Given statistics on veganism, you have a 95-99% chance that anyone making a moral claim is a selective ethicist. The low rate of ethical veganism further supports my hunch that everyone is a selective ethicist.
Radical subjectivity is the actual state of reality, you know. The question is, does "intention" trump effective outcome? If you arrive at the right answers for the wrong reasons, is your action any less right?
Ok, if someone on a diet studies nutrition and decides to not buy x, and a social justice activist looks at the treatment of workers and decides not to buy x, and an environmentalist looks at the production process and decides not to buy x, and the end result is that x goes out of business, was any reason people stopped buying x "less good" or "less noble " than the other reasons? Esp when the end result was the same - a crap company making a crap product is now gone?
To a deontological ethicist: yes, it does matter (and deontology is a major field of ethics). Intent is ethically salient. Attempted murder is unethical, even if it fails.
To a consequentialist (e.g. utilitarian): no, the reason or intent does not matter at all.
To a moral skeptic / moral anti-realist: the intent is irrelevant and the outcome is also objectively neutral. Both inputs and outputs are morally neutral.
To a consequentialist, if your murder attempt failed, you're ethically fine (which is why many think consequentialism defies intuition and can't possibly be right).
To a deontologist, attempted murder is always bad (which is why deontology seems vague and misaligned with reality to some).
To a moral skeptic: see? The fact that we're going in circles means we're barking up the wrong tree with this whole ethics thing.
As social beings in a subjective reality, we rely on consensus to pass judgment on many things. This is why it is nearly impossible to convince, say, right wing christians that imposing their beliefs on others is wrong.
Back to veganism, if any path of reasoning moves more people to adopt it, even if that path is not animal welfare/rights per se, do you reject their efforts? Seems like you're on "purity test" ground if you do.
I think this discussion is partly to point out that we all fail a purity test.
I'm not necessarily advocating for veganism. I'm saying if you claim that ethics exist and you are ethical and have a sound ethical theory, then it might be hypocritical to not be vegan and possibly, per your ethical framework, you belong in jail for not being vegan.
I would agree with one, but not with two. There are many places in the world where the land is not sufficiently arable, and relying on factory farming using chemical inputs is not sustainable. The only way people can survive is for some goat to eat the nutritionless weeds, then they eat the goat. Also without chemical inputs animal husbandry is necessary for fertilizers for sustainable farming. And without access to unsustainable B12 supplements, veganism is not a viable diet. There's a very long unsustainable factory trail behind veganism, which is unacknowledged.
@shekinahcancook I don't think you're giving the goat enough respect. Under certain ethical systems, it's no excuse that you need B12 or you can't survive without eating the goat. Per some ethical systems (I.e., answers to the trolley problem) you should take your own life rather than kill someone else. What gives you the right to kill a goat to survive?
I'm not saying this is my ethical system, just a plausible one.
@shekinahcancook Under that ethical system, yes. Or goats deserve to live just as much as the humans born there.
Or you can reject ethics and say, look, if goats were smarter, they'd exert more power and prevent me from slaughtering them to eat them. But they failed. They don't have the power to stop me, so I am going to slaughter them for my own survival. That's tough for goats.
You're applying an "objectively" here that does not in fact exist. That's the whole view of radical subjectivity. There is no reality outside of consensus, and while some humans don't care if they sicken from a vegan diet in a future constrained by sustainability, most do.
@shekinahcancook Sure, if everything is subjective though, how do you ever know which side is "right." What if instead of consensus on some issue you have a 50-50 split, or a 55-45 split.
Consensus is how you know what's "right" in your place, time, and culture. "Right" is entirely subjective, which is WHY christians should not be permitted to impose their beliefs on others. They can do and believe what they want within their own community. They cannot define other communities' consensus.
@shekinahcancook That is the stance of moral relativism, one branch of moral skepticism. The belief that ethics exist but are culturally dependent. So it is right to sacrifice children to the gods if you live in early mesoamerica but wrong to do so in the modern US.
@shekinahcancook Yes, exactly. It is impossible to convince people to share your ethical judgments. Even if we were all philosophers with extremely open minds, we would still view the same facts with different judgments.
I'm not sure we rely on consensus though. Whoever's judgments have the most "power" win. "Power" is the ability to mold the world to one's subjective preferences and appraisal.
I would have to argue against that. The world is a very manipulated non-objective system. The world does not have to be the way it is.
(other than some basic laws of physics, maybe - we don't know for a fact even those are absolute).
@shekinahcancook Power is a combination of population (how many people share the judgment- how many kids the people with that judgment were able to have), information (what technological advantages a smaller number of people were able to use to assert their judgments; what wiles they were able to use to enact their judgments); and material (what resources people were able to martial in support of their views).
@shekinahcancook Yes, exactly. Different cultures have different ethics. China has different ethics than the US. China has been modeled to match the minds of whoever was best able to consolidate power in China. The US has been modeled to match the minds of whoever was best able to consolidate power in the US. Taiwan exists in a fragile equilibrium because the power of the people on that island is approximately equal to the power on the mainland.
Power in China, the US etc, has imposed a framework of thought and economics and culture on the folks who live there (as all cultures do), but you said whomever's mind matches the world most closely "wins." But those framework are artificial, and don't represent reality. An example would be capitalism induced scarcity. A lack of money to buy food is not the same as a lack of food, though that is the currently imposed system. If you lack money you lack food, ergo you must make money. That "wins" in your scenario, but is not reality. It's actually pretty far away from any truth about how much food the world produces. Money is a false intermediary accepted as consensus.
@shekinahcancook Hmm I think you might have it backwards. Of course it's artificial and doesn't reflect reality. Whatever artificial and subjective opinions that are the current laws and systems have won. That seems indisputable to me, but maybe I'm not articulating it properly.
In the US, the people who thought free speech is very important "won" by getting it onto the bill of rights.
@shekinahcancook I guess I view ethics more like weather or physical systems. "This hurricane formed because this water was hotter than this other water and this air was higher pressure than this other air."
Similarly, "this group of people has this cultural moral because sufficient power was behind it."
@shekinahcancook Sure, that's another way of looking at it. But in a new set of circumstances, only a response with sufficient power will win. Power still reigns. In the US, states with abortion rights have sufficient power to continue protecting those rights and states without abortion rights have sufficient power to restrict those rights. And the two regimes coexist because their powers are at equilibrium.
@shekinahcancook What doesn't reflect reality? This is a very real system under which people are living. Gerrymandering is part of that reality. The existence of gerrymandering is a result of the people whose minds conceptualized the technique of gerrymandering "winning" and imposing that idea on the world.
A consensus rejects the idea one minority cult should be able to impose their beliefs on the majority that disagrees. The reality is the majority in all states want abortion allowed. Power doesn't represent reality, but a distortion of reality.
@shekinahcancook Well, the majority in some of those states has failed (did not have sufficient power, did not win). Every woman denied access to abortion in those states, despite the apparent majority, is an example of that majority failing to exert their power, and the minority cult succeeding in exerting their power.
@shekinahcancook The reality is the outcome. Did the woman have access to an abortion or not? If not, the people whose mind picture was a world without abortion won. They successfully molded the world to the picture in their minds.
@shekinahcancook But they made it illegal. That was the molding of the world in their mind's eye's image. The laws as written match the anti-abortion people's preference, not the pro-choice people. The anti-abortion people won (for now).
Again, making something illegal does not and has never made it go away. They did not change reality. Women will travel, self abort, or purposefully injure or starve themselves to achieve abortion. The laws distorted reality, they did not change it.
@shekinahcancook The laws are part of reality. The bytes on the webpage of the laws of Texas are really arranged that way. The ink molecules are really there on the printed out copies of the laws.
I am pro choice I just feel like you are really missing my point here.
Not at all. You're trying to posit that an objective Truth(tm) exists, that there are some "ethical" ideas that are always true everywhere, and that power defines reality. I reject that position. So I guess we have nothing left to discuss.
@shekinahcancook Not in the slightest. I am not claiming an objective ethical truth. I have a moral anti-realist streak. I think things are morally neutral.
@shekinahcancook I think you misunderstand that I say power makes things ethical. Not at all. I think power is what causes things to be the way they are. Why are the laws written that way in Texas? Because whoever wanted them written that way was powerful enough to get them written that way. That just seems indisputable to me.
Reality is the sum of all that is subjectivity true. There is no reality wherein the majority of Americans in any state want abortion bans. Projecting power to enforce such bans is like trying to defy gravity with technology. Eventually the tech is going to fail and gravity / reality will reassert itself. Power distorts reality. It does not make it or represent it.
@shekinahcancook I think you are letting your opinion (anti abortion legislation is bad) cloud your view of the facts (millions of people live in states that have severely restricted access to abortion). The latter is a fact, currently. That may become not be a fact at some future point if the people who want it not to be a fact are able to muster the power to make it not a fact.
No, I'm pointing out that the reality here is no different than the reality during prohibition. Power distorted the reality, it did not make it. The consensus was that alcohol is acceptable and should be legal. People drank anyway. People made their own alcohol when they couldn't buy it. That was the reality, not the law pretending to outlaw it. And prohibition failed. It failed because it did not match the subjective consensus, which is the only reality there is. It was not reality. It was an artificially imposed construct trying to work against reality. Drug laws fail for the same reason. The market has spoken and it wants drugs. Abortion bans will fail for the same reason. (As will gun bans.) Power cannot shape reality at all.
@shekinahcancook If N > 0 person went to jail for alcohol during prohibition, the outcome matched the proponents' of prohibition's mental model more closely than its opponents.
@shekinahcancook I'm sorry. I see exactly how you don't understand me. It almost feels like you're trying not to understand me. I guess this really won't be much more productive.
@shekinahcancook I'll try one more time. Forget about when prohibition was repealed. At that point in time (call it t=3), opponents of prohibition won. The laws on the books reflected the preferences of the opponents of prohibition. N = 0 people were jailed for alcohol.
During prohibition, call it time t=2, the laws on the books reflected the desires of prohibitionists. N>0 were jailed, a real outcome.
@shekinahcancook@escarpment What magical or moral force force does “majority” possess? None really, except what we choose to allow. Majority rule is a relatively recent invention in human society.
You seem to think reality is something that can be imposed from the outside. It can't be.
The fact that some people got caught in no way changes the fact the majority of people didn't, and were willing to risk it, precisely because they reject having a false reality imposed on them.
@shekinahcancook I think it's simpler than that. The person getting caught is a fact. It's a part of reality. Do you dispute that? Do you dispute that it is true some people got caught and incarcerated?
Are you claiming that the handful of people being caught "cganged their minds" about alcohol because they were caught? No, they did not. No reality was changed, and imprisoning people did not deter the majority from drinking.
I'm confused why you think passing a law changes subjective conclusions. They don't. They only make people hate their oppressors. Concensus did not change at all. And consensus defeated their artificially imposed laws.
@shekinahcancook Laws change something indeed. A law means a real thing will happen that otherwise wouldn't happen. If the law is on the books, some people will be fined or go to jail for it. If it is not, no one will be fined or go to jail for it. Do you dispute that?
I dispute that a few persons experiencing consequences has any affect on the reality of the situation. It's illegal to drive over the speed limit. People gwt tickets and sometimes go to jail. That stops absolutely nobody from driving over the speed limit. Reality did not change because the consensus that speed limits are too low did not change. Even people who suffered consequences went out and speeded, or drank, or shoplifted to feed their kids, or bought drugs, or whatever, the next day. If they were determined to get an abortion they got one. No reality changed. Again, you are wanting laws to make some objective difference about "truth" when they absolutely dont.
@shekinahcancook I am not "wanting" anything. I'm not making some sort of paean to the legislative system. That's not my point. I'm not saying "aren't laws great?"
Consensus is the only reality. Anything that goes against consensus is going against reality, and will fail. Power has no ability to change consensus, therefore it cannot change reality. It can only distort it until failure occurs, when reality will reassert itself. Reality only changes when consensus changes. Inflicting power onto unwilling people is not changing reality. It is only an action that will cause an equal opposite reaction. Consensus will prevail. When people learn they have agency, artificially imposed power is defeated, overtly with changed laws or covertly in underground markets.
As I said, we have nothing to discuss. Laws do not make any sort of objective truth. Laws are either in accord with consensus or they are trying to defy consensus.
@shekinahcancook Let's forget about laws. Take the flip side, the people who defy laws. They also have power. They have sufficient power to bring about real outcomes in defiance of the law. Do you dispute that?
Again, the power resides in consensus. Temporarily getting away with shooting someone over a road rage incident does not change the consensus that road rage shootings should be punished. Road rage shootings will never be legal because consensus doesn't want road rage shootings. They do not in fact have the power to change the reality that they will be sought after and punished if caught.
The ones who defy unjust laws have consensus on their side, and the community will do what it can to mitigate their punishment - hence underground railroads etc.
@shekinahcancook This consensus idea seems very vague. How do you define it exactly? I define consensus as 100% alignment. Majority is >50%. Plurality is the largest percentage of people, even if under 50%. Do you have a different definition of consensus?
Consensus is the majority view with accommodations as appropriate for minority views, presuming the majority view is upholding basic civil rights for everyone. The reason we no longer have blue laws on sundays is precisely because those laws were imposing one cult's beliefs on everyone. Ergo, unconstitutional and a violation of basic rights to freedom of religious practice.
@shekinahcancook That definition of consensus still seems vague and not the meaning of consensus. What if a minority view is that everyone is wrong? What if the 1% of Americans who are vegans + millions of animals think animals should not be killed for food. Do the 99% of non-vegans represent consensus?
Laws are either in accord with the will of the people or they are in defiance of the will of the people. How is that different exactly? Gerrymandering and voter suppression, again, have distorted the consensus. Nobody wants to be disenfranchised. That is an artificial imposition of power to distort the democratic reality.
@shekinahcancook Let me try one more time. Let's focus on the other side, the bootlegger. The bootlegger's mental picture is to be able to sell booze. So, using information ("let's use secret code words"; "let's do this at night") and population ("they can't catch all of us") the bootlegger uses power to bring about the reality of speakeasies and alcohol usage during prohibition.
No, the power resided in the consensus that alcohol is not wrong. The bootlegger could make all booze he wanted but it would be pointless if nobody wanted to buy it, and not profitable if only a handful did.
@shekinahcancook But alcohol is not wrong was not a consensus. Do you dispute that N > 0 people thought alcohol was wrong? Do you think if you polled every American in 1920 all would say alcohol was not wrong? Do you deny the existence of the temperance movement?
The majority view determines consensus. There will always be fringe elements but their views are not accepted by the majority. Consensus here is limiting sales to minors and punishing DUIs, not prohibiting alcohol.
A majority view is not always a consensus view. There can be reasonable accommodations for minority views. Concensus tries to encompass all views, within limits. Christian Nationalists and Puritan laws against lgbtq folks and women's rights are not consensus. Nobody is making them have an abortion or be gay.
@shekinahcancook I think this consensus idea is extremely half-baked. I understand you seem to be a moral relativist, which is a tenable position in modern ethics. But you can't seem to pin down what consensus really is, and you seem to have arbitrarily pinned your faith on this idea of consensus for no apparent reason.
@shekinahcancook@escarpment This is a strong philosophical claim about the nature of social reality. It is easier for me to follow if we drop the term “reality” which comes with a lot of baggage. If you say that people will behave as they will, then I must agree. The consequences of doing so are based on power. Power may arise from consensus, but agreement is not always affirmative —plenty of people go along to get along.
Agree, choosing to acquiesce is one option, and the power mongers hope people will choose that. But even with that, if the people don't want xyz anti lgbtq or anti abortion law, and they see an opportunity to overturn it, they will - which is why the right has to eliminate democracy. They think if they take away the vote then they take away people's options. (And they think the left won't go for a civil war.)
@shekinahcancook And, breaking that down further, that means a police officer might be commanded to enforce that law. A jury might convict for that law. A corrections officer might imprison you for that law.
None of those events would happen if the people who opposed the law had had the power to prevent those actions from occurring.
@escarpment@shekinahcancook I really admire the implicit hopefulness in your claim, and I too hope it is true, but my subjective reality (borrowing your metaphor) is that gravity does not necessarily prevail.
@escarpment@shekinahcancook Now I’m confused. Are you talking about descriptive (explanatory) ethics (i.e., post-hoc) or prescriptive ethics (ought, should, must, etc)? “Reality” has little to do with either; laws are more about relative situational power and have only a loose coupling (if any) with ethics. Yes?
Reality has a lot to do with it for folks who believe there are absolutes. As someone who subscribes to radical subjectivity (ie Truth(tm) is unknown and unknowable), I don't tend to agree that anything is absolute. Our thoughts and even languages have biases, etc. Concensus about ethics and morality therefore changes as we evolve. Reality in a culture is what we agree it is (ie society is a 100% artificial construct and can be different). Should it be? I'd say yes, because power (exerted by various interests) has distorted reality, negated consensus, and is making (among other things) ethical positions impossible to see clearly (and even then one individual's views or actions cannot represent consensus).
Really? You think "power" misrepresenting manifest destiny as good is not distorting reality? That pretending power acted wisrly and justly in hiding the systematic destruction of native American culture in the name of Christian supremacy isnt a distortion of the reality? Etc ad nauseum.
@shekinahcancook@meltedcheese That is a huge leap. You suddenly started talking about "good" and manifest destiny and a bunch of irrelevant topics related to this poetic concept of distorting reality.
I hope you can see the leap. Now undo the leap. If you take a picture in Panama, do you see a waterway or not? That is the reality. There is now a waterway. Power produced that waterway.
Again, a mechanical process of digging a hole is not anywhere in the neighborhood of the imposing laws on unwilling people. Again, we have nothing to discuss. I reject your mechanical view of the world. Changing a topography has nothing to do with systems of governance or social and cultural establishments.
@shekinahcancook@meltedcheese Power is just part of reality. It is a real phenomenon that some people have the power to effect changes in the world. With a plan, some shovels, beams, etc a team of people can make the Panama Canal. The Panama Canal exists because the people making it had the power to make the landscape match their plan. No distortion there.
@shekinahcancook@meltedcheese I don't really know what you mean by a mechanical view of reality? So you reject that the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 on the surface of the earth?
@shekinahcancook@meltedcheese Perhaps we do have a larger gulf than I thought. I guess you reject all truths? Like "the 2008 Olympics occurred in Beijing"- you think that's not a true statement?
2008 and 5768 are both arbitrary, if widely agreed upon, labels for years that depend on theoretical presuppositions about how and when to start counting years.
Hence Truth(tm) is unknowable and everything is subjective. All of history, everything you think you know, names and dates and whether an event was "good" or whether a position is "ethical" is 100% culturally dependent and subject to consensus. Reality is based on the filters and biases of your mind. Now we're back at the beginning.
@shekinahcancook@meltedcheese I think you make a leap to this idea of consensus. The idea of consensus is not entailed by the theory ladenness. Seems like you are emotionally troubled by theory ladenness and grasping for something ("consensus") to provide psychological relief for that trouble. I think instead it's important to "live" with that psychological trouble, without jumping to solutions. "Most facts are theory laden" (full stop). Instead of "most facts are theory laden, ergo blah."
Lols, the fact that no amount of evidence will convince a QAnoner of anything at all is proof reality is based on consensus. They live in an entire alternate reality universe that bears no relationships to facts as other groups know them - and as long as the Maga /QAnon / Christo-fascist consensus lasts, they will stay in their alternate reality. It's self reinforcing. It's comprised of their own filters and biases, amplified by feedback loops that "prove" to them their reality is "true." White-washed education, puritan biases, rejection of all contrary information. They have consensus. It's their only reality.
@shekinahcancook@meltedcheese It is indeed troubling when conspiracy theorists appear to deny reality. My answer to that is that information is only relevant to the extent it is adaptive for survival. Information isn't just intrinsically good. The person who denies the fact their house is in a flood zone then has their house destroyed in a flood learns information "the hard way" having refused to learn the information "the easy way."
Survival of what? Maga. QAnon, ChristoFascism (& Hamas brand of theocratic totalitarianism) hold beliefs that are strongly mal-adaptive to 21st century life. Declaring your spiritual path to be the only path, or that fairy tales are facts, or "superiority" for having "correct" beliefs give you the obligation to execute lgbtq folks or atheists, or treat women like livestock - none of those things are adaptive. (And again, you'd have to ask "adaptive to what?") They imagine themselves to be a "secret majority" and think the majority actually agrees with them and wants to join them, but is afraid to do so due to "wokeness." It's counter-factual, but that is also a feedback loop in their alternate reality.
Their mal-adaptive behaviors are reinforced by the consensus they live in. No matter how much you tell them climate collapse is real, and not to build in a flood plain, if their church gets together and rebuilds their home every time it floods, they won't change.
@shekinahcancook@meltedcheese I think you "underestimate" how adaptive this is. Even the most distasteful christofascist or Hamas member is the product of millennia of successful reproduction. Something they are doing is adaptive. Evolutionary pressures seem to have made some trade between commitment to scientific truth and group cohesion. Probably in some ecological niches, the group cohesion based on collective lies is more adaptive than individualism based on more objective truth.
Except for the slight problem that climate collapse denials and thinking a sky fairy is going to rescue them from the results of their own actions gets them all killed. So sure, I guess the next generation may be selected for non-deniers, but then again, there's a non-zero chance there won't be a next generation. You can't pray away crop failures any more than you can pray away the gay. It's mal-adaptive all the time.
@shekinahcancook@meltedcheese Yes, if the climate collapses and results in a human extinction event, that will be learning "the hard way" that climate change was real because they refused to learn "the easy way" through scientific modeling of the climate.
The question in all of these scenarios is how much information do you need, and how open to information are you. The norm seems to be people need to learn "the hard way" because they struggle to integrate inconvenient facts.
Ah, but they struggle to integrate those fact precisely because those with "Power" ie Wall St and Big Oil, et al, have distorted reality and used misinformation to obfuscate the bare scientific facts. (Not saying scientific facts should not be verified or that interpretations can't vary, but in the case of climate collapse there is no honest reading of the facts that doesn't lead to massive food shortages, natural disasters, and deaths.) That combined with the West's cultural fixation on materialistic achievement and the myth of "progress" has created a consensus that has shot by mal-adaptive and gone to plaid.
@shekinahcancook@meltedcheese Back to my point about reality and power though, if the climate deniers continue to burn so many fossil fuels, that will mark a failure of the people who believed the climate models to muster sufficient power to avert climate disaster. So the outcome would be the same irrespective of whether the climate models had existed or not.
My catch phrase would be "you don't get extra points for being 'morally' right."
@shekinahcancook@meltedcheese To use that extremely misunderstood word, the climate deniers seem to be "winning" objectively speaking, and it's unclear if the climate believers have sufficient power (of numbers, persuasion, military force, technological advancement) to fix that.
The "believers" are the minority, in fact, sadly to say. Most people either don't care or will actively resist giving up things that need to be given up, like private automobiles and CAFO meat every day. Certainly the corporations are not going to stop Big Oil - they benefit far too much. Since there has never been consensus, the "believers" never had a chance, really. Attempts to change the consensus have failed - until it's too late to fix it. I've been advising people to adapt in place or move if they can, because of the failure of consensus to adapt to the new circumstances.
@shekinahcancook@meltedcheese I am holding out hope for a "deus ex machina" type technological solution, similar to the fix for the hole in the ozone layer. Also, grimly, I imagine there should be negative feedback loops where climate change radically reduces human population which in turn reduces green house gas emissions.
@escarpment@shekinahcancook We are on the verge of disrupting the stability of Earth’s climate. Once unstable, there is no guarantee that it will return to the same climate equilibrium in which humanity or other life thrives. The geophysical history of Earth shows multiple climate equilibriums. Many remained stable for millions of years. Earth climate is a multi-stable system, potentially moving now towards a new, inhospitable climate equilibrium.
@shekinahcancook@meltedcheese Hamas militants who falsely believe they are strong enough to conquer Israel could learn the information the "easy way" and agree to a peace deal, or learn that information the "hard way" and suffer heavy casualties and destruction as Israel batters them militarily.
Not as long as Iran continues to fund them. The majority of Muslms reject the fundamentalist Iranian vision of Islam, therefore it will fail eventually. But as long as some community of hardliners has consensus amoung themselves, nothing will change for them. Their beliefs are self-reinforcing - ie god loves us not them, god will give us victory to establish a world wide caliphate, etc and so on.
@shekinahcancook Hm maybe I see what you're saying. You're saying, even if you're a hypocritical selective ethicist who kills Wilbur and snuggles Fido, you can still be "right" about certain issues.
Partly. Radical subjectivity is the philosophy that TRUTH(tm) is unknown and unknowable. You brain is not objective - you have layers upon layers of filters, biases, and perspectives. Everyone is looking at a given thing and arrives at different conclusions about it. So if they act on that conclusion in a way that consensus recognizes as positive or beneficial, but their own reasoning takes them on an unusual or generally frowned upon path to get there, is their action any less than someone with "proper" reasoning or motives? I would think actions matter more than intentions.
Add comment