« on: October 10, 2006, 02:24:39 PM »
I realize that I may be the only person on LSD who is confused with this question but I'm setting aside my pride for now...
The LR question was:
"We can't know someone's intentions, we can only know consequences of actions, thus we can judge morality only based on consequences of actions" *ASSUMPTION*
Will someone please explain to me why TCR is "Knowing intentions are indispensable to moral judgment"? I keep looking at this question and am still a bit confused...
If knowing intentions are absolutely necessary to moral judgment (as TCR suggests), how can one conclude that we can judge morality without that necessary condition? That is, if TCR = moral judgment --> knowing intentions, wouldn't the contrapositive of that TCR mean "~knowing intentions, then ~moral judgment". The stimulus starts off by saying that we can't know intentions. So, assuming TCR, wouldn't we conclude that we can't have moral judgment (which is not what the stimulus concludes?)
Sorry if this doesn't make any sense and I'm completely misinterpreting the question...I'd appreciate any clarification, though