Nice job dodging the question. You should be a politician.
What is your conscious intention when you downvote someone?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Nice job dodging the question. You should be a politician.
What is your conscious intention when you downvote someone?
It's a simple question.
(IFF) you don't have a reason (THEN) you are by definition an un-reasonable person (a person who acts without reasons).
(IFF) you claim to have a reason but refuse to reveal it, claiming it is secret, or unimportant, or "just too complicated to explain" (THEN) your unrevealed reason is functionally-indistinguishable from NO reason (AND) you are therefore functionally-indistinguishable from an un-reasonable person (a person who acts without reasons).
Do you believe censorship is about intention or is it purely a measure of consequence?
Do you believe racism is about intention or is it purely a measure of consequence?
Do you believe murder is about intention or is it purely a measure of consequence?
I'm perfectly happy to follow you down either path (the primacy of intention (OR) the primacy of consequence).
All conversation boils down to an exchange of personal opinions.
My intention is to explore the similarities and identify the differences between our opinions.
Would it be fair to say that you believe intention is NEVER relevant?
Would it be fair to say you subscribe to deontological ethics?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics
Deontological ethics
In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty") is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action. It is sometimes described as duty-, obligation- or rule-based ethics. Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism, virtue ethics, and pragmatic ethics. In this terminology, action is more important than the consequences.