On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote:
> No, John said "no action that is *a fortiori ineffectual* can be immoral." > (Emphasis added.) In other words, if the action has little or no effect, > what's the harm? Darren has not erased the post from history, only from a > single archive. > > Charles > As a general statement (which is what John seems to be making) it does not take into account magnitude and nature of action. In the specific case of Darren deleting the post the magnitude is low is and it is also of an uneventful nature. One can make the argument an fortiori ineffectual attempt to rob someone (mild example here) is still immoral even if it was ineffectual. > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On > Behalf > Of Sam Siegel > Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 12:12 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Subject: Re: Deleting post > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Schwarz, Barry A < > barry.a.schw...@boeing.com> wrote: > > > Does that imply that no inaction can ever be immoral? > > > > In my book no. It seems John believes otherwise. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO > Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
