Stile writes:
According to my personal system of morality.
And... I also think it's better than yours
I'm offended by that, and so you are wrong, and your morality isn't better than mine.
Yes.
If I go and tell Christians that I do not believe in god, and they get offended... then what I did was wrong.
Basically, all I've done is gone out and made some people feel bad.
How is that a "good thing"? Or even a "neutral thing"?
Don't you agree that I should have just stayed home instead? At least then no one would have gotten hurt at all.
Perhaps you're thinking of a more specific situation? Feel free to clarify your example and we can discuss (but perhaps it would be better to take the conversation over to here: Morality without god )
Wait... In a conversation, you are
wrong to tell your conversation partner that you do not belive in god, if this offends them? I'm sorry, could you walk me through your logic here? We could go over to the other thread, if you think it more aproptiate.
Yes, yes, yes.
How does any of that make it "a good thing" if Rebecca hurt elevator-guy?
It doesn't. which was my point. She overreacted, in my oppinion. But, again, I think people overreact all the time.
I agree that it can make it justified or maybe the least-bad-thing she could do in the situation. But the fact remains that she said something that hurt elevator-guy. That fact makes that specific thing "bad." I even explained at the bottom of the post that I fully agree that Rebecca was "less-bad" than elevator-guy (does he have a name?).
I don't. I think he was less bad. And what matters here is intent. As far as I can tell, elevator dude didn't mean to cause her discomfort, nor scare her. Where as she said some pretty nasty things about him.
I fully admit that my system of morality takes a bit of a paradigm-shift. But it also has some very large advantages like providing a clear and objective look at the situation so that everyone can agree on what was good and what was bad... the subjective factor for this classification is completely removed. That is, if we agree that "bad things" are those that people do not want to have happen to them, and "good things" are those that people do want to happen to them... it is then objective that elevator guy's proposition was a bad thing. It's also objective that Rebecca's response was bad.
The problem however is that perhaps elevator guy thought that his proposition was a good thing. Since we can't read minds, we can never know what other people truly think and therefore can never be sure of what we say to them will "offend" them. Are we then bad or wrong for saying somthing that "offends" other people? Did we have the intent to hurt them? I say, that if we did not, then no, it was not a bad or wrong thing to do.
However, the fact that elevator guy could have avoided the situation (he started it) and Rebecca could not avoid the situation (she didn't start it) mean's the responsibility is more on elevator guy's shoulders.
Right. So, according to you, avoiding every and all situation is prudent? Because, well, you'll never know when you'll be wrong or bad by saying something someone might possibly take offence to, and well, you really wouldn't want that, right?