific human could be theoretically able, but not have learned to do this. Then the inability would not be hard coded, but a deficit in learning.
Also, specifically here, i would guess people mean to say "i do not think that you specifically would act against an ethical framework i think you have and agree with", so completely different meaning. (i would agree, to the best of my knowledge).
Language is hard.
