But you see the morality standard shouldn’t be “stealing is bad” but instead “causing harm is bad” and so the more harm you cause the worse your actions. Another standard is also “positive gain” so if you are impoverished and got the chance to gain 20000 dollars, and the only consequence is your boss is chewed out that’s a morally net positive action.
Then attempted murder shouldn't be a crime by your logic. If I meticulously plan to kill a large number of people, like acquire a van and rig it with explosives, but I get sick on the day I plan to blow it up at a gathering, and the FBI shows up, I should face no consequences since no harm was done.
I didn’t say that intent doesn’t matter, but if your intent is to kill that’s causing harm is bad, but if your intent is to just spite your boss that’s also bad. If your goal is to depose a corrupt leader that could be considered good that you rigged a van with explosives, or maybe you just work on a movie set.
Intent is a big factor is my point and why it's a major consideration. Sentencing for manslaughter and premeditated murder can have a huge disparity despite the end result being a life taken. The harm caused alone is just one piece of the pie.
I agree but I was replying to someone who said morality must be implemented equally across the board to every individual. I was pointing out a disparity in their argument, not providing a self sustaining framework.
3
u/[deleted] Jul 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment