Taboo! Now with more stuffing!

The place for measured discourse about politics and current events, including developments in science and medicine.
User avatar
MithLuin
Fëanoriondil
Posts: 1912
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:13 pm

Post by MithLuin »

In which case she faces a loss of time and energy vacuuming the room.
True, but so do I, if I do it.

It is not my chore. BUT. I am her daughter, and I live here. For cheap rent. So, I am expected to "help out" in various ways. Vacuuming the living room is not something I am expected to do, but if I do it, I am helping out. If I DON'T do it, and I don't do anything else either....I am taking advantage.

So, somewhere in there, is a moral obligation for me to look for opportunities to vacuum the living room. And if I DO....just think how happy my Mom would be! Shouldn't I do stuff like that just to see her happy? Just so she won't have to do yet another chore when she's sick of them?

Refraining from tripping my Mom while she vaccuums the living room doesn't really seem good enough there.
User avatar
axordil
Pleasantly Twisted
Posts: 8999
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
Location: Black Creek Bottoms
Contact:

Post by axordil »

Also, just because it is not immoral not to do something, doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it, harm or no harm (I think I got that sentance right).
Let's see, carry the not, the no's cancel...what the hell DID you mean? ;)
User avatar
MithLuin
Fëanoriondil
Posts: 1912
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:13 pm

Post by MithLuin »

I think it comes out to "being lazy and skipping out on the chore may not be against the rules, but sometimes you should get up and get to work anyway, regardles of whether someone will be harmed."

Hahaha, got it down to a single "not" [well, and an "against" and a "but"] (though of course it's not nearly as generalized, now).
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

Will I be able to follow this conversation better after a glass of merlot?

Is this conversation immoral because it's driving me to indulge in spirituous liquors?

Why am I still upstairs?
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
Túrin Turambar
Posts: 6157
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
Location: Melbourne, Victoria

Post by Túrin Turambar »

Ax wrote: Let's see, carry the not, the no's cancel...what the hell DID you mean?
Mith wrote: I think it comes out to "being lazy and skipping out on the chore may not be against the rules, but sometimes you should get up and get to work anyway, regardles of whether someone will be harmed."

Hahaha, got it down to a single "not" [well, and an "against" and a "but"] (though of course it's not nearly as generalized, now).
It may not be immoral for Mith not to vacuum her mother’s living room, but this doesn’t mean that she shouldn’t vacuum her mother’s living room.

OR

Mith may not have a moral obligation to vacuum the room (although she appears to have some sort of general moral obligation to help out) but it doesn’t mean that it isn’t a good thing if she does.

To parse my original sentence:
Also, just because it is not immoral not to do something, doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it, harm or no harm
Assume that Mith has a moral obligation to vacuum the room.

In that case, not vacuuming would be immoral.

However, if she has no moral obligation to vacuum the room, not vacuuming would be not immoral.

Therefore, it is not immoral not to vacuum the room [do something]

However, this doesn’t mean that she shouldn’t do it, as the absence of a moral obligation does not imply the presence of a moral (or any other sort) of prohibition.

Therefore, just because it is not immoral not to do something, doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it
User avatar
axordil
Pleasantly Twisted
Posts: 8999
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
Location: Black Creek Bottoms
Contact:

Post by axordil »

as the absence of a moral obligation does not imply the presence of a moral (or any other sort) of prohibition.
Ah...now I gotcha. Thanks. :D
Post Reply