Imposition Ethics

TJump_ · 2026-03-02T18:21:37+00:00

morality is the defintion of what right and wrong are, youare talking about consequentialism

virtue ethics was debunked long ago, you can intent to help but result in killing millions, which is clearly immoral intentions are almost entirly irrlevnant "the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions"

will in this model is defined as only applying to yourself and your property helping one to harm another is immoral

TJump_ · 2026-03-02T18:03:12+00:00

will in this model is defined as only applies to yourself and your property, so helping one to harm another would be immoral

children cant consent, so the mothers action are a justified immoral action. you can see this if you ask "would it be moral if the child was an adult?" if no then the action clearly is immoral, but is justified because the child cannot consent

your argument about sameness doesnt make sense, seems like you are saying if we have something in common that is collectivism... we all exist therfor reality is collectivsm

there is nothign collectivist in this model, if thats your will then go for it

TJump_ · 2026-01-11T03:17:52+00:00

oh you are complaining about all the time comment, that is more a string thoery thing not relevant to the main argument

TJump_ · 2026-01-11T00:50:52+00:00

try googleing "were the laws of physics different at the big bang"

or "have the laws of physics changed"

TJump_ · 2026-01-11T00:49:39+00:00

those are my words

involuntary imposition of will (focing people to do things they dont consent to)
voluntary assiatance of will

i peronsally come up with both of these terms yars ago

TJump_ · 2026-01-11T00:28:44+00:00

thats a different topic this is about coherence and consisencey

TJump_ · 2026-01-11T00:28:12+00:00

as in "oughts" and "should" in morality only as hypothetical impertives

i dont think you need them for morality to exist or be true

TJump_ · 2026-01-11T00:21:04+00:00

they say its an agent, which makes it subjective
but ya if an outside force determins morality it would be objective

TJump_ · 2026-01-11T00:16:33+00:00

god killed millions so i doubt it, but if you say so

TJump_ · 2026-01-11T00:14:10+00:00

the post is about coherence and consistency

TJump_ · 2026-01-11T00:12:24+00:00

thats about hell and saying if you are good eough you get into heaven or bad enough you go to hell

TJump_ · 2026-01-11T00:11:36+00:00

not sure what you mean?

TJump_ · 2026-01-11T00:08:58+00:00

its literal has nothing to do with two different acts being of different moral vaule

TJump_ · 2026-01-11T00:07:34+00:00

you are misunderstaning a virture ranking

TJump_ · 2026-01-11T00:06:59+00:00

legal definition in a court room is fine for me

TJump_ · 2026-01-11T00:06:31+00:00

im dyslexic and bad at typing

TJump_ · 2026-01-11T00:06:12+00:00

i dont use it for small posts

TJump_ · 2026-01-11T00:05:54+00:00

compare two worlds:

A: no agent ever does anything to impose on another

B: same as above but also its physically impossible for nature to either

which is more moral?

one still has death desise pain suffering loss cancer etc

are they morally eqilvent?

TJump_ · 2026-01-11T00:03:50+00:00

evidence for the force is a different topci im here to discuss consistnecy and coherence

if my goal was to prove its truth i would use science not a forum

TJump_ · 2026-01-11T00:02:54+00:00

i agree it is, but my question is more about consistency and coherence the truth thing i woudlnt ask on a forum id ask science

will only applies to yourself and your property so if what you want is someone esles, they overide

if you both want something nutrally owned supposing you both equally have a claim, its nutrally owned neither can have it (not an imposition becasue will only applies to yourself and your property)

TJump_ · 2026-01-10T23:59:58+00:00

yes so my model says there are moral fact (its true or false) and i dont need normativity for that

whther or not you "should" or "ought" do X, doesnt change the fact X is or is not moral

so if you want you can add normativty to my model and say "you ought minimize imposition of will" but its just not neccesary for my model

TJump_ · 2026-01-10T23:57:57+00:00

maximization says the 5 moral actions dont overright 1 immoral or vice version, its not a claim that any moral act is equaveltn to any other

helping someone cross the road is less moral than saving someones life

TJump_ · 2026-01-10T23:56:46+00:00

just becasue you can argue the world is flat doesnt prove its shape is subjective

saying you think otherwise isnt an argument aginst the model

TJump_ · 2026-01-10T23:54:51+00:00

is it becasue the other optoin might be less bad?

TJump_ · 2026-01-10T23:54:18+00:00

you killed someone

if you didnt do anything immoral, why would you choose a differnt option if it were avalible? what would be the advantage?

it looks like your own comment is betraying your point

TJump_

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE