Who is more moral?

Quick question, your thoughts please:

All other things being equal, who is the more moral person?

a) Someone who has a strong desire to do evil, but resists it and does good instead,

or

b) Someone who has no desire whatsoever to do evil, and does good simply because he/she knows nothing else.

Comments

  1. Actually it's not so difficult when I stay focused...

    by LAUGHING BOY on MONDAY, JUNE 18, 2007 at 6:53PM
    Actually it's not so difficult when I stay focused on your question and not where you might be leading.

    ...so who decides who gets what inclinations...is it his fault...

    As far as culpability is concerned what difference does it make? If two people are on trial for murder, who will get the harsher sentence, the one for whom the act was an aberrant crime of passion, or the one for whom the act was in keeping with their murderous inclinations? Most juries and judges (outside California) will rightly punish the latter more harshly. People are (not "should be" but "are") held accountable for behavior that springs from their will regardless of how corrupted it is or who corrupted it.
  2. Sorry, the third paragraph is poorly worded. It sh...

    by LAUGHING BOY on WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2007 at 8:09PM
    Sorry, the third paragraph is poorly worded. It should read:

    If this (the previous paragraph) is a fair restatement, then consider the following: Is a person who must struggle to pass...
  3. Before we leave your original question let me ask ...

    by LAUGHING BOY on WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2007 at 7:46PM
    Before we leave your original question let me ask you something; can I restate it as follows without losing your intention?

    Is the person who must struggle to be good more moral than the person who does not?

    If so, then is the person who must struggle to pass a calculus exam more intelligent that the person who does not?

    I think any person who struggles to achieve something—even bad things like becoming the city's leading drug-dealer—is exhibiting admirable qualities like perseverance, industriousness, and hope. The calculus student who has trouble with the concepts but studies hard to grasp them is exhibiting admirable traits, but he would never be considered more intelligent (re: calculus) than the girl who does equally well without cracking the book or even paying attention in class. She would be called a genius. He would be called conscientious.

    Your new questions regarding inclinations are good, but difficult, ones. I am working on a response that I hope to post very soon. It may not be worth the wait, but I'd like to hear what you think.
  4. Ok, so who decides who gets what inclinations? Wh...

    by STU SHERWIN on WEDNESDAY, JUNE 06, 2007 at 12:39AM
    Ok, so who decides who gets what inclinations? Where does Dahmer's desire to kill people come from, and who gave it to him? Is it his fault if he has a greater desire to kill than most people? Can he remove his own inclinations?
  5. B. <br><br>Morality is not the power to resist one...

    by LAUGHING BOY on FRIDAY, MAY 25, 2007 at 8:24PM
    B.

    Morality is not the power to resist one's own evil inclinations. The inclinations themselves are the morals. Maybe Dahmer wanted to kill seventy times instead of seventeen. Does that makes him more moral than you who, I suppose, does not desire to kill anyone?

Contribute your words of wisdom

Don't just stand there ... say something!

Sorry, I couldn't add your comment just yet, please check the following things:
http://

*denotes a required field