As a student of consistency
Aha, a fellow student of logic?
As much as I love logic, I think you are making a mistake mixing morality and logic too much. I don't like to ride on dead horses for too long, but do you know Kant? His concept in a nutshell said that stealing and murder is always the same moral action, no matter the circumstances.
To me morality is something highly individual and that is OK. Logic is universal and shouldn't be used by people to white wash their action or idleness.
Let me give you a completely fictional example. I am a German in the year 1940 and I know about all the evil Hitler is doing, hell he did to my family. I am really pissed. All I can think about is killing Hitler. Am I a hero or an evil psychopath?
Greetings @thatgermandude and thank you for the stimulating comment. :c)
While I would also consider myself somewhat of a student of logic, I am more of a student of consistency. I consider the two to be related but different entities.
Consistency is a metaproperty which is fundamentally important to logic and holds a co-dependent element with logic in both its perceived value as well as depending upon logic to quantify and facilitate determining consistency or lack thereof - but is not, by my reckoning, founded upon such.
I digress.
I do consider consistency and ethics to be important to quantifying and determining moral dilemmas. While I have heard of Kant, I have not studied his teachings in any meaningful depth. My immediate reaction to his concept that stealing and murder is always the same moral action, no matter the circumstances - I am uncertain as to whether he was confusing consistency with the disregard of variables (circumstances) and thus promoting sameness rather than true consistency. Such may be simpler but definition is undoubtedly lost as a result.
Yes, every individual has their sphere of the personal. Individuals also lack formal ethical guidance and this results in a much greater degree of moral variance. That variance exists is not something that I personally consider objectionable. More objectionable do I find the resultant lack of guidance and inclination to gravitate towards consistency in whatever ethical system that an individual builds over time. Instead they are provided a few lines of text and cause to fear the repercussions of following those lines...
...which often enough results in a "moral system" that shows its true mettle in instances where 'getting caught' is an unlikely possibility.
As to your fictional example - the person that you portray is clearly emotionally compromised. They are neither hero nor psychopath but an individual driven by rage/ passion. While it is highly doubtful that such a person would be held accountable for his actions within such a politically-charged climate (kind of like soldiers triumphantly claiming that they killed Bin Laden (and then... flew his body all the way across the nation to 'another' body of water and dumped his body... 9_9)), such is not consistency.
One needn't go that far back in time honestly. Gaddafi and Saddam were both (conveniently) killed following the successful infiltration and overthrow or invasion of their respective nations. Those who believe that such has been for the best tend not to have ever been resident of North Africa or the Middle East (opinion engineering is effective). Again, however, I digress.
I would argue that we are not digressing far off-topic. Talking about how rules in morality and law should be set is a substantial part of the concept púnishment.
So you are saying that people need to be logical within their own ruleset and then you would talk about consistency, is that correct?
I would agree on that I still remember nailing a Steemian on the definition of consensus that he provided himself (climate change debate).
I will write about Kant some time soon. I feel like he is part of the reason we see lawmaking as it is today. Ofc I explained his theory in my biased words pointing out the flaws, he did not say it like that.
I am more than willing to delve into the meta, if you feel so inclined.
I would also agree that such is fundamentally relevant to the discussion even if it did not originate upon this level.
Besides, being 'nailed' on a definition at this level would simply indicate a need for improvement, either in my delivery or of my understanding of the concept. Either way, I could only stand to benefit from the experience. ;c)
I appreciate your clarification that Kant's words were a little different. While words do not always perfectly convey the meaning intended, one's choice of wording remains important nonetheless.