23674
|
If an attempted poisoning results in benefits, we still judge the agent a poisoner [Reid]
|
|
Full Idea:
If a man should give to his neighbour a potion which he really believes will poison him, but which, in the event, proves salutary, and does much good; in moral estimation, he is a poisoner, and not a benefactor.
|
|
From:
Thomas Reid (Essays on Active Powers 3: Princs of action [1788], 5)
|
|
A reaction:
I take Reid to mean that morality concerns how we assess the agent, and not the results of his actions. Mill and Bentham concede that we judge people this way, but don't think morality mainly concerns judging people.
|
23673
|
Every worthy man has a principle of honour, and knows what is honourable [Reid]
|
|
Full Idea:
I presume it will be granted, that, in every man of real worth, there is a principle of honour, a regard to what is honourable or dishonourable, very distinct from a regard to his interest.
|
|
From:
Thomas Reid (Essays on Active Powers 3: Princs of action [1788], 5)
|
|
A reaction:
Note that there is a 'principle' of honour in a person's character, and there are also actions which are intrinsically honourable or not. I fear that only the worthy are honourable, and only the honourable are worthy!
|
16697
|
Time is independent of motion, because God could stop everything for a short or long time [Crathorn, by Pasnau]
|
|
Full Idea:
Suppose God annihilates everything, and then creates something new. The vacant interval could last a shorter or longer time, so there are facts about time independent of facts about motion.
|
|
From:
report of William Crathorn (Sentences [1335], I.16, concl.2) by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 18.2
|
|
A reaction:
Not very persuasive if God is in some way 'timeless'. Crathorn would have loved Shoemaker's argument, where motionless time is the best explanation, rather than a possible explanation.
|