Philosophy Now Forum

Ignorance of the moral must be excusable. As it is wholly unjust to charge someone with a guilt about which they know nothing. Only the posative law does so for expedience. Ergo, the concept of the moral can not be moral, because when we don't known of it we are blameless.

Ignorance is no defence under the law. It can be easily feigned.

Why is the thread called "impossibility"?

just my two cents,
but I'm blessed with some basic, but rock solid morals, and very glad to have them.
and I do not understand your question...perhaps because of the saying above. I just can't imagine it otherwise, and again, very glad of this as well.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 9:44 pm Ignorance of the moral must be excusable. As it is wholly unjust to charge someone with a guilt about which they know nothing. Only the posative law does so for expedience. Ergo, the concept of the moral can not be moral, because when we don't known of it we are blameless.

I’m an intelligent fellow but I can only make partial sense out of your OP.

Are you saying that it is impossible for the moral to be moral because it doesn’t apply to those who are ignorant?

Are you saying that the law is an exception to this principle due to it being inconvenient to hold a person accountable for the law when ignorant of it?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 10:23 pm Ignorance is no defence under the law. It can be easily feigned.

Why is the thread called "impossibility"?

Good point. However, that's a reason of expediance or posative law as distinguished from morality proper.

In principle it could be overcome with, eg, brain scans.

NEW wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 12:04 am just my two cents,
but I'm blessed with some basic, but rock solid morals, and very glad to have them.
and I do not understand your question...perhaps because of the saying above. I just can't imagine it otherwise, and again, very glad of this as well.

Well, say in the case of a whole tribal people who are cannibals. Can they be blaimed for not knowing eating human beings is wrong, assuming it is wrong? That's a delibrately extreme example to be clear on the issue which has finner gradations.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 10:41 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 10:23 pm Ignorance is no defence under the law. It can be easily feigned.

Why is the thread called "impossibility"?

Good point. However, that's a reason of expediance or posative law as distinguished from morality proper.

Word salad FFS.
Does your platform not have a spell checker?

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 4:13 pm

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 9:44 pm Ignorance of the moral must be excusable. As it is wholly unjust to charge someone with a guilt about which they know nothing. Only the posative law does so for expedience. Ergo, the concept of the moral can not be moral, because when we don't known of it we are blameless.

I’m an intelligent fellow but I can only make partial sense out of your OP.

Are you saying that it is impossible for the moral to be moral because it doesn’t apply to those who are ignorant?

Are you saying that the law is an exception to this principle due to it being inconvenient to hold a person accountable for the law when ignorant of it?

It seems crazy to charge someone with stepping on the grass, let us say, if they didn't know it was wrong. So, the act isn't wrong unless it is known to be wrong. Ergo, the posative law is immoral judged by the standard of reasonableness.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 10:45 pm

NEW wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 12:04 am just my two cents,
but I'm blessed with some basic, but rock solid morals, and very glad to have them.
and I do not understand your question...perhaps because of the saying above. I just can't imagine it otherwise, and again, very glad of this as well.

Well, say in the case of a whole tribal people who are cannibals. Can they be blaimed for not knowing eating human beings is wrong, assuming it is wrong? That's a delibrately extreme example to be clear on the issue which has finner gradations.

I think I know where you are getting at, theoretically speaking. I suggest/hope you do the same ...I'm not responsible for anyone going h-wire

and this example you mention here has an interesting story around North Sentinel Island: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... nel-island

There is this very isolated tribe left in North Sentinel Island, that is also strictly forbidden for anyone to enter it.
I don't know if they are cannibals, but let's just say they are not very friendly

This story covers it pretty much.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 10:59 pm
It seems crazy to charge someone with stepping on the grass, let us say, if they didn't know it was wrong. So, the act isn't wrong unless it is known to be wrong. Ergo, the posative law is immoral judged by the standard of reasonableness.

also this example is very interesting. Since almost everyone loves the smell of just mowed grass, that smell is actually from a process, plants produce, when hurt or in agony ...just sayin'

So now you know this, yeah, indeed ...what do you do? ...

(I indeed stopped mowing my grass, out of several reasons)

--

You can draw this, also back to the industrial revolution, and climate issues, with the question that it's ok to turn our planet into Venus any further, now pretty much realizing what we are doing,
or hassle people that are living their lives more accordingly towards this challenge, even more, cause they live outside such self destructive habits? ...
or bring another kid on this earth, knowing this place is most probably going to be filled with more agony, simply to survive, until it reaches Venus state?
...

Concerning the last part, I've pretty much made my peace, again, trough knowing

• I did what I could on a micro scale, with quite enough attempts to bring this to macro towards consideration,

• after some study around ao. conditioning factors, that no one really is to blame personally.

So, I guess you have got my 2 cents I guess.