See, I took the metaphor as: don’t get irked by every event (boat bump) that affects you if you don’t understand where it came from. Don’t assume a human is controlling it when it could be an accident if you would just open your eyes and investigate. In this case I was assuming that maybe the pastor had atoned for his past by donating to or starting a charity or something.
So this interpretation of the empty boat being a metaphor for people in general is fine. It’s an exercise in an aspect of stoicism (don’t worry about people you can’t control, you don’t know what someone has been through etc.)
But to extend it to moral subjectivity is bizarre. I think you hide behind metaphor but the clear implications in the context of this discussion is that a closeted gay pastor who abused children can’t be held morally accountable for their past because they had too many bad days in their childhood. What it boils down to is a platitude (I.e. that almost everyone is a good person in their own personal story), but the guy harmed other human beings.
I hope I don’t have to spell out why it’s heinous to imagine a world where everyone walks around not judging actions because they think all morality is subjective. It gives license to atrocious behavior.
I replied on a work break without a KB so my reply was briefer than I would have fully liked.
So, there’s this problem of free will… I kind of don’t believe in it, but I think I personally need and we socially need the concept of personal accountability to function, at the very least because social sanctions and social repercussion DO effect behavior.
At the same time, though, we do make allowances for intent and circumstances. A drunk driver will more likely get manslaughter than murder because the intent is there. An wife may get a lighter sentence for killing an abusive husband. I think we keep extending the totality of the circumstances to the persons entire life, we would be aiming more for rehabilitation than punishment, and I don’t see anything wrong with that. However, if someone is not rehabilitated and resocialized and can’t be trusted not to commit heinous crimes, then it makes sense to keep them locked up.
Not this time… your concern about accountability is a natural part of coming to grips with a universe without the free will we all grow up thinking we have.
Right, so the reaction doesn’t make sense given the context. The person asked if the pastor had atoned for their actions by reconciling with the people who’s lives they’ve ruined, which is perfectly in line with holding someone accountable for their actions.
See, I took the metaphor as: don’t get irked by every event (boat bump) that affects you if you don’t understand where it came from. Don’t assume a human is controlling it when it could be an accident if you would just open your eyes and investigate. In this case I was assuming that maybe the pastor had atoned for his past by donating to or starting a charity or something.
So this interpretation of the empty boat being a metaphor for people in general is fine. It’s an exercise in an aspect of stoicism (don’t worry about people you can’t control, you don’t know what someone has been through etc.)
But to extend it to moral subjectivity is bizarre. I think you hide behind metaphor but the clear implications in the context of this discussion is that a closeted gay pastor who abused children can’t be held morally accountable for their past because they had too many bad days in their childhood. What it boils down to is a platitude (I.e. that almost everyone is a good person in their own personal story), but the guy harmed other human beings.
I hope I don’t have to spell out why it’s heinous to imagine a world where everyone walks around not judging actions because they think all morality is subjective. It gives license to atrocious behavior.
I replied on a work break without a KB so my reply was briefer than I would have fully liked.
So, there’s this problem of free will… I kind of don’t believe in it, but I think I personally need and we socially need the concept of personal accountability to function, at the very least because social sanctions and social repercussion DO effect behavior.
At the same time, though, we do make allowances for intent and circumstances. A drunk driver will more likely get manslaughter than murder because the intent is there. An wife may get a lighter sentence for killing an abusive husband. I think we keep extending the totality of the circumstances to the persons entire life, we would be aiming more for rehabilitation than punishment, and I don’t see anything wrong with that. However, if someone is not rehabilitated and resocialized and can’t be trusted not to commit heinous crimes, then it makes sense to keep them locked up.
I think you replied to the wrong comment again lol.
Not this time… your concern about accountability is a natural part of coming to grips with a universe without the free will we all grow up thinking we have.
You still can hold people accountable for their actions even if those actions were inevitable given their history.
But people obsessed with punishment like things to be simple. Bad people are born to bad things, etc.
Right, so the reaction doesn’t make sense given the context. The person asked if the pastor had atoned for their actions by reconciling with the people who’s lives they’ve ruined, which is perfectly in line with holding someone accountable for their actions.
Ah, yes, once again I replied to the wrong comment. Good catch. Sorry for the confusion.