Blind man goes hunting!

[Lead]

Personally I like to nail a dear in the face with a crossbow then take the som bitch, gut it, and put it in my chili.

[Camel]

Inaction can not be immoral.

That's total bullshit.  If you're sitting in a lawn chair, sipping iced tea by a lake when you see a stranger drowning, inaction would be staying in your chair and doing nothing about it.  That's pretty clearly immoral.

I definitely do not, and will not ever agree. Morality, as I see it, can only be applied to an action, not an inaction. How do you know that person drowning isn't going to be the next Hitler? Obviously it's extremely unlikely, but you can't call that inaction immoral.

To be perfectly clear: it is immoral to purposefully drown someone, but not to let them drown of their own accord.

My guess is that you're confusing what's humane/civilized with what's moral, though I suppose it's also possible that you simply don't agree :)

And it's not just poultry, farming is cruel at the best of times (it's basically equivalent of raising humans in jail) (and it's rarely the best of times).

How is it like raising humans in jail? Do they not have freedoms they would otherwise have? Sure, it sucks that they're going to die, but farm animals are, in general, not mistreated.

[Sidoh]

I definitely do not, and will not ever agree. Morality, as I see it, can only be applied to an action, not an inaction. How do you know that person drowning isn't going to be the next Hitler? Obviously it's extremely unlikely, but you can't call that inaction immoral.

To be perfectly clear: it is immoral to purposefully drown someone, but not to let them drown of their own accord.

My guess is that you're confusing what's humane/civilized with what's moral, though I suppose it's also possible that you simply don't agree :)

I whole-heartedly disagree.  I'm not confusing morality with anything.  I think it is grossly immoral to allow another human being drown in the hypothetical presented.

I hereby invoke Godwin's Law.  You lose.

[Camel]

I ask of you seriously, how can nothing be wrong? Since I don't think we disagree on what's humane, I think we're simply arguing semantics here.

I hereby invoke Godwin's Law.  You lose.

lol

[Sidoh]

I ask of you seriously, how can nothing be wrong? Since I don't think we disagree on what's humane, I think we're simply arguing semantics here.

The definition of morality is pretty clear, I think.  Allowing another person to die when you had the chance to save them at no cost is, in my eyes, wrong and arguably evil.

[Newby]

Allowing another person to die when you had the chance to save them at no cost is, in my eyes, wrong and arguably evil.

And if you try to save them and fail, are you still wrong? You didn't save them, it was the same thing as sitting there doing nothing, and you're in the same spot as the person who didn't do anything.

[Sidoh]

Allowing another person to die when you had the chance to save them at no cost is, in my eyes, wrong and arguably evil.

And if you try to save them and fail, are you still wrong? You didn't save them, it was the same thing as sitting there doing nothing, and you're in the same spot as the person who didn't do anything.

There's a fundamental difference in the situations, though.  In one, you choose to let someone die.  In the other, you choose to attempt to save their life.  The morality in question is in that choice.  The result is irrelevant.

[Newby]

But look at your statement:

Allowing another person to die when you had the chance to save them at no cost is, in my eyes, wrong and arguably evil.

In the first scenario, you sat in a lawn chair as a man drowned in a puddle. You allowed another person to die. You had the chance to save them at pretty much no cost. You didn't take it, but you had the chance.

In the second scenario, you try to pull their face out of the puddle, but they drown anyways. You allowed another person to die. You had the chance to save them at pretty much no cost. You tried to save them, but failed.

I'm nitpicking your statement right now, but you see my point. It's about choice.

[Sidoh]

"Allowing" means you forfeit some or all of your power to prevent something from happening.  You haven't "allowed" a person to die if you've done everything you can to keep them alive but they die regardless of your efforts.  If you pulled them out of their water, but their lungs were filled with fluid without your knowledge and they drown, you have not made a choice to let them die.  You've done everything you can to save their life.  The second situation doesn't apply.

[iago]

How is it like raising humans in jail? Do they not have freedoms they would otherwise have? Sure, it sucks that they're going to die, but farm animals are, in general, not mistreated.

They have no freedom, they're taken care of by people who don't care for their wellbeing, they aren't allowed to leave, they aren't allowed to take care of their most basic urges (mating, for instance), they don't get to raise a family (male children of dairy cattle and egg chickens, for instance, are killed at birth), they aren't allowed to eat what they want (they're fed just enough food to keep them alive), their either beaten or killed for misbehaviour, and they're killed when they're either ready for meat or they're no longer useful (for producing offspring/milk/eggs/whatever the case).

You're right, it's not like prison, it's much, much worse.

At least with hunting, the animal lives a normal life.

"Allowing" means you forfeit some or all of your power to prevent something from happening.  You haven't "allowed" a person to die if you've done everything you can to keep them alive but they die regardless of your efforts.  If you pulled them out of their water, but their lungs were filled with fluid without your knowledge and they drown, you have not made a choice to let them die.  You've done everything you can to save their life.  The second situation doesn't apply.

I agree, the situations are very different.

[Camel]

I ask of you seriously, how can nothing be wrong? Since I don't think we disagree on what's humane, I think we're simply arguing semantics here.

The definition of morality is pretty clear, I think.  Allowing another person to die when you had the chance to save them at no cost is, in my eyes, wrong and arguably evil.

According to what you've said, it is evil to pull the plug on a vegetable. Do you really believe that?

I agree; the definition is painfully clear. Evil is, by definition, morally objectionable behavior. Morality is, by definition, concerned with right and wrongdoings. Since inaction aren't doings, they can't be right or wrong, are not subject to morality, and can not be evil. As I said before, it's simply a matter of semantics; but you simply can't call the lack of action an immoral action - it just doesn't follow logically.

[Sidoh]

According to what you've said, it is evil to pull the plug on a vegetable. Do you really believe that?

Straw man.  These are entirely different circumstances.

I agree; the definition is painfully clear. Evil is, by definition, morally objectionable behavior. Morality is, by definition, concerned with right and wrongdoings. Since inaction aren't doings, they can't be right or wrong, are not subject to morality, and can not be evil. As I said before, it's simply a matter of semantics; but you simply can't call the lack of action an immoral action - it just doesn't follow logically.

I don't agree with your definition.  Neither does Merriam-Webster.

2 a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct bplural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct

The failure to behave in a certain way in a situation can easily be considered immoral.

[Camel]

Straw man.  These are entirely different circumstances.

How so? You're allowing someone to die when you have the chance to save them; same circumstances.

I don't agree with your definition.  Neither does Merriam-Webster.

Seriously?

1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>
b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>
c: conforming to a standard of right behavior
d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation>
e: capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2: probable though not proved : virtual <a moral certainty>
3: perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect <a moral victory> <moral support>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral

[iago]

"behaviour" doesn't imply action or inaction. Inaction is still a type of behaviour.

[Camel]

"behaviour" doesn't imply action or inaction. Inaction is still a type of behaviour.

So what? There is an worse extreme beyond inaction, which centers the inaction on the moral scale.