Generosity and Moral Judgement

[JMeganSnow]

Dominique:

Emphasis mine.

A mistake is not necessarily an accident.  It does require moral evaluation and judgement.  You can never know someone's intent except through evaluating their actions, words, the result of their actions, etc.; i.e. through judging them.

Disconnecting intent from result is a further instance of mind-body dichotomy.  A subjectivist would say, "only intent matters", and an intrinsicist would say "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."  Taken together, it is another way to say "This is good in theory, but not in practice."

However, even an accidental mistake can kill you.  It requires significant generosity indeed not to dissociate oneself (or seek redress) from someone so careless.  If you want an example: if a doctor allowed one of your loved ones to die through carelessness, how easy would it be for you to forgive him?  Would he necessarily deserve your forgiveness (he may not deserve to have his license revoked, etc.  But he hardly deserves that you embrace him in the spirit of friendship, either.)

I'm going to do what you suggested earlier and start a new thread for this particular issue.

Dominique and I wandered off into this territory on another thread; however, it was becoming increasingly off-topic so I created this one for further discussion. I highly recommend to anyone that wants to join in this discussion that you first read my comments on the snapbacked thread or we will probably end up covering previously explored territory again.

[Dominique]

However, even an accidental mistake can kill you.  It requires significant generosity indeed not to dissociate oneself (or seek redress) from someone so careless.  If you want an example: if a doctor allowed one of your loved ones to die through carelessness, how easy would it be for you to forgive him?  Would he necessarily deserve your forgiveness (he may not deserve to have his license revoked, etc.  But he hardly deserves that you embrace him in the spirit of friendship, either.)

Like criminal negligence? Manslaughter and the like-where people may not have been trying to do what they did, but they did it anyway, and must be punished. Is that what you mean?

Well then I'd say the lines need to be drawn on the levels of accident, mistake, error, and relationship.

Perhaps this is understood but not by me. Is that how this came up? Trying to find the level of where a sexual act becomes immoral, or where a bad relationship could be classified as immoral? I'm sorry I forgot the way this whole thing got started, I've been real busy at work all day and a little scatterbrained.

[Dominique]

It seemed to me also that you two might even be close to agreement on the issue, but that you both had different ideas of what mistake meant, especially since qualifiers had to keep being added. Is there not a better way to define a willful mistake vs. an honest mistake?

I think that I need my terms defined for me before entering any conversations here, BurgessLau is right to always insist on those up front.

I'll start by defining generosity. Here's what I found:

1.Liberal in giving or sharing.

2.Characterized by nobility and forbearance in thought or behavior; magnanimous.

3.Marked by abundance; ample: a generous slice of cake.

4.Having a rich bouquet and flavor: a generous wine.

5.Obsolete. Of noble lineage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[French genereux, of noble birth, magnanimous, from Latin genersus, from genus, gener-, birth. See gen- in Indo-European Roots.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gener·ous·ly adv.

gener·ous·ness n.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

generous

adj 1: willing to give and share unstingily; "a generous donation" [ant: stingy] 2: not petty in character and mind; "unusually generous in his judgment of people" 3: more than adequate; "a generous portion"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

But those aren't so helpful to me. Based on those I would say generous is giving more than you've recieved, out of the "niceness" of your heart, and asking for nothing in return.

To me that's like saying, you should (morally) judge a person harshly for his action, but you are going to give him even more benefit of the doubt then he has earned, out of the niceness of your heart.

In forgiving someone a moral judgement when they've been careless, you are not being generous, you are making the judgement you feel to be appropriate to the situation and the level of the offense.

How can you be generous in the way I defined it, in the application of justice?

(Edited to add definitions and second half of post and fix some spelling errors)

[Inspector]

The point of our disagreement was not at all about when a choice of sexual partner becomes immoral. Nor was it about the difference between an honest mistake (one due to an error of knowledge) and a "willful" mistake (one due to moral error).

It was JMeganSnow's contention that a certain type of relationship is not a mistake of ANY kind.

I'm actually going to let her define what sort of relationship it was that she was saying was not any kind of mistake, because I don't want to put words in her mouth.

Are we continuing here? I thought this thread was about generosity and had nothing to do with the point of disagreement that JMeganSnow and I had...

(edited for spelling)

Edited February 2, 2005 by Inspector

[Dominique]

It was JMeganSnow's contention that a certain type of relationship is not a mistake of ANY kind.

Was the problem then over the morality of the act? Or over the morality of mistakes in general (which is what I ended up gleaning from it) Or that these types of relationships are intentional and moral?

I couldn't understand what you two were arguing exactly. It seems like the fundamental issue was what the act would be. It seems to me a matter of degrees. Then the act itself becomes intentional and is no longer a mistake at some point on this continuum. So she was stating that certain types of relationships are not mistakes-they are intentional ok, I see.

Are we continuing here? I thought this thread was about generosity and had nothing to do with the point of disagreement that JMeganSnow and I had...

I don't know, it's up to you guys, Better here than there though. I asked the question about terms because I originally said I disagreed with her use of generous in a moral judgement.

[Inspector]

I couldn't understand what you two were arguing exactly. It seems like the fundamental issue was what the act would be. It seems to me a matter of degrees. Then the act itself becomes intentional and is no longer a mistake at some point on this continuum. So she was stating that certain types of relationships are not mistakes-they are intentional ok, I see. 

What do your words "the act" refer to? To avoid further confusion, it's important that I know what you're saying.

As I understand it, I was arguing that:

1) The only romantic relationship a person should desire to have (and as a corollary, the only sexual partner one should desire to have) is one's true romantic love - the highest embodiment of one's values. The goal of relationships and sex should be the celebration of loving and being loved by that person.

2) All proper relationships operate on the premise that one's partner is in fact that final-life-partner.

3) Values gained from a relationship (pleasure, happiness, etc) are a result of achieving goal 1.

4) If it is discovered that goal 1 was not ever true, then the values achieved in 3 were not genuine either.

The relationship, and the sex, were therefore necessarily mistakes.

5) Now, if a person is in a relationship that does fulfill point 1, but later finds that their values themselves were not rational, then neither was the relationship. The values, the relationship, and the sex, were all mistakes.

None of this specifies or relies on whether the mistakes were errors of knowledge or moral errors.

[JMeganSnow]

I'll start by defining generosity. Here's what I found:

1.Liberal in giving or sharing. 

2.Characterized by nobility and forbearance in thought or behavior; magnanimous.

3.Marked by abundance; ample: a generous slice of cake.

4.Having a rich bouquet and flavor: a generous wine.

5.Obsolete. Of noble lineage.

#2 there is actually a very useful definition and word-for-word the one I was using.

There's a line somewhere in Atlas Shrugged (I think referring to Hank Rearden and his family) that says (approximately) "the same generosity of spirit that would forgive any number of ignorant errors would not forgive one single error made in full knowledge." I wish I could find it but my copy is disintegrating and the pages are falling out. Maybe if I didn't read it three times a year that would help.

Anyway, my understanding is, basically, while you could regard every little quirk and failure on another person's part as a reason to distance yourself from them and protect yourself against them, the logical consequence of this would be you living alone on a desert island. Generosity is only prudent when the injury is a minor one, not likely to be repeated, and, indeed, accidental. Generosity can also be indicated when you simply don't have enough facts to indict the guilty party.

In part, generosity is simply self-preservation; it keeps you from going mad with frustration worrying about how to redress every little thing. It's not a virtue, though, it's a byproduct of the "benevolent universe" mindframe that causes you to then regard your fellow man with benevolence.

I actually used it with Inspector, hard as that may be to believe. Although I was bloody furious and gave him the benefit of a dramatic performance in acid and vitriol, I didn't report him to the mods or ask them to step in. I'm proud I managed that, at least.

Generosity REALLY didn't have anything to do with the original disagreement, however. Maybe I should start a thread for THAT one. Yeesh this is complicated.

But I'm pretty sure if I started a thread entitled "EXXTREME DRAGON VIPER DEATHMATCH!!!!!!" The mods would delete it.

[Inspector]

I actually used it with Inspector, hard as that may be to believe.   Although I was bloody furious and gave him the benefit of a dramatic performance in acid and vitriol...

I used generosity as well: you will note the lack of acid and vitrol in reply.

[Dominique]

#2 there is actually a very useful definition and word-for-word the one I was using. 

There's a line somewhere in Atlas Shrugged (I think referring to Hank Rearden and his family) that says (approximately) "the same generosity of spirit that would forgive any number of ignorant errors would not forgive one single error made in full knowledge." 

Ok, so it's merely a benevolence with regard to the grey area between ignorant errors and full knowledge? I guess it's also what determines the number of chances you might give someone? Am I understanding correctly?

Generosity REALLY didn't have anything to do with the original disagreement, however. Maybe I should start a thread for THAT one.

Like I said it's up to you guys. I'm more concerned that I am understanding my basic terms here and their application. I just got mixed up during the course of reading your initial argument as to what way you were using your terminology. I wasn't getting a clear idea of what either of you really meant. I think I'm all caught up now though, and if you want to drop the subject or start another thread to discuss it either way is fine with me. I may jump in if you pursue it though, since I already started questioning here.

[JMeganSnow]

Ok, so it's merely a benevolence with regard to the grey area between ignorant errors and full knowledge? I guess it's also what determines the number of chances you might give someone? Am I understanding correctly?

Precisely. As in the typical definition of generous; if a bum asks you for a dollar you may give it to him, provided it's a non-sacrificial act (i.e. you have a dollar to spare) because you can't automatically assume the bum is a malicious sponge; he may actually be someone that's just having a run of bad luck. It's certainly not in your self-interest to spend a bunch of time finding out.

I sometimes think of it as valuing the potential in other people.

[Dominique]

Precisely. 

Ok, I have a deeper understanding of the term now. I feel silly, but I had only a superficial understanding of it I guess. I also have a better idea about passing moral judgement. But now, generosity wouldn't apply in a situation where say the transgression is clearly wrong, or clearly willful, would it? Only in these grey between areas?

As in the typical definition of generous; if a bum asks you for a dollar you may give it to him, provided it's a non-sacrificial act (i.e. you have a dollar to spare) because you can't automatically assume the bum is a malicious sponge; he may actually be someone that's just having a run of bad luck.  It's certainly not in your self-interest to spend a bunch of time finding out. 

Haha, that happened to me just the other day. I felt so guilty after I gave him the money, but I did have it to spare and I was startled and feeling benevolent, but then after it happened I became positive he was just going to buy a drink, and I regretted the decision to give him the dollar.

Was I just generous then, by your example? Or did I overdo the generosity in a moment of spontaneous benevolence to this man, and make a mistake?