Well said Alex. You have a brilliant mind. Thank you for your contributions as ever. They are often very intuitive and clarifying.
What would the situation be then that once educated...for instance having participated in this discussion...a person continued with their actions with the understanding that it caused pain and suffering in another? If they accepted that premise, would that create intent? If intent then exists does uncaring become cruelty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
Perhaps we need a better word than cruelty.
No one likes to be accused of being cruel as the implication is there is evil intent.
The word implies a crime like act.
A crime once needed the ingredient of "mens rea" ... a guilty mind. The codification of many laws removes this aspect such that many crimes can be called those of strick liability where intent is not needed.
However once intent and the aspect of a guilty mind was the important consideration to establish a crime.
Larceny required the intent to permanently deprive the victim of the stolen item so the law could not deal with joy riders who took a car but had no intention to permanently keep the car.
The law required legislation to fix this aspect relating to intent.
If you kill someone make sure when arrested you say the magic words "I did not mean to kill him" because for murder intent to kill is what thecrime turns on...
There was a case that went (from Australia) to the Privy Council in England (once our highest court of appeal) where a chap shot the victim when he answered the door. The accused pleaded that it was an accident and very nearly got off.
So consider the importance of intent.
Cruely implies for those accused they are guilty of evil intentions which I doubt is a reasonable claim.
So to call someone cruel when they perhaps do not even consider what they do may cause suffering is perhaps too harse.
But most people when their action is pointed out and they take time to consider may well understand that yes that creature would experience pain or suffering... And I suggest that rather than call folk who have not thought about how a "lesser" creature may feel perhaps should not be labelled cruel.... Uncaring would be a little less harse and even a more realistic way of describing their "cruelty".
We could reserve the word cruelty for those most evil characters who act deliberately and with the sole purpose of causing pain and suffering to another creature.
And sadly such evil folk are out there.
But I do think although an act may be cruel it is better to take into account the intent or absence of intent before we call someone cruel.
Clearly John is not a cruel man and his actions to save the snake is wonderful. And I think we need more people who look for babies in that road kill.
I suspect John realised fishing probably caused suffering given he has the decency to save a snake. But would no doubt be offended at any suggestion he was somehow cruel.
And although these things can generate hard feelings we should not allow that for what we do is presume that we have a right to judge another which I dont think we do and even if such a right exists I dont think we should judge another.
It is mostly wrong for us, the one judging, because you percieve a wrong which will upset you until that wrong is made right.
We cant always make things right so we must emplky tolerance which is a form of kindness.
We need to be as kind as our situation allows.
Alex
|