bmcclure7

"Not all premises need be given equal weight: one that is more encompassing, has fewer exceptions, and is better argued has a good case for being preferred over one that some person arbitrarily prefers " That my point any moral system with a supreme authority is arbitrary. "Invoking a supreme authority doesn't answer this issue either, just for the record. It sidesteps it by asserting the authority's existence, primacy, and relevance, and then proceeding as though knowledge of that authority is perfect and irrefutable. " I am not sure if you strawmaning me or you didn't read my post. I never said that a supreme authority answer all moral questions only that the absence of a supreme authority created a moral problem that as of now cannot be solved. "If, for example, there is a supreme authority but we don't know about it or have any information on its views, we're still stuck trying to reason our way through morality as if the authority didn't exist." This is erealivent it doesn't matter we know nothing about we could no nothing about him at all and it wouldn't matter. Its mere existence means that definitive moral answers or plausible, its absence means that there can be moral answers so let every man do what is right in his own eyes.

Actually I was referring to the Lone stranger Moral question. You're right this has gotten very off topic.

This doesn't justify why. In the absence of a supreme authority You are merely expressing your preference, It has no weight to it, A rapist could just as easily declare "A person should impose violence On another if they can get personal pleasure out of it. " In the absence of the supreme authority This has as much Moral Validity as your statement.

Give me one.

While belief in a supreme authority is not necessar for a moral system it is necessary for you to require others to conform to your moral system and still be consistent. Without a supreme authority your moral arguments become moral preferences and who are you to enforce your preferences on anyone's else? Who are to tell a rapiest that he needs consent? After all who probably has some twist moral justification for his actions, why should he conform to your moral standards and not his own? Of course you could gather likemind individual and imprison the rapiest but without the belief of a supreme authority all that's then you would have concluded that might makes right in order to stay consistent.

Probably correct about proof but don't see how it is relevant. Don't think you understand the point of the hypothetical question. It made weigh harm against just. Of course in the real world there are all sorts of compromises that could try.

Not in world. Only in wobs till stormlight .

Then Where were we introduce to it? Where else have they used the word avatar in the cosmere?

The dilemma usually used to Illustrate difficulties with the Utilitarianism. Namely That it is overly fixated with harm and pleasure And not concerned enough about other aspects of morality such as Justice, authority, Sanctity, and so on. Basically the dilemma goes like this, A beloved member of a small town is murdered, A rumor starts that that the lone stranger passing through town is responsible, But there is no evidence whatsoever to convict him. The town is frustrated at what They see as a Justice department unwilling to do their job And they began to riot. The riot begins to get out of hand and you fear that several dozen people may lose their lives. With that in mind as as the police chief do you have a moral obligation to plant evidence on the lone stranger In order to placate the crowd and save a dozen or more lives. Basically this is a Justice vs harm dilemma. Your choice of answer is supposed to reveal which aspect of morality you value more.

Utilitarianism Is is only valuable when using a strictly pleasure and harm morality system ( A Morality system only found in the modern West) If you use any Other more complete morality system it falls apart. (the loan stranger dilemma) .

A king who understands that, what his people needs protection from the most is himself, is a wise king.

You must have yet to read rythm of war. It gives us our first inworld definitions of avatar

I can see the logic of of the holy lottery system. While I'll Stand by the decision to let them all go. If for some reason that was impossible this might be a good backup. Or at least better than the other options possessed in the books.

1. Obviously you shouldn't necessarily believe any suspects Who claims to Innocent obviously you look at the evidence since you care about Justice. If you found enough evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty then you convict him. In this case though we do have reasonable doubt, we know for a fact that at least one of these men is innocent and based on the information we're given it could be any 1 of them so that means we have reasonable doubt for all of them. 2. The idea of a holy or sanctified lottery system to pick the innocent man is at least better than Taravangian's solution and arguably better then Giving all of them life imprisonment. That said I'm maintain that the most just solution is to let them go.

1. You said make the people feel safe not be safe. How exactly did I miss interpret that ? If all you care about is letting people feel safe then why not add 3 more innocent lives lost. It not like you care about justice anyway so it doesn't matter if the men who died actually committed the crime so long as the end result is people feel safe. 2. I fail to see what an invading army Has anything to do with The king's responsibility as a judge. Yes a king Is supposed to organize the army in defense of the people But this is nothing to do with how king should rule. And even if it did I don't see how it's related to making people feel safe. If there is an invading army people are going to feel unsafe regardless what the king does. 3. Yes Sometimes innocents are punished even though we try, but there is a difference between try and failing and not trying at all. There is a difference between some one getting injured in a factory that follows the safety codes and in one that dose not. If you don't understand that then you have missed one of the central themes of the stormlight archive journey befor destination. 4. Which is more likely to make the people feel unsafe three criminals loose or a king who cares not for the difference between innocent and guilty?

I think you might be right.

By that logic why not just pick 4 individuals at random declare them responsible for the murders and execute then publicly! It is not a king's job to make his people feel safe it is a king's job to rule with Justice. It is not just to punish the innocent with the guilty, and all suspects are innocent until proven guilty

innocent until proven guilty. Our entire Justice system is based on this principle. What your Advocating for is literally guilty until proven innocent. Something found only in the most totalitarian of States. While it's hardly ideal We must let them go or else we Must abandon Justice And become Moest China.

1. It is better that we let ten guilty men go free then punish one innocent man. 2. All suspects are innocent until proven guilty. 3. We have no choice but to let them go.

Ok I get it now. Is there a theory that enlightened/corrupted Spren were dead eyes before touched by the take of secrets.

Explain the last part.

Odium and honor are completes not opposites. This isn't mistborn.

Or Chana a horn eater they have gemhearts

He wasn't anchored to gavalar. He Specifically said that he wasn't bonded to him.

I think it's honor equivalent to the mist spirit.