Proselytizing: sometimes morally unsound?

FMF: To "attempt" to do something is surely, by definition, an action (or actions), is it not?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes. do you have a point, or are you merely trying to play FMJs silly endless questions game?

Yes, clearly my point is that I believe "morality" governs actions and interactions and not thoughts. I do not believe that [what we might call] 'murderous thoughts' are "immoral". I certainly do not believe that 'murderous thoughts' are synonymous with "attempted murder". I perceive the meaning of "attempted murder" to be and action or actions deliberately carried out with the intent to murder someone.

Originally posted by twhitehead
A man puts cyanide pills in his wife's coffee. She doesn't drink it, but does discover that he did so.
It is attempted murder, only if his intent was to kill her.
If he put it in by mistake, thinking it was artificial sweetener - then not attempted murder.
If he put it in thinking it would merely make here sick - then not attempted murder.
The charge is based on the intent not the actions.

A man puts cyanide pills in his wife's coffee.

Morally unsound.

A man puts cyanide pills in his wife's coffee by mistake, thinking it was artificial sweetener.

Not morally unsound if it was an accident. Morally unsound if it were the result of negligence.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The charge is based on the intent not the actions.

I am talking about morality, not crimes, the motivations for crimes, and whether or not charges can be laid. Nothing in my OP had anything to do with any proselytizing religious person being prosecuted for any breaking of the law.

Originally posted by FMF
Not morally unsound if it was an accident. Morally unsound if it were the result of negligence.

Clearly you are contradicting your earlier post in which you stated that the actions matter and not the intentions.
[edit] I see you actually said that the combination is what matters.
I have already explained that that the only reason the actions matter is because they provide evidence. Clearly, the actions alone are not sufficient though.

Originally posted by FMF
I am talking about morality, not crimes,

They are strongly related. We charge people with crimes when:
1. They are very morally bad.
2. We can prove it.
Criminal codes are a very good indication of what societies believe to be morally wrong.

Originally posted by FMF
Nothing in my OP had anything to do with any proselytizing religious person being prosecuted for any breaking of the law.

I am not questioning your OP. I am questioning your claim that you don't believe in thought crimes. I am pointing out that I do believe in thought crimes as do most other people. Your responses so far indicate that you do to, but don't realize it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Clearly you are contradicting your earlier post in which you stated that the actions matter and not the intentions.

I don't think I am. I have at no point in any of my posts "stated" that "the actions matter and not the intentions". I have quite clearly said that, while actions can be morally unsound, thoughts, in and of themselves, cannot. In my view, anyway. If you have an example of a thought-without-any-action-taken that is morally unsound, then I'd be interested to hear. I am curious. The one about someone lurking around a playground thinking sexual thoughts about children certainly gives me food for thought, although you seemed to be talking about the law and/or crime. On the other hand, I reject your suggestion that "attempted murder" is a thoughtcrime, for the reasons given. Do you have any other examples?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not questioning your OP. I am questioning your claim that you don't believe in thought crimes. I am pointing out that I do believe in thought crimes as do most other people. Your responses so far indicate that you do to, but don't realize it.

I don't think my responses indicate that I believe in thoughtcrimes at all. For me thoughtcrime is not synonymous with "motivation". For me a thoughtcrime is something which exists in the mind and which has no action attached to it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
They are strongly related. We charge people with crimes when:
1. They are very morally bad.
2. We can prove it.
Criminal codes are a very good indication of what societies believe to be morally wrong.

Well, in terms of morality, I don't believe in or endorse the notion of thoughtcrimes by which I mean - according to the book that minted the word - illegal thoughts, as opposed to illegal speech or action. But, despite having used the word "illegal" here twice to explain the source of the word [thoughtcrime], the morality or lack of morality I am talking about on this thread has nothing to do with criminal codes

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not questioning your OP. I am questioning your claim that you don't believe in thought crimes. I am pointing out that I do believe in thought crimes as do most other people.

Perhaps you have some other definition of thoughtcrime.

Let me put my stance into perspective by touching upon certain types of crime and how they are treated by the law. I don't agree with the categorization of crimes as being "hate crimes".

If "hate" turns out to have been the motivation for a crime, so be it. But I think establishing the motive for a crime is part of every prosecution. I disagree with special harsher penalties for crimes that were motivated by hate.

I don't think "hate" in and of itself - and with no actions associated with it or in which it manifests itself - is morally unsound. I don't think of "hate" as being a thoughtcrime.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Attempted murder.
It is the motivation and intention that matter, not the actions.

I would go as far as to say that all bad intentions are as bad as the actions they intend, the only reason why typically do not punish them is that we cannot easily determine someones intentions or read their thoughts ie thought crimes are rarely punished, not because t ...[text shortened]... ure that that warranted charging him with anything, but it is clear that the law thought it did.

"I would go as far as to say that all bad intentions are as bad as the actions they intend..."

Then I think you go too far. - Although I'm not defending bad intentions, it is the 'actioning' of those intentions that does the damage and is therefore of more serious concern.

Originally posted by FMF
There are some Christians here who subscribe to notions promoting the "perfect" nature and "ultimate" morality of inconceivably angry violence as an active and never ending revenge for thoughtcrimes.

If that's what some people believe happens, then so be it. I don't think them having such ideas is morally unsound, in and of itself ~ good luck to them i ...[text shortened]... y imbued with such extraordinary violence and anger be morally unsound in certain circumstances.

This reads like a very awkward OP, to be honest.

I get the feeling you're not actually trying to describe a person who believes these things, you're describing a person who merely gets a sense of self-satisfaction from having these thoughts and possibly tries to strenghten their own belief by making others have that same belief. Which, incidentally, is what I think might be true for a significant number of theists.

But what if sonship truly believes that you - or a vulnerable child - will go to hell unless you start believing the things he believes and act accordingly? Would it still be morally unsound to try and make you see "the truth" simply by talking to you? I'd say no. Wouldn't it be morally unsound in fact to do nothing?

Originally posted by FMF
I don't think I am. I have at no point in any of my posts "stated" that "the actions matter and not the intentions".

My apologies, I misread it (and added an edit later admitting that).

So:
Person A: Plans to kill his wife with cyanide. He is about to put a cyanide pill in her tea, but she walks in on him and he doesn't so so.
Person B: Plans to kill his wife with cyanide. He is about to put a cyanide pill in her tea, and she doesn't walk in on him and he proceeds to do so and kills her.
In your opinion, Person A is morally blameless but person B deserves a life sentence or some equivalent punishment and is morally terrible?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Then I think you go too far. - Although I'm not defending bad intentions, it is the 'actioning' of those intentions that does the damage and is therefore of more serious concern.

And I would love to see some justification for that stance. Most people would agree that the damage caused is not the only aspect of a crime committed, hence the differences between premeditated murder, second degree, manslaughter and a variety of other categories.
I realize that we do have a concept of compensation where we may be liable for any damage caused by us regardless of intent. But typically punishment and retribution has to do with intent. I am also arguing that the primary reason we focus on actions has to do with the fact that they are easier to monitor.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
But what if sonship truly believes that you - or a vulnerable child - will go to hell unless you start believing the things he believes and act accordingly? Would it still be morally unsound to try and make you see "the truth" simply by talking to you? I'd say no. Wouldn't it be morally unsound in fact to do nothing?

I don't have any objection to sonship peddling his torturer god creed to me. In fact, I cannot think of anything morally unsound that he has ever done or said to me. Does that answer your question in part?