Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Why, er...yes it sounds like admitting guilt, but who said it. Without a link what are we supposed to do but imagine the worst traits of our unspoken enemy--the Kneivel family.
It would depend on the context. I can certainly see this being said by someone in good faith, who means that whatever they're up to might not be some selfless act of altruistic love, but it's in the morally-acceptable range.Or it could be someone whoi's skating perilously close to the line and knows it and is trying to Clinton their position.
Sounds like something Dr. Frankenstein said to the Police Chief.Or my tennage daughter may have said when coming in late. As opposed to the disarming, "What did we do wrong?"
Women Forced into Prostitution by German Government.Read more at my blogFar Right WingThe madness of Socialism must be stop!
I agree with menlo bob, interesting statement thou, hey check out www.lovesbible.com it's fresh and exciting.
Myron: That's an old story, which I blogged about back in January. Read the update on my post: the story isn't all it looks like from the article you read.
Google is dedicated to not doing evil, but it's a kind of a weird, contrapositive thing to declaim against what you're not doing as opposed to what you are, and sort of begs the question, what the hell are you doing?
Kind of like "C'mon, you can trust me."
I don't think it sounds particularly bad, no. This would sound worse: "There is no evidence that anything we're doing is evil."
I think it could work in the context of a speech against calling things evil. Ie, nothing the republicans are doing is "evil" any more than the democrats trying to do the same things (Ie win the election/whatever) is "evil". Calling either side evil is generally unconvincing to anyone but the convinced.
Is this just a general question, or did the statement come up in a particular context. By itself, if it were intended to reassure someone having a crisis of conscience, then I suppose it might be meaningful. Then again, the class of not evil actions is not coextensive with the class of good actions so someone who wanted to do good might not be reassured.
John: Yeah, it actually came up in a context, but I'm not going to reveal what it was.
What I notice most about the statement is what a low standard the speaker is setting for himself. Someone could treat you pretty badly and still honestly say it wasn't evil.
The way I see it, this could be anywhere from truly enlightening to completely pointless and stupid.
That opens up a whole new issue, what is evil? Does it require malice, or is it related to consequences, or both? It may not be that low a standard at all. Some moral systems have only required and prohibited actions. In such a system, the statement could be taken to mean none of what we are doing is prohibited. Of course, other moral systems have morally required actions, morally permissible actions, and morally impermissible actions. In that case, the speaker is only curtailing one class of actions, the morally impermissible. By definition, morally permissible is not coextensive with morally required and if morally required is good, then morally permissible is neither good nor evil, but I hesitate as to how I might classify it (neutral perhaps?).
intereting blogthanks for the braintumor thingy
Nothing myron is doing is evil.
It does depend on context.From a Christian perspective, this would in fact be a remarkable statement, as we believe only 1 person has ever managed that feat. So this braggadicio strikes kind of hollow. And since lying / misrepresenting fact is evil, they seem to be losing credibilty faster and faster.
Tristram: You know who "they" are?
Or presumably, you mean "they" are the people who say things like this, and the statement already undermines the credibility of the speaker.
Post a Comment