responsible person > good person
-
-
what people seem to keep ultimately tripping up on is that "avoid unintentional harm" really means "just show due diligence in trying to avoid it, which includes making an effort to learn from (the inevitable) failures"
-
I may even seriously raise the question of whether there even is such a thing as intentional harm, except in a few safely discountable extreme outlier cases. it's really not as obvious as it might feel
-
that certainly seems entirely insupportible to me, so naturally i'm very curious as to how you would support it
-
I just doubt doing what you know to be harm in the immediate scale without some underlying belief that it's for the good or at least justifiable on some wider scale is really that big a thing in normal psychology. everyone's got reasons.
-
the thing i think is rotten to high heaven in there is that the idea that if you've justified the harm then it has ceased to be harm or ceased to be intentional
-
fair. I'm probably over-nuancing the definition of "intentional" in my version
-
I was thinking if you've justified it by reference to some legitimate end it's just a means to then at that point you're considering the harm per se just a side-effect. not that that'll fly *objectively* but it lets ppl feel like they've distanced the act from their "intention"
-
there are no side effects the point of the whole thing is that if you do harm, it should be because you chose to do it if your chosen path to what you want involves causing harm then that harm is now a part of your intention and is not whitewashed by "but i just wanted"
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.