It is very difficult to convince a large population of people connected by information which includes history and factual information like news as well as sensory stimulation and disruption such as pain and grief that active violence is ethical. Passive or potential violence is more commonly used ie. negligible manslaughter or the law of robotics "allowing a human to come into harm through inaction". "I was doing something more important" and perhaps you can convince others that you in fact, were. Who knows, perhaps as an absolute fact you were. However, perhaps it's an equal fact you knew whatever you were doing would not last or result in a net positive of life so you were in fact just doing nothing intentionally. But that's difficult to prove. After all you know what they say never assign something that can be explained as stupidity or ignorance as malice or intent. Something like that. Is it right? You tell me.
Mm. It's neat how some ethical reforms were built on the backs of violent revolutions, which isn't necessarily hypocritical in this case, but kind of anyways.
Well in general it is not, it hurts people. Generally it is not nice to hurt people. It can be ethical, when it saves someone (or many) from a greater hurt. Even in that case it not always is, but sometimes violence is justified, unless you are a very strict Kantian perhaps.
Reply to john27 Here's an interesting situation: Before WWII began, the British were making plans for war--as were everybody else. The airplane people in the military thought that the highest and best use of air power was bombing. Fine, so what should the Air Force bomb? Should they support ground troops? Should they attack shipping at sea? Should they bomb railroads? Should they bomb factories? Should they bomb housing? What?
It seemed obvious to some planners that bombing factories, oil refineries, mills, and the like would be most productive. Other planners felt that bombing factories, refineries, mills... would kill too many people. The British government officially decided that they would not et out to kill people. Property yes, people no.
Despiser what the government officially decided, once WWII started, it became obvious that deliberately killing people made sound military sense--in the context of "total war" and in the context of (possible) existential threats. So they soon starting bombing factories and, significantly, neighborhoods. (So did the Germans.). The British were very careful to maintain the PR fiction that they only bombed "military targets" even if the "military target was a neighborhood where ordinary workers lived.
all this was complicated by the fact that a bomb intended to hit a railroad might instead hit a house or a school. Bombs aimed at a factory might end up hitting the surrounding workers' homes.
I don't know; I believe just about any violence will be declared "ethical" IF and WHENEVER large nation interests are at stake. This goes for pretty much any country. "War is diplomacy conducted by other methods." Violence is not always useful, it doesn't always achieve what is desired; but it works often enough that it is high on the list of options.
Ethics applied to individual cases are much easier.
Agent SmithJanuary 05, 2022 at 03:53#6389340 likes
The only time violence is condoned is when people who resort to it do so out of desperation. What is necessary can neither be good nor evil.
when it saves someone (or many) from a greater hurt. Even in that case it not always is, but sometimes violence is justified, unless you are a very strict Kantian perhaps.
I believe just about any violence will be declared "ethical" IF and WHENEVER large nation interests are at stake. This goes for pretty much any country. "War is diplomacy conducted by other methods."
Sometimes, I feel like we should just enact a global presidential boxing match. Let them fight their own problems.
Reply to john27 I'm just reading Foucault's Madness and Civilization, which characterizes the horrific brutality with which the Age of Reason addressed what is antithetical to reason, madness. I guess in those terms, violence is seen as being ethical when it is applied to unreason:
...the age of reason confined. It confined the debauched, spendthrift fathers, prodigal sons, blasphemers, men who "seek to undo themselves," libertines. And through these parallels, these strange complicities, the age sketched the profile of its own experience of unreason.
Reply to john27 violence is ethical when used in defense against an aggressor. Some would suggest that it should be the minimal use of force needed, however I am a proponent of using whatever amount of force I chose to get the job done in the most efficient manner possible. So yes, if that means someone has to die, they are going to die as efficiently as I can make it happen. If I can end the threat without death, great. If I am not sure, oh well, efficiency wins.
what is antithetical to reason, madness. I guess in those terms, violence is seen as being ethical when it is applied to unreason:
...the age of reason confined. It confined the debauched, spendthrift fathers, prodigal sons, blasphemers, men who "seek to undo themselves," libertines. And through these parallels, these strange complicities, the age sketched the profile of its own experience of unreason.
Huh. So violence is like a cure/response to madness, if I understand correctly?
So yes, if that means someone has to die, they are going to die as efficiently as I can make it happen. If I can end the threat without death, great. If I am not sure, oh well, efficiency wins.
Yeah, despite the dire setting, I wouldn't necessarily agree that violence is an ethical response.
I don't believe that violence is ever an ethical choice. But I think that the "defense of reason" position may be one of the strongest.
edit:
Toward the middle of the eighteenth century, a farmer in the north of Scotland had his hour of fame. He was said to possess the art of curing insanity. Pinel notes in passing that this Gregory had the physique of a Hercules: "His method consisted in forcing the insane to perform the most difficult tasks of farming, in using them as beasts of burden, as servants, in reducing them to an ultimate obedience with a barrage of blows at the least act of revolt."
No, but they are complementary. Preemptive, proportional violence sufficient to neutralize violent aggression and deter (disincentivizes e.g. punishes) further aggressions is justified.Responsive, proportional violence sufficient to reduce further harms to aggressors and/or victims is ethical. Protection from violence and reduction of violence, respectively.
I am a proponent of using whatever amount of force I chose to get the job done in the most efficient manner possible. So yes, if that means someone has to die, they are going to die as efficiently as I can make it happen. If I can end the threat without death, great. If I am not sure, oh well, efficiency wins.
How reactionary (monkey brain "macho") of you. :brow:
Reply to john27 If one considers violence, in itself, to be unethical, or at least undesirable, then minimizing the time one, or any other, is exposed to violence would be paramount to the reduction of harm from exposure to said violence. Therefore, achieving a state of maximum efficiency with violence could be considered the best way to reduce the amount of violence anyone is exposed to, and thereby reducing the harm associated with violence. An ability to achieve a violent outcome, when required, as painlessly and rapidly as possible would be the ultimate goal.
Example:
A) One is attacked in an alley, and having no previous training or weapons with which to defend oneself, one is subject to the will and whims of ones attacker. However long, or painful the attacker wants thing to go, that is what the victim must endure. Wallet theft, rape, murder, whatever the attacker wants, the attacker gets, within whatever parameters they elect to pursue. The victim relies on the goodness of their fellow man for protection.
B) One is attacked in the same alley, same attacker, however, the victim is packing a knife and knows how to use it. After two minutes the attacker is dead, the victim, bleeding, goes to the hospital for minor stiches. One is more reliant on the self to defend against fellow man.
C) Same alley, same attacker. The person attacked is highly trained in highly efficient use of violence. Within seconds the attacker is incapacitated (dead or unconscious) and the victim of the attack carries on along their previous path, having barely broken a sweat.
Option A has the largest, longest violence and the most suffering for the victim, and potentially for the attacker, on the premise that violence harms in both directions. Option B) has the next highest level of violence, as violence occurs to both parties and the event lasts longer than it needs to. Option C has the least violence involved, both in duration of time and energy expended committing violence, therefore Option C is the most ethical position.
Violence should not be one's opening option, however, once it is there, one should be fully conversant with it and use it as efficiently as possible, minimizing suffering.
Well justifiable is a legal term, so when violence is justified depends on the system of law. Whether violence is ethical depends on what ethical theory one follows. "is violence ethical?" Is actually an incomplete question. Firstly because the answer is rather straight forward, in no ethical system is violence per se ethical, all frown upon it, but then the thornier question becomes: when is violence considered ethical. This depends on one's system of ethics. A utilitarian might for instance argue in favour of torturing a terrorist in case of a ticking time bomb scenario, whereas a Kantian would argue against.
I tend to take a rather casuistic approach in such matters, because I do not believe in context independent ethical systems and generally take recourse to law, a field that has more experience in casustic conflict resolution than ethics. Therefore my argument would be that the default position is that violence is unethical, but there might be cases in which it may be ethical to use force.
Violence should not be one's opening option, however, once it is there, one should be fully conversant with it and use it as efficiently as possible, minimizing suffering.
"His method consisted in forcing the insane to perform the most difficult tasks of farming, in using them as beasts of burden, as servants, in reducing them to an ultimate obedience with a barrage of blows at the least act of revolt."
What a picturesque scenario. Almost romantic, in a weird way.
"is violence ethical?" Is actually an incomplete question. Firstly because the answer is rather straight forward, in no ethical system is violence per se ethical, all frown upon it, but then the thornier question becomes: when is violence considered ethical.
Therefore my argument would be that the default position is that violence is unethical, but there might be cases in which it may be ethical to use force.
Well first I think you need an indication beyond yes and no. Is violence always ethical, sometimes ethical, never ethical, now it becomes a yes or no question as if there are two flavours possible, yes violence is ethical, no it is not. Whereas here I think midddle grounds are possible. I think the responses would also be batter if you limit the question to a certain ethical theory. "I violence always unethical according to Kantian ethics?" The problem here is that people will jsut tell you there own observations but as you yourself pointed out already, many meanings are still unclear, for instance the difference between justifiable and ethical.
Responsive, proportional violence sufficient to reduce further harms to aggressors and/or victims is ethical. Protection from violence and reduction of violence, respectively.
I suppose then it wouldn't necessarily be violence, but a physical act of control. However, violence is often brutal. Sometimes justifiable, yet not necessarily ethical, which would illustrate a sort of conflict between the two. I guess maybe a more accurate question would be, is the act of inflicting injury upon someone else ethical?
I think the responses would also be better if you limit the question to a certain ethical theory. "I violence always unethical according to Kantian ethics?"
But then it'd be too easy! :joke:
No, I see what you're saying. Perhaps in the question of ethical reform, or societal reform, are acts of injury permissible? (i.e riots, revolutions)
I suppose then it wouldn't necessarily be violence, but a physical act of control. However, violence is often brutal, and sometimes justifiable not necessarily ethical. I guess maybe a more accurate question would be, is the act of inflicting injury upon someone else ethical?
Same answer. When your threaten to slit Proof's' throat from ear to ear with the flick knife you are wielding and I punch you in the face disarming you, then my 'act of control' amounts to inflicting injury aka violence, maybe even public violence if this were to happen in the street. Is this justified? Legally it is. (I know of no legal system which would convict in this case). Is it ethical? I think saving Proof''s life is an ethical action. hitting you might be unethical in normal circumstances but it was the appropriate means to a right end. In my book this would be a form of ethical violence.
Violence is categorically unethical. While in some cases its use may be understandable, that does not change its nature, namely to force someone to act in accordance to one's own desires through physical force. If that is not unethical, nothing is.
Even in the case of self-defense, its use must not be regarded as a victory (ethical), but as a personal defeat (unethical).
Violence is categorically unethical. While in some cases its use may be understandable it does not change its nature, namely to force someone to act in accordance to one's own desires through physical force. If that is not unethical, nothing is.
Even in the case of self-defense, its use must not be regarded as a victory, but as a personal defeat.
What if the desires of the other are unethical and my violence stops him from bringing these desires into effective action?
Self-preservation is a futile endeavor, and to sacrifice one's spiritual integrity for it is not an act worth celebrating, but such is my view. I'll yield that in a situation of self-defense it would not be easy. I'm not sure if I could do it.
No, but my wrong was the right thing to do. That might make it a right.
I imagine how this conversation would go. "Sorry Proof, I have to let John slit your throat from ear to ear... I could nog John in the face I could, would knock him out cold, but that would be kinda unethical, I am sure you would understand right, being a long term member of PF and all"
You think 180 Proof would understand my reasoning?
Reply to Tobias If one believes violence can turn into a right whenever it suits one's desires, then we've entered the typical slippery slope that ends at "might makes right".
Self-preservation is a futile endeavor, and to sacrifice one's spiritual integrity for it is not an act worth celebrating, but such is my view. I'll yield in a situation of self-defense it would not be easy. I'm not sure if I could do it.
I don't deny that life is not meant to be kept, but am a little skeptical on how the love of ones life impedes or incapacitate one's spiritual integrity.
If one believes violence can turn into a right whenever it suits one's desires, then we've entered the typical slippery slope that ends at "might makes right".
?Tobias If one believes violence can turn into a right whenever it suits one's desires, then we've entered the typical slippery slope that ends at "might makes right".
Yes, but that is a big if. I do not think that violence can turn into a rigt whenever it suits me or my whims. My desire must be one that itself aims at the greater good. Is that hard to establish? Yes sure. That is why I would answer negative to John's latter question, is violence ethical when it is used to steer a society in a good direction. However not all situations have that degree of difficulty. the weighing of interests between Proof's life and John's broken nose is a pretty easy one to make. (provided that proof is not threatening to blow up a city or whatever). Why should I refrain from making this calculation and acting accordingly, in the name of some kind of pie in the sky context independent ethical maxim?
Violence is ethical if it is used to counter unjust violence. I would even say it is ethical when used in the service of justice, for instance, with the death penalty. So an ethical violence would have to be a just violence.
Violence is ethical if it is used to counter unjust violence. I would even say it is ethical when used in the service of justice, for instance, with the death penalty. So an ethical violence would have to be a just violence.
By counter, do you mean reciprocate?
The principle of justice is to act morally, ethically, to be righteous to an extent. I'm not sure if reciprocating death is just.
I mean specifically to protect the innocent from violence, to counter one act of violence with another. But I also believe violent reciprocation is often warranted. Sometimes it just isn’t right that someone should get away with certain acts without a comeuppance.
But I also believe violent reciprocation is often warranted. Sometimes it just isn’t right that someone should get away with certain acts without a comeuppance.
I don't deny that life is not meant to be kept, but am a little skeptical on how the love of ones life impedes or incapacitate one's spiritual integrity.
We're discussing the means (violence) and not the ends (motivations).
I don't think ends can justify means, so one's motivations for choosing violence are not relevant in my view.
And it would impede one's spiritual integrity in the way that any unethical deed does. Any ethical discussion presupposes we see an inherent value in being/striving to be ethical. That it is Good for its own sake, and thus that doing wrong is undesirable.
However not all situations have that degree of difficulty. the weighing of interests between Proof's life and John's broken nose is a pretty easy one to make. (provided that proof is not threatening to blow up a city or whatever).
The issue is that in this example, one is using their own subjective judgement to determine what is merited. By doing so, one must also accept when another uses their subjective jdugement to do the same, unless one wishes to argue their judgement is somehow more special than others.
What you end up with is a world in which people constantly use violence against one another, and wonder why others are doing the same to them. That's what we see throughout history.
Why should I refrain from making this calculation and acting accordingly, in the name of some kind of pie in the sky context independent ethical maxim?
The point of an ethical principle is that it is context independent.
Like I said to Reply to john27, if we need to ask why following ethical principles is even important at all, then this will not be very constructive. An ethical discussion presupposes they matter to us.
Of course what is up for debate is what these ethical principles are, and I've just shared a rather bold one; violence is categorically unethical. I'm sure you will try to find grounds to disagree, and that is why we're here.
The issue is that in this example, one is using their own subjective judgement to determine what is merited. By doing so, one must also accept when another uses their subjective judgement to do the same, unless one wishes to argue their judgement is somehow more special than others.
What you end up with is a world in which people constantly use violence against one another, and wonder why others are doing the same to them. That's what we see throughout history.
No. I use my subjective judgment and I am prepared to defend it in front of an intersubjective forum of people who get to judge my actions and I provide reasons for it in full conviction that they will agree with me. It is not my subjective judgment that is key here, but intersubjective judgment. That is why the question is important that Proof would accept my reasoning or not for not saving him. (sorry 180 Proof you are under constant threat of death in my examples, fortunately it is only an example.) I use my judgment in the service of people (or other creatures) not ethical maxims.
What you end up with is a world in which people constantly use violence against one another, and wonder why others are doing the same to them. That's what we see throughout history.
No, what we see throughout history is the constant marginalisation of violence as a means to settle interpersonal conflict.
The point of an ethical principle is that it is context independent.
Like I said to ?john27, if we need to ask why following ethical principles is even important at all, then this will not be very constructive. An ethical discussion presupposes they matter to us.
Yes principles matter to us, but I disagree that ethical principles are or can be context independent. Principles are rules of thumb, accepted wisdom that holds true most of the time, but not all the time. They guide our courses of action, not prescribe them.
Of course what is up for debate is what these ethical principles are, and I've just shared a rather bold one; violence is categorically unethical. I'm sure you will try to find grounds to disagree, and that is why we're here.
Yes, but the disagreement lies not in challenging the notion that if there are categorical principles, than violence may be considered categorically unethical. I argue on the other hand that there are no context independen principles, or at least that context may require us to act not in accordance to a principle. Therefore it may be ethical to act in disregard of the principle that violence is unethical. i.e. to commit violence.
The principle is justice. With his actions he has proven he isn’t deserving of human life and dignity.
And who defines what justice is? Probably in your case the belove framers... why anyone would consider the word of 18th century well to do farmers as gospel is beyond me, anyway, different topic. Problem is that if the state likes to show it cares so much about human life and dignity, why does it act in flagrant and open contradiction of it? The state sends mixed signals. Categorically unethical that is ;) No, simply not warranted on whatever ethical maxim there is. There might be only one, the crudest one, the satisfaction of the brutish masses.
I’m not speaking about the state, though it is certainly one arbiter of justice. Anyone can be just and any amount of people can determine whether an act is just or not. To leave all that to the state is not too bright, for the reasons you mention.
Do you suppose that a man who murders an innocent person deserves the same treatment as the man who kills the murderer?
Agent SmithJanuary 05, 2022 at 18:51#6391790 likes
If the most benevolent being of all, the all-good God, dispatches sinners, people with feelings still, to hell where they allegedly experience hyperviolence (eternal torment) what hope does ahimsa have among us, mere mortals?
I’m not speaking about the state, though it is certainly one arbiter of justice. Anyone can be just and any amount of people can determine whether an act is just or not. To leave all that to the state is not too bright, for the reasons you mention.
Great, sure any amount of people can do it right, like the KKK, marvelous at determining what is right. angry mobs in general, such judge of character. Do tell, what innate wisdom has granted each individual man the ability to tell right from wrong and the ability to meat out fair and just punishment? In my nick of the words, we feel that a law study and then an extra three year education is on order.
You don’t know right from wrong? You can study laws until the cows come home, but if you do not know right from wrong, just from unjust, you could not know whether the laws are right or wrong or just and unjust. You’re simply abiding by dictate, not reason or any sense of justice. The idea that law dictates right or wrong, Justice or injustice, is not only absolutist, but an appeal to authority.
You don’t know right from wrong? You can study laws until the cows come home, but if you do not know right from wrong, just from unjust, you could not know whether the laws are right or wrong or just and unjust. You’re simply abiding by dictate, not reason or any sense of justice. The idea that law dictates right or wrong, Justice or injustice, is not only absolutist, but an appeal to authority.
We have an intuition of right and wrong, we feel pleasure we feel pain. However, we will have to teach a child to share the things he gets with others, we teach kindness, we teach also how to punish in moderation. Both ethics and law are not learned by just being in the world. Which is good or I'd be out of a job.
In the event that violence is pleasurable, physically, would it remain categorically unethical?
Depends on one's definition of violence.
Mine is: to (attempt to) make another act in accordance to one's desires through the use of physical force.
As you can see, the forcing of one's desires upon another is a key ingredient. In the case of BDSM type situations another's will is not being violated.
I argue on the other hand that there are no context independen principles, or at least that context may require us to act not in accordance to a principle.
What context do you propose, then? Whenever our subjective judgement deems it desirable to commit violence? Whenever a lot of people agree it is desirable to commit violence? I find none of these particularly convincing.
Mine is: to (attempt to) make another act in accordance to one's desires through the use of physical force.
Just checking - I've met too many people who beat up or stab people without provocation and for no reason. In this case, would you consider the victim simply 'being available' to express violence upon to qualify for your 'in accordance with one's desire?'
Reply to Tom Storm Yes, the stabber must have some desire to stab, no? They must enjoy to inflict pain on others, the reaction of the victim is what gives them pleasure or otherwise they would just stab a rock instead. There is a desired reaction they are after.
Maybe. I think it may be more about outbursts of aggression - most of the people I know who have done this take no interest in the reactions. It's closer to onanism. (This comes from working with prisoners)
I find neither are a good basis for ethics. Majority opinions have been terribly wrong in their collective judgement countless times.
You confuse intersubjectivity with majority opinion. Not every vote counts in this forum as not everyone has the moral maturity or argumentative acumen to value and weigh the reasons set forth. You may not find it a good basis for ethics, but it is the only basis we got in a real world instead of an ideal one.
Principle: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.
In that sense we do not have such fundamental truths. All truth is temporary, especially those concerning the social world and ethics is social, ethics is about the way we comport ourselves to that which is 'other'. Therefore it takes two to tango.
What context do you propose, then? Whenever our subjective judgement deems it desirable to commit violence? Whenever a lot of people agree it is desirable to commit violence? I find none of these particularly convincing.
Whether the arguments that I propose for me committing violence are sound or not, meaning that they are understandable and plausible for others who have seen enough of such situations to be able to weigh them and imagine what they would do were they in my shoes. My outlook on ethics seems rather Aristotelian in that sense.
That does not mean I absolutely shun your preference for 'principles' in the sense that you like to use them. However they have to be applicable to the real world. Say you and I agree that 'violence is unethical', what can it mean? In your view it means that every use of violence is unethical. I find that unconvincing because I can citer many instances in which it seems that violence is not only the right thing to do, it seems even the necessary thing to do in such a situation. If we than say "ahhh but it is unethical!", then ethics simply becomes a system of restraint, kind of like the place of sin in religion.
What it means to say that 'violence is unethical' in a way that it can be informative and yet retain some of its context inependent quality is to say that "we should strive for a world without violence, because in an ideal world violence is not necessary". In that sense I would agree with you. In practice however we need rules to allow for violence when necessary. In a sense this ethical discussion mirrors he perennial problem of metaphysics how to cross over from the ideal into the real.
You confuse intersubjectivity with majority opinion. Not every vote counts in this forum as not everyone has the moral maturity or argumentative acumen to value and weigh the reasons set forth.
Basing the question of whose opinions matter on yet more opinions isn't going to help.
All truth is temporary, especially those concerning the social world and ethics is social, ...
I disagree. What was unethical 1,000 years ago is unethical now, and vice versa. We can't cherry pick based on what is convenient, normal or accepted. Burning witches at the stake was never ethical, even if it was accepted at points in history.
Whether the arguments that I propose for me committing violence are sound or not, meaning that they are understandable and plausible for others who have seen enough of such situations to be able to weigh them and imagine what they would do were they in my shoes.
It is opinion, then. This will get us nowhere when we try to talk about ethics, because opinions are so different between individuals, time periods and locations. If we accept this approach, it would be more appropriate to talk about customs or culture rather than ethics.
The opinions of others is not a sound basis for ethics. It loses its meaning. Everything could be ethical.
I find that unconvincing because I can citer many instances in which it seems that violence is not only the right thing to do, it seems even the necessary thing to do in such a situation.
What it means to say that 'violence is unethical' in a way that it can be informative and yet retain some of its context inependent quality is to say that "we should strive for a world without violence, because in an ideal world violence is not necessary".
Ok, I can get behind that, but there's a principle hidden in that last sentence.
But why would we want a world free of violence if we have all these opinions telling us it's perfectly fine to use in certain situations?
Not too long ago all the superpowers in the world were spending trillions on developing bombs that could wipe the Earth clean of life, all in the name of self-defense and "necessary violence". Doesn't it seem our leniency towards practical considerations is contrary to our goals? On what basis should we allow ourselves such leniency?
In that sense I would agree with you. In practice however we need rules to allow for violence when necessary. In a sense this ethical discussion mirrors he perennial problem of metaphysics how to cross over from the ideal into the real.
I don't require such rules. Who does, exactly? You? Society? The world? Coincidentally, it seems they who require such rules are usually those who stand most to gain.
Lastly, what stops one from bringing the ideal into the real? Desires that we dress up as "practical considerations". Desire is what stops us from applying principles consistently. One may apply them to feel good about oneself, until it conflicts with one's desires, and then one may seek for a pretense as to why that is acceptable. That is not ethics. That's doing whatever the hell one wants whenever it's convenient.
Sometimes one must (attempt to) build a tower, to rise above the mud.
Maybe. I think it may be more about outbursts of aggression - most of the people I know who have done this take no interest in the reactions. It's closer to onanism. (This comes from working with prisoners)
Well, I'd assume they're lying (or equally likely, unaware of what drives them). If they had no interest in the reaction of the victim, and all they were interested in was stabbing for self-gratification they'd be stabbing a rock or a tree.
Reply to Tzeentch Not lying because generally it's what I have observed. Sounds more like you are struggling to imagine what might be happening in these instances. Me too. And by the way, extreme violence directed towards inanimate objects (trees, walls) is a common anti-social characteristic too.
Reply to Tom Storm I'm unsure what you're getting at, but if the point you're making is that they're not in control of their actions and desires play no role, then I'd say they're not commiting violence. Just like a broken machine that hurts its operator is not commiting violence.
Just like a broken machine that hurts its operator is not commiting violence.
Yes, that's it. I think violence is sometimes like a broken machine. Certainly that's what post trauma states seem to indicate. :up:
Agent SmithJanuary 06, 2022 at 10:58#6393850 likes
What we want: Zero violence (best-case scenario)
What we have to settle for: Some violence (something's better than nothing; least worst option)
What we don't want: Violence maxed out (worst-case scenario)
The question is, is the settlement we've reached - some violence - like what people disparagingly call gateway crime, a stepping stone towards extreme violence?
As you can see, the forcing of one's desires upon another is a key ingredient. In the case of BDSM type situations another's will is not being violated.
So as long as I engage in physical force on the behalf of another's pleasure, or in accordance to someone else's desire, it would not be considered as violence?
The question is, is the settlement we've reached - some violence - like what people disparagingly call gateway crime, a stepping stone towards extreme violence?
We're not living in a world with some violence.
For one, only a few decades ago, and perhaps still today, every being on Earth was being threatened with death every day. The world's superpowers had and still have their nuclear weapons aimed at each other, ballistic missile submarines on constant patrol in striking range of capital cities.
Secondly, large amounts of people live under threat of armed conflict every day. In places like Ukraine and the South China Sea, we are an incident away from large-scale armed conflict, perhaps even World War III.
Thirdly, every nation on Earth depends heavily on their ability to use and threaten with violence against its own population to maintain control. That is to say, every citizen of every country on Earth is being threatened with violence every day by its own government.
Violence is present in every facet of life. Most nations' populations, and especially those of superpowers, are working around the clock to improve their nation's capacity for violence to even greater levels. Whole civilizations are built around it, whether they realize it or not.
We do not live in a world of some violence. We live in a world of extreme violence.
That's the game humanity has played, and will likely lose sometime in the future. A millenia-long prisoner's dilemma and arms-race that has lead to an accumilation of power that no individual is capable of wielding, ending up in the hands of exactly the imperfect human beings we're trying to keep ourselves safe from.
So as long as I engage in physical force on the behalf of another's pleasure, or in accordance to someone else's desire, it would not be considered as violence?
Assuming there's no third-party whose will is going to be violated, yes. It is not violence.
Agent SmithJanuary 06, 2022 at 11:27#6393950 likes
I disagree. What was unethical 1,000 years ago is unethical now, and vice versa. We can't cherry pick based on what is convenient, normal or accepted. Burning witches at the stake was never ethical, even if it was accepted at points in history.
Maybe I was imprecise with my reference to truth Ethics does not deal with true and false but with right or wrong. True and false might be context independent (though I am not sure I agree with that either) but right or wrong is context dependent. I am not saying that wat matters is opinion I am saying that what matters is context. Using violence to save a friend might be right or wrong dependent on context, not dependent on historical epoch. When violence is used, the violence is presumed to be wrong, unless plausible argument can be given in regard to why it was right in the case at hand. To discern right from wrong we need people experienced in doing so. Because something might be right or wrong, but if we cannot tell right from wrong, it does not matter a tidbit.
It is opinion, then. This will get us nowhere when we try to talk about ethics, because opinions are so different between individuals, time periods and locations. If we accept this approach, it would be more appropriate to talk about customs or culture rather than ethics.
I do not think opinions are so different between individuals. Actually ethics, also in the absolutist variation you propose is only possible if opinions are not that different, or at least we must presuppose that by the light of common reason we can discern ethical principles. Actually, common reason must be more an assumption of yours than it needs to be mine. For you it is necessary that we can mentally at every age discern ethical principles by deduction alone. For me, only a fallibilist conception that we can find common ground is enough.
Well, if I am a police agent and I see a man shooting with a machine gun in a school aiming to kill teachers and pupils and I take him down with my fire arms, than I am praised and awarded and rightly so. My violence was necessary to stop further blood shed. I think even Kant would agree: We have an imperfect duty to intervene in this case. We cannot will people who inflict violence on the innocent to keep committing these kinds of acts (Kant was a notable proponent of the death penalty).
Another famous example, which brought Kant himself into trouble is the murderer at the door scenario. In Kant's scheme lying is categorically wrong just like in yours violence is. When confronted with the question of whether it is ok to lie when a friend hides inside your house from a murderer and the murderer asks the straightforward question whether this friend is in the house, Kant was forced to say that lying would not be appropriate in this case. For ages now Kantian scholars are trying to save the moralist from Konigberg from himself.
Ok, I can get behind that, but there's a principle hidden in that last sentence.
But why would we want a world free of violence if we have all these opinions telling us it's perfectly fine to use in certain situations?
Not too long ago all the superpowers in the world were spending trillions on developing bombs that could wipe the Earth clean of life, all in the name of self-defense and "necessary violence". Doesn't it seem our leniency towards practical considerations is contrary to our goals? On what basis should we allow ourselves such leniency?
There is a principle indeed, but principles in my line of reasoning work different then in yours. For you they are categorical prohibitions, principles work like rules. For me they are not, principles work as guidelines, leading lights, but by no means the only ones. I think you are mistaken about the nature of principles, which is actually common and reminds me of the debate between the legal philosophers HLA Hart and Ronald Dworkin. The intervention by Dwokin was a very timely one and brought attention to the function of principles in law.
Violence is fine to use in certain situations because the situations are bad and need to be resolved. In an ideal world there are no bad situations so no need for violence. However we do not live in an ideal world we live in an actual one. That does not mean we should not strive to live in an ideal world and ban violence as much as possible.
I don't require such rules. Who does, exactly? You? Society? The world? Coincidentally, it seems they who require such rules are usually those who stand most to gain.
Society needs such rules, we call it law. judges certainly need such rules because they need to know whether to convict someone when he saves the life of someone else using proportional force to prevent an unlawful, imminent attack on another person. Law currently stipulates no conviction is in order in such cases. Rightly so, I think.
Lastly, what stops one from bringing the ideal into the real? Desires that we dress up as "practical considerations". Desire is what stops us from applying principles consistently. One may apply them to feel good about oneself, until it conflicts with one's desires, and then one may seek for a pretense as to why that is acceptable. That is not ethics. That's doing whatever the hell one wants whenever it's convenient.
Sometimes one must (attempt to) build a tower, to rise above the mud.
Well there might be so many things that stop us. However, making the best and enemy of the better seems to throw away the baby with the bathwater (no worries I am out of trite expressions ;;) ) Ethics is the search for principles, but the application of them is a question or practical wisdom. It is also required when one wants to build towers on muddy soil.
Maybe I was imprecise with my reference to truth Ethics does not deal with true and false but with right or wrong.
To me those two cannot be seperated. That which is Good or right must be based on truth. That which is wrong must be based on falsehoods or delusions. Truth-seeking is therefore a vital part of ethics.
To discern right from wrong we need people experienced in doing so.
That would be an appeal to authority. Unless said person can back up their claims with reason, I would not put any value in any experience or authority on a subject they might have.
I do not think opinions are so different between individuals. Actually ethics, also in the absolutist variation you propose is only possible if opinions are not that different, or at least we must presuppose that by the light of common reason we can discern ethical principles. Actually, common reason must be more an assumption of yours than it needs to be mine. For you it is necessary that we can mentally at every age discern ethical principles by deduction alone.
Like you said, my view of ethics is dependent on there being some truth to be discovered, or common reasoning. However, we may never be sure of these things, which is why I am also against imposing one's views on others. One's ethics should concern oneself and one's own behavior in regards to others alone. Attempting to force one's views on others risks making them the victim of one's ignorance.
But yes, to put it clearly, my view is that some of the principles I have discussed so far are (potentially) fundamental and I try to back this up by showing how ignoring those principles leads to slippery slopes in which notions of right and wrong become meaningless and all violent behaviors can be justified.
Well, if I am a police agent and I see a man shooting with a machine gun in a school aiming to kill teachers and pupils and I take him down with my fire arms, than I am praised and awarded and rightly so. My violence was necessary to stop further blood shed. I think even Kant would agree: We have an imperfect duty to intervene in this case. We cannot will people who inflict violence on the innocent to keep committing these kinds of acts (Kant was a notable proponent of the death penalty).
I think in that situation the police agent's use of violence was still unethical, even if it had desirable effects as well. He had to take a life; something which I consider highly undesirable. Considering his circumstances it is understandable, however his choices in life contributed to putting himself in a position where he may have to take a life. Nothing forced him to associate with a society in which it is normal to murder children, yet he did.
Another famous example, which brought Kant himself into trouble is the murderer at the door scenario. In Kant's scheme lying is categorically wrong just like in yours violence is. When confronted with the question of whether it is ok to lie when a friend hides inside your house from a murderer and the murderer asks the straightforward question whether this friend is in the house, Kant was forced to say that lying would not be appropriate in this case. For ages now Kantian scholars are trying to save the moralist from Konigberg from himself.
Violence is fine to use in certain situations because the situations are bad and need to be resolved.
At risk of repeating myself, this is akin to excusing violence whenever one or others deem it convenient. At most it serves as a explanation as to why individuals choose violence, but not as a limitation on it.
The problem with this line of reasoning is clear; person A deems it fine to commit violence against person B because person A is of the opinion there's a bad situation that needs to be resolved.
Every violent action is justified.
You may say, well person A has a group of people who share his opinion so instead; Group A deems it is fine to commit violence against person B because group A is of the opinion there's a bad situation that needs to be resolved.
Every violent group action is justified.
This isn't ethics. It is a template for atrocity.
More likely, there are factors that, in your view, can excuse violence. Self-defense for example, so it would probably be more useful to move on to those critical factors, because this intersubjectivity line of reasoning doesn't work and indeed any line of reasoning that depends on opinion rather than a fundamental truth or principle ends this way.
In an ideal world there are no bad situations so no need for violence. However we do not live in an ideal world we live in an actual one.
That is a weak excuse! One cannot control the goings-on of the world, but one can control one's own behavior and whether one lives in accordance to ideals is a product of one's will to do so. The problem is that we often lack the desire to do so, or doing so conflicts with our desires.
If one believes the ideal is for there to be no violence, it is up to oneself to commit none.
Reply to john27 Oh sure, in that case it'd be violence. One just would not be aware that they're commiting it - carelessness coupled with ignorance causes much as suffering as malice, even if it is of a different nature.
Violence is categorically unethical. While in some cases its use may be understandable, that does not change its nature, namely to force someone to act in accordance to one's own desires through physical force. If that is not unethical, nothing is.
However this denotes violence to be act in accordance to one's own desires through physical force. Therefore if you name that previous example as violence, you would do well to admit that it is malleable/contextual?
How come? Isn't a subject being forced to do something against their will through physical force? It's violence, and, like all violence, unethical.
Perhaps the use of the term violence is misleading. I was a martial artist, and our tournament fighting was extremely violent, but our philosophy was highly ethical.
As you say, the really violent thing is, what, imposing one's will on another? Maybe that could be rephrased as not respecting the sanctity of the other. The categorical imperative, right?
How come? Isn't a subject being forced to do something against their will through physical force? It's violence, and, like all violence, unethical.
Well for one the wife didn't force the man through physical force. Nor did she have knowledge that the man's will was being violated. He was violated of his own accord. If this is violence, either the definition would have to change, or it would have to become contextual.
Well for one the wife didn't force the man through physical force.
I thought we were talking about BDSM, so I assume the wife is hurting him or something along those lines.
That's to force (it is against the man's will) one's desires (the wife desires to engage in this type of interaction) through physical force (hurting).
And don't turn this into a discussion about what constitutes BDSM, please.
Reply to Pantagruel To me, consensual exchanges of physical force do not constitute violence, and that can include more extreme forms like combat sports.
I understand that may not be entirely colloquial, and that's why I shared the definition I'm using.
Sure if the woman was hitting his man out of pleasure, that could be determined as violence. However, what if the man was hitting the woman, for her pleasure?
I understand that may not be entirely colloquial, and that's why I shared the definition I'm using.
I get that, but the term does have overtly physical connotations. I thought that disengaging the term "violence" from the whole idea of ethical violence might be meaningful. After all, people can do a whole lot of horrendous damage to other people without ever lifting a finger against them. Disenfranchising a person or a group, for example. Maybe "trespassing" is a suitable match for the concept? In which case the question becomes, is it ever ethical to trespass against others?
To me those two cannot be seperated. That which is Good or right must be based on truth. That which is wrong must be based on falsehoods or delusions. Truth-seeking is therefore a vital part of ethics.
And the truth is always temporary, facts of today will be overtaken by the science of tomorrow. Basing the right on truth only makes its foundation more shaky than when you just base in on the ' right' .
That would be an appeal to authority. Unless said person can back up their claims with reason, I would not put any value in any experience or authority on a subject they might have.
No it is not an appeal to authority it is an appeal to experience. You hold an all or nothing view. Either you have an unshakeable foundation or we have nothing to go on. However, in practice we do not have an unshakeable foundation and we still have guiding lights to go on, namely practice and experience. It is not authority based on nothing it is authority based on a past record of equitable and fair judgement. Not compared to some unshakable foundation but compared to plausible arguments.
Like you said, my view of ethics is dependent on there being some truth to be discovered, or common reasoning. However, we may never be sure of these things, which is why I am also against imposing one's views on others. One's ethics should concern oneself and one's own behavior in regards to others alone. Attempting to force one's views on others risks making them the victim of one's ignorance.
Here your reasoning spirals wildly out of control. Common reasoning is not the same as some truth being discovered. I agree on common reasoning, that is the intersubjectivity criterion that you despises. I disagree with your search for fundamental ethical truths. And so since we are not sure of these things, no one's view can be imposed on others.... well so much for society than. Is placing traffic lights imposing the view of city planners on others? If ethics only concerns oneself it becomes meaningless when you do not also provide me some unshakable truth on which it can be based. How do I know which ethical maxims you hold when there is, as you admit no truth to base them on?
But yes, to put it clearly, my view is that some of the principles I have discussed so far are (potentially) fundamental and I try to back this up by showing how ignoring those principles leads to slippery slopes in which notions of right and wrong become meaningless and all violent behaviors can be justified.
But I do not think they are so we do not have common ground, so there is no common principle, ergo no basis for our ethics. The problem with your slippery slope is you already assume we are at the bottom.
I think in that situation the police agent's use of violence was still unethical, even if it had desirable effects as well. He had to take a life; something which I consider highly undesirable. Considering his circumstances it is understandable, however his choices in life contributed to putting himself in a position where he may have to take a life. Nothing forced him to associate with a society in which it is normal to murder children, yet he did.
His taking a life is regrettable, not unethical. He is forced in society, we all are. We are born here, raised here, we speak the language of our society. I am happy that he chose to put himself in that position, because others, me for instance, might be too hesitant and it would lead to more harm. Seems to me he was the right man at the right place. A cause for social celebration for celebration.
It is the common answer and it doesn't work. The murderer knows Kant is a Kantian so when everyone respects this maxim it is easy for the murderer to know the person is indeed in your house, otherwise you would have said something, saving life and limb by sending the murderer off to elsewhere. There might be one nice move to make, but it would need another maxim, namely one does not talk to murders. However that too, would fall to the objection that this ideal world is totally removed from the real one.
At risk of repeating myself, this is akin to excusing violence whenever one or others deem it convenient. At most it serves as a explanation as to why individuals choose violence, but not as a limitation on it.
The problem with this line of reasoning is clear; person A deems it fine to commit violence against person B because person A is of the opinion there's a bad situation that needs to be resolved.
You have a condescending tone which is not based on the strength of your argument, I dislike that, Anyway, no it is not the same as excusing violence whenever it is convenient. One must make an argument for this use of violence and that argument must be plausible in the eyes of others who have proven to be able to discern right arguments from wrong arguments. A. might be of the opinion that the use of force was necessary and then A. would have the task of defending his course of action. If A. says " well violence was justified because that ugly head of his constitutes a bad situation" we will tell him he committed a wrong. His ugly head does not provide a justification for violence since A. you basically do not commit violence out of a whim and B. even if he is god ugly the harm he suffered stands in no proportion to the harm you suffered.
No it is not and that is precisely because there does exist some kind of common reasoning. Exactly the one you seem to base your argument on and deny at will. In no society will " he had an ugly head" fly as an excuse for murder. Other things might, witchcraft might. Well than it is up to others to demonstrate there is no such thing as witchcraft and that killing someone on that basis is the same as killing an innocent man. No society condones the killing of the innocent except in certain situations such as war. The point is, people can an do reason with each other about what is right and wrong. Again your either
/ or dychotomy. Or we have some fundamental principle (which we do not have as you earlier conceded) or we have nothing. In your view nothing is left and so it is every man for himself to determine what is ethical. A recipe for a war of all against all, not for an ethical society.
More likely, there are factors that, in your view, can excuse violence. Self-defense for example, so it would probably be more useful to move on to those critical factors, because this intersubjectivity line of reasoning doesn't work and indeed any line of reasoning that depends on opinion rather than a fundamental truth or principle ends this way.
Just saying it doesn't work does not mean it doesn't work. Demonstrate it with either argument or empiric facts. Facts are stacked against you, because we are doing it in this way now for ages. It might not be perfect, but it does keep people from killing each other.
That is a weak excuse! One cannot control the goings-on of the world, but one can control one's own behavior and whether one lives in accordance to ideals is a product of one's will to do so. The problem is that we often lack the desire to do so, or doing so conflicts with our desires.
This is what deontology comes down to and I think it exposes one of its core weaknesses. It assumes a kind of free floating individual, unattached to social bonds.
I don't think it's ethical for society, or indeed anyone, to make me the victim of its own imperfections.
The problem is you think you are perfect. I am happy it does make everyone the victim of its own imperfection, i.e. place traffic lights at highways, coordinates aid relief and indeed, tasks a judiciary and a police force with the task of fighting crime and insure an ordered society.
See John, this whole debate would have been entirely avoided had you just specified the ethical system from which you asked your question. ;) I am not an ethicist, but ascribe to some sort of virtue ethics. Actually I draw on various ethical systems on a casuistic bases, they are great at providing plausible arguments. A strict deontologist will never be convinced by an equally strict utilitarian and otherwise. If there is one ethical maxim I hold on to is that one should never absolutize ethical systems because doing that leads to the exact contradictions you like to avoid.
Nahhh, no worries. It wasn't criticism, it just made me smile because earlier in the threat I said the question needed specification on this point... :D I just found it funny to say: "now you see what happens!" It is actually a good debate I think so cheers to you for opening the thread.
Basing the right on truth only makes its foundation more shaky than when you just base in on the ' right' .
A shaky foundation is the best one can hope for. However, being unsure or having a shaky foundation is entirely acceptable if one does not allow others to become the victim of one's ignorance, which is exactly what one risks in the case of violence.
No it is not an appeal to authority it is an appeal to experience.
Unless some reasoning is presented, there's no difference between the two. And if a line of reasoning is presented, then it is an appeal to reason or logic.
However, in practice we do not have an unshakeable foundation and we still have guiding lights to go on, namely practice and experience. It is not authority based on nothing it is authority based on a past record of equitable and fair judgement.
Those things mean nothing to me. It is authority based on opinions. However many atrocities haven't been committed by individuals who made an appeal to past traditions or were under the false impression they were capable of fair judgement?
These things sound reasonable on paper, but the flaws become apparent when one is confronted with someone who has an entirely different frame of reference.
Here your reasoning spirals wildly out of control. Common reasoning is not the same as some truth being discovered.
I shouldn't have used the term "common reasoning".
What I meant to say is that I believe these foundational truths to be accessible through reason and logic, so in theory accessible to all (though in practice, probably not), hence the use of the word "common".
How do I know which ethical maxims you hold when there is, as you admit no truth to base them on?
The acknowledgement of one's fundamental ignorance can be a great basis for ethics. For one it should lead to a serious caution when imposing on others, violence being an example of one such imposition.
The problem with your slippery slope is you already assume we are at the bottom.
No. But when one attempts to justify actions based on slippery slopes, one must either accept that the bottom is also justifiable, or be hypocritical.
Again;
If person A justifies his violence towards person B based on what he considers his "fair judgement", what should stop person B from doing the same?
And what should indeed stop anyone from basing their justifications for violence on their "fair judgement"?
More likely, there are factors that constitute what you call "fair judgement", that determine whether one person's claim to it may be better than another's; principles.
His taking a life is regrettable, not unethical. He is forced in society, we all are.
To an extent we are forced to live in a society - a regrettable circumstance. The role we ascribe ourselves in that circumstance is one we choose voluntarily. Whether we choose to adopt its views of what constitutes justified violence is voluntary.
Now, there is an argument to be made here that society brainwashes individuals from a very young age into adopting its views. I'd agree with that, which is why I consider the non-consensual aspects of society to be highly problematic.
It is the common answer and it doesn't work. The murderer knows Kant is a Kantian so when everyone respects this maxim it is easy for the murderer to know the person is indeed in your house, ...
As far as I am concerned that is perfectly acceptable. Our involvement in this affair is entirely involuntary, and thus inaction is an acceptable route to take if the alternative is unethical conduct. If our involvement is voluntary then we were foolish to begin with, and our forced choice between two evils is entirely our own mistake.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't see how any of what I said is condescending.
In written discussions it is not always easy to know whether the other side understands what logical path I am taking, which is why I wrote it out in full.
I can be uncompromising and blunt, but you'll have to take the fact that I am writing page-long replies to you as evidence that I value our conversation and your contribution to it.
..., it is not the same as excusing violence whenever it is convenient. One must make an argument for this use of violence and that argument must be plausible in the eyes of others who have proven to be able to discern right arguments from wrong arguments.
This is utterly subjective and based on opinion. It may sound reasonable at first glance, but completely falls apart when we consider how many different interpretations there may be from the various terms you use here (plausible, proven, right, wrong, etc.). Those interpretations tend to be guided by merely what is desirable at the time; convenience.
You may think that is fine, but it leads to every action being justifiable, and ethics becoming meaningless via the slippery slope I have discussed.
A. might be of the opinion that the use of force was necessary and then A. would have the task of defending his course of action. If A. says " well violence was justified because that ugly head of his constitutes a bad situation" we will tell him he committed a wrong. His ugly head does not provide a justification for violence since A. you basically do not commit violence out of a whim and B. even if he is god ugly the harm he suffered stands in no proportion to the harm you suffered.
Reasonable at first glance, but then;
A. is of the opinion that stoning a married woman is necessary because she looked at another man. A is tasked with defending his course of action, and whatever not-entirely-hypothetical society A is a part of deems this a justifiable use of force.
If we stick to your line of reasoning, we cannot consider this unethical. It seems to boil down to, everything can justify violence as long as there's a society willing to accept it.
No it is not and that is precisely because there does exist some kind of common reasoning. Exactly the one you seem to base your argument on and deny at will. In no society will " he had an ugly head" fly as an excuse for murder.
One would wish for this to be the case, but my previous example shows our reasonings not to be as common as hoped.
The "right" to murder, based on a perceived affront.
What about witch burnings? What about pogroms? We could continue, but I think my point is clear.
I think our disconnect lies in that you seem to assume (but correct me if I am wrong) that average behavior of individuals must be ethical. That whatever societies agree on is acceptable, must be justified and ethical.
The point is, people can an do reason with each other about what is right and wrong.
And regularly they come to conclusions which are clearly unethical, like burning people at the stake baesd on superstition, or murdering people in the street based on perceived insults.
In your view nothing is left and so it is every man for himself to determine what is ethical. A recipe for a war of all against all, not for an ethical society.
To the contrary. Every person who understands they have no foot to stand on should steer clear from violence and impositions on others, lest they make others the victim of their ignorance.
Facts are stacked against you, because we are doing it in this way now for ages.
And war and man-made suffering run like a red line through mankind's history. That may be the best mankind is capable of, but individuals need not settle for that mess.
It might not be perfect, but it does keep people from killing each other.
Perfect it is most certainly not, but where do you get the idea that it keeps people from killing each other? Only a few decades ago mankind was a button-press away from killing, literally, everyone. We still are.
If the historical trend of ever more deadly warfare is to continue, the next war will be deadlier than World War II.
This is what deontology comes down to and I think it exposes one of its core weaknesses. It assumes a kind of free floating individual, unattached to social bonds.
That is an interesting discussion in its own right. Not only is it my view that such an individual exists in every one, I'm also considering that analyzing and reevaluating one's core beliefs as imposed by one's upbringing, social climate or state may be a prerequisite for being a moral agent.
Of course not. I know I am not perfect, which is exactly why I am proposing these things. It is interesting that you interpret my attempts to reconcile my conduct with my imperfection as a claim to being perfect.
I get that, but the term does have overtly physical connotations. I thought that disengaging the term "violence" from the whole idea of ethical violence might be meaningful. After all, people can do a whole lot of horrendous damage to other people without ever lifting a finger against them. Disenfranchising a person or a group, for example. Maybe "trespassing" is a suitable match for the concept? In which case the question becomes, is it ever ethical to trespass against others?
I see where you're coming from.
Allow me to try and explore:
What can make the use of physical force unethical, is when it is used against someone else's will. So the unethical aspect of this is that it is an imposition. Impositions can include a variety of non-violent behaviors as well.
There was a great and lengthy discussion about impositions in this thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12197/the-reason-for-expressing-opinions/p8
And the things we call truth nowadays, are they truth and facts or will time tell? And what should we do with our principles based on these? Were they principles or weren't they? Quoting Tzeentch
A shaky foundation is the best one can hope for. However, being unsure or having a shaky foundation is entirely acceptable if one does not allow others to become the victim of one's ignorance, which is exactly what one risks in the case of violence.
Do you have children? If so they will become the victim of your ignorance whether you want it or not.
Unless some reasoning is presented, there's no difference between the two. And if a line of reasoning is presented, then it is an appeal to reason or logic.
Yes but reasoning is presented, that is the whole point. When a police agent shoots a man he is asked why. If he then explains that the man was holding a gun and was shooting and that is why the officer took him down he presentsQuoting Tzeentch
That is an interesting discussion in its own right. Not only is it my view that such an individual exists in every one, I'm also considering that analyzing and reevaluating one's core beliefs as imposed by one's upbringing, social climate or state may be a prerequisite for being a moral agent.
a reason for his/her actions. Is it an appeal to logic? No. It is a justification of her use of force. It is actually an appeal to inductive reasoning. She feared the gunman might shoot again. Everything pointed towards it, though there was no certainty the gunman would have fired. It is an appeal to practical wisdom indeed.
The acknowledgement of one's fundamental ignorance can be a great basis for ethics. For one it should lead to a serious caution when imposing on others, violence being an example of one such imposition.
I am all for serious cautions. That is why the use of violence is generally prohibited by law.
If person A justifies his violence towards person B based on what he considers his "fair judgement", what should stop person B from doing the same?
And what should indeed stop anyone from basing their justifications for violence on their "fair judgement"?
More likely, there are factors that constitute what you call "fair judgement", that determine whether one person's claim to it may be better than another's; principles.
Indeed. In order to guide fair judgment we have education and law, training people in using fair judgment. That does not mean rote learning of context independent principles, it means evaluating the context we find ourselves in and handling the context appropriately. That is what learning means. Now of course there may be differences as to what an appropriate reaction is. The course of action society takes is to have these justification examined by a third person, even more trained and educated in weighing arguments and indeed judging the relative wight of principles.
To an extent we are forced to live in a society - a regrettable circumstance. The role we ascribe ourselves in that circumstance is one we choose voluntarily. Whether we choose to adopt its views of what constitutes justified violence is voluntary.
Now, there is an argument to be made here that society brainwashes individuals from a very young age into adopting its views. I'd agree with that, which is why I consider the non-consensual aspects of society to be highly problematic.
I disagree, a lot depends on upbringing, learning, social environment etc. We are not free to rewrite the social contract. whenever we feel like it. However, society
Those things mean nothing to me. It is authority based on opinions. However many atrocities haven't been committed by individuals who made an appeal to past traditions or were under the false impression they were capable of fair judgement?
These things sound reasonable on paper, but the flaws become apparent when one is confronted with someone who has an entirely different frame of reference.
Indeed! and you have the idea that you are capable of fair judgment based on principles you seem able to discern, however many would be disagreeing with you. You let nobody tell you otherwise though because that be societal influence trying to brainwash you...
As far as I am concerned that is perfectly acceptable. Our involvement in this affair is entirely involuntary, and thus inaction is an acceptable route to take if the alternative is unethical conduct. If our involvement is voluntary then we were foolish to begin with, and our forced choice between two evils is entirely our own mistake.
Yes, that is what Kantian reasoning comes down to an where the achilles heel of such reasoning has been pointed out. It cannot make sense of the idea of special obligations. No friend of yours will choose your house. Your wife will not ask whether you like her dress, your children will not expect any kind of special treatment from you... I want to be able to be offered shelter by a friend. I expect them to lie for me if need be. The problem with this line of anti-social ethics is that you end up with a life that is solitary nasty brutish and short, exactly what we all strive to avoid... This line of thinking is entirely coherent, I grant you that, and entirely absurd.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't see how any of what I said is condescending.
In written discussions it is not always easy to know whether the other side understands what logical path I am taking, which is why I wrote it out in full.
I can be uncompromising and blunt, but you'll have to take the fact that I am writing page-long replies to you as evidence that I value our conversation and your contribution to it.
Sure, nothing wrong with uncompromising and blunt and I say that without any sarcasm. I may well have misread it. If so my apologies. I value your remarks and page long replies as well.
This is utterly subjective and based on opinion. It may sound reasonable at first glance, but completely falls apar
Tzeentch;639856:To the contrary. Every person who understands they have no foot to stand on should steer clear from violence and impositions on others, lest they make others the victim of their ignorance.
t when we consider how many different interpretations there may be from the various terms you use here (plausible, proven, right, wrong, etc.). Those interpretations tend to be guided by merely what is desirable at the time; convenience.
You may think that is fine, but it leads to every action being justifiable, and ethics becoming meaningless via the slippery slope I have discussed.
I disagree. Also those terms which may be vague, gain their content from the way they are used in practical discussion and argument. It is not utterly subjective, it is intersubjective. We appeal to common usage of terms, common reason indeed. However not in the meaning you attach to it, deducible principles independent of context. The search has been on for centuries but in this absolutist guise it has been fruitless.
A. is of the opinion that stoning a married woman is necessary because she looked at another man. A is tasked with defending his course of action, and whatever not-entirely-hypothetical society A is a part of deems this a justifiable use of force.
If we stick to your line of reasoning, we cannot consider this unethical. It seems to boil down to, everything can justify violence as long as there's a society willing to accept it.
No we do not need to accept that conclusion, but we have to work a little harder than just saying: "violence is unethical, you use violence against a married woman, therefore you act unethically". Actually the example shows the problem of your ethical system. Since all judgment is based on this one principle, you cannot make any difference between the police offiicer in my example and the man stoning his wife.
In fact Your ethics restricts you to only apply judgment to yourself and your own actions. Thinking for others is unethical. There is no reason for you to help this woman. Therefore in your system it is perfectly fine to sign an arms deal with just such a society. What we have to do is argue and try to convince this society that their law is unjust. then we have to try to find common ground and indeed look for principles, but a wholly different kind of principles. We will have to go about asking what the essence of law is, what does law do and what is its corner stone. I would say it is equal treatment. Are laws justified that make such a difference between man and woman. I would say it is against the nature of law to do so. Therefore I would try to convince the other of my arguments or at least try to convince my government not to sign an arms deal with such a country. The main difference is that for me ethics is only relevant when it is dialogical, discursive, argumentative. You hold on to a kind of monological ethics by which you can set our own moral compass. I do not see that as relevant because we are not on our own.
One would wish for this to be the case, but my previous example shows our reasonings not to be as common as hoped.
Here's another example: Kiri-sute gomen
The "right" to murder, based on a perceived affront.
What about witch burnings? What about pogroms? We could continue, but I think my point is clear.
I think our disconnect lies in that you seem to assume (but correct me if I am wrong) that average behavior of individuals must be ethical. That whatever societies agree on is acceptable, must be justified and ethical.
Your point is clear and the same reasoning applies. We try to convince and argue and try to find common ground. And indeed, it pays off! In Japan no one has the right to murder anymore, witches live their lives in peace and their broomsticks are now tax deductible! Progroms have been eradicated in most countries and I can go on. That is not because Kant came along and told them, or because everyone just miraculously came to see the miracle of the categorical imperative.
To the contrary. Every person who understands they have no foot to stand on should steer clear from violence and impositions on others, lest they make others the victim of their ignorance.
Yes and since there is no foot to stand on, you reach the conclusion that violence should not be stopped by countervailing force when it starts and we should allow ourselves and others to get killed in the name of ethics. I agree if everyone would see the wisdom in your words we would all be safe, but not everyone does.
Perfect it is most certainly not, but where do you get the idea that it keeps people from killing each other? Only a few decades ago mankind was a button-press away from killing, literally, everyone. We still are.
If the historical trend of ever more deadly warfare is to continue, the next war will be deadlier than World War II.
Look especially at the homicide rates over time. They plummeted. Sure mass atrocities may still occur. we never know when a next more deadly war will happen. What we do know is that the categorical imperative will not prevent it, but communication and the great entwinement of the global world order just might.
That is an interesting discussion in its own right. Not only is it my view that such an individual exists in every one, I'm also considering that analyzing and reevaluating one's core beliefs as imposed by one's upbringing, social climate or state may be a prerequisite for being a moral agent.
I agree with that sentiment, but examining them is something else than cutting them. I even so wholeheartedly agree that I consider the social climate, upbringing and bonds necessary for our emancipation as moral agents. That means that 'social brainwashing' as you name it, has its particular function as a moment of our emancipation.
Of course not. I know I am not perfect, which is exactly why I am proposing these things. It is interesting that you interpret my attempts to reconcile my conduct with my imperfection as a claim to being perfect.
That is because the assumption of perfection is needed. You wish to base your ethics on absolute truth and so there must be a kind of truth to which you have privileged access. Or, at least, there is someone like you inside of everyone, but not nearly everyone, I daresay not nearly most, accept your conclusions. Perfection is maybe not the words, but you have to presume some sort of moral superiority above others.
Ok.... that was my longest PF post yet I think and that considering that I should be working. Ohh dear...
If you look at the laws for example in western countries it's like this. The exemptions (like self defence) are written as separate laws or can in some other way later be used in the process as an argument for defence. It's like -> Yeah you did a bad thing, but you did not have a choice.
Well these are the rules for citizens. State has got monopoly on violence in certain situations where people generally think it is needed. So yeah there is a great number of situations the for the state to use violence "ethically".
State has got monopoly on violence in certain situations where people generally think it is needed. So yeah there is a great number of situations the for the state to use violence "ethically".
I guess in a practical standard, the question becomes a little different. I think for the state violence becomes efficient, which in a casual sense relates to ethics, but I still don't necessarily agree that its the right "choice" per say.
I get that, but the term does have overtly physical connotations. I thought that disengaging the term "violence" from the whole idea of ethical violence might be meaningful. After all, people can do a whole lot of horrendous damage to other people without ever lifting a finger against them. Disenfranchising a person or a group, for example. Maybe "trespassing" is a suitable match for the concept? In which case the question becomes, is it ever ethical to trespass against others?
I think that might help resolve transgressions in a more general sense, but violence is peculiar in a sense that it's...courageous? Brave? not the best words, but the personal/physical aspect of violence is a neat complication, one that other forms of moral trespass lack, In my opinion.
Agent SmithJanuary 08, 2022 at 07:09#6400610 likes
It's my firm belief that we need to introduce a difference here, between ethical and permissible.
If you're driven into a corner, you're outta options, violence is inevitable. In that sense, to the degree you're forced, violence is permissible.
However, that doesn't make violence ethical. Violence is always unethical.
Many moral dilemmas maybe solved in this quite simple way - distinguish ethics from permissibility.
Take the trolley problem. It is always unethical to kill a person and it doesn't matter how many people you'll save when you do that. Nevertheless, it's ok to kill one for, as they say, "the greater good". Is this a good time to introduce a new concept in ethics? I call it goodish. Utilitarian philosophy, to the extent it condones what in Kantian ethics is absolutely immoral, is goodish.
It's amazing how a new concept (a new word) can clear things up.
Yes. Death does not equate to suffering. I am not clear what your objection is. I suppose you could define suffering, however, as I understand it, once someone is dead their physical suffering is over, therefore death equates to the end of suffering.
However, that doesn't make violence ethical. Violence is always unethical.
Many moral dilemmas maybe solved in this quite simple way - distinguish ethics from permissibility.
If my only recourse to save a friend who is in danger without having provoked or caused the danger, is by using force than my action is not only permissible, it is also ethical. (subject to limitations of proportionality, subsidiarity, 'ultimum remedium' etc) At least I maintain that is is, Tzeentch does not.
Reply to john27 I am not joking. I work healthcare, I have patients and family ask me to "assist" with death on a nearly daily basis to relieve suffering. There is now a program for that in Canada: Medical Assistance In Dying. It has been along time coming, far too long.
Reply to john27 I do see a difference with M.A.I.D and efficient self defense: one is by choice and the other is forced upon an unwilling party. However, by initiating the conflict, one opens the door to all responses.
So your objection is not that death does not relieve suffering but that killing an enemy as a means of expediency is wrong...based on what premise? If I am attacked I have the right to defend myself as I see fit. If I am better at violence than the attacker even better for me. I did not initiate the situation but I am going to end it as rapidly and efficiently as possible with the least amount of risk to myself or my family. Under most circumstances that means striking hard, fast, and enough times so the attacker is unable to rise again. The faster I can accomplish that, the better, as my family and myself will continue to be at risk until the threat is gone. The faster it happens the less violence my family, me, and the attacker have to endure. I will lose no sleep if the attacker dies while I defend myself or my family.
Ever been in a fist fight? or one with weapons involved?
I respect your decision on the account that you do this to protect your family. I'm telling you right now though, that you are wrong. Death is not fun.
Reply to john27 Fun is not the debate. Ethical violence is. My position is that under specific circumstances, violence, no matter the required level, is ethical. I am also adding the qualifier that in order to ensure the highest level of ethical violence, one should be thoroughly adept at violence and able to dispense said violence as efficiently as possible in order to minimize suffering.
Reply to john27 Death, efficiently applied, can result in a minimization of suffering. I will provide you with a ridiculous example to demonstrate:
Bob is a generally violent guy, takes whatever he wants from whoever he wants, whenever he wants, in whatever fashion he likes at the time. Maybe he wants somebody's sandwich, he does whatever he needs to to get the sandwich. Maybe he wants money, maybe he feels like raping somebody. Whatever it is, he will move forward on his desire, being as violent as required to achieve his goal. He leaves a path of trauma and suffering in his wake. Mike is eating in the park with his family. The park is by a deep strong river. Mike can see Bob making his way through the park, victimizing picnickers and passersby with various levels of violence and general mayhem. When Bob approaches Mike's family, intent on committing more harms, Mike intercedes with a rapid blow to the side of the head, knocking Bob unconscious. One single blow. Unknownst to Bob or Mike, Bob suffers a cerebral bleed and dies within minutes. Bob is no longer able to continue inflicting harm, trauma, and suffering upon others, as he is dead, thereby saving countless future victims from Bob's ravaging. Whether Mike accidentally killed Bob, or meant to, the end result of Bob's death is less suffering overall, even for Bob, as he was struck once and died. Had he continued to live he would have continued to experience more violence inflicted on him from others who chose to attempt to defend themselves from Bob.
Agent SmithJanuary 09, 2022 at 06:48#6403640 likes
Whether Mike accidentally killed Bob, or meant to, the end result of Bob's death is less suffering overall, even for Bob, as he was struck once and died.
And what of Bob's family? What of Bob's son? Could he not have benefited from a rectified father figure?
Violence is a saviour to all; except the moral system, where in its dismay now regards death as not only a veritable solution to a problem, but a good one. Oh, woe is me. It is in my belief that justice stands to rectify, not to "dish out". Imagine this equally ridiculous situation:
Mike, in his anger and fear for his family, raises his deadly fist. However, he stops. He sees a despair in Bob's eye, a deep trauma that control's his behaviour. Mike, in his empathetic understanding, disolocates Bob from his family and offers him a beer. There they talk, and after a bit Bob walks off, a new man.
I'm not saying everyone can change. I think that is pretty impossible. But when we discuss a moral system, or a moral categorization, one should strive for the best possible solution. And that is, Bob now teaches bobby that yeah he once was a tough dude, but hitting people is overrated.
There's a difference there and, for me, it needs to be made explicit by developing a new concept: goodish (2).
1 of course. However sometimes that is impossible. It does not go anywhere to answer the question whether violence can be ethical though. If I could safe my friend 1. through donating a kidney or 2. I could save him without donating a kidney I would also choose 2. That does not make me donating a kidney any less ethical to save my friend any less ethical.
By goodish, would you mean that "good" performs on a spectrum? As in, something could be more good or less good.
My intention, if it could be considered that, is to try my best to leave the notion of good, in its original form (absolute, clear, and beyond the clutches of bargaining) unmolested.
If violence is to be admitted into the company of the good it can't, I'm afraid, be done so as an equal (as a good, as ethical). Suffice it to say that violence must know its place; it's a necessary evil and those who share my views have been gracious enough to reclassify violence, not as a necessary evil but as goodish. That's a huge concession I'm making here.
If violence is to be admitted into the company of the good it can't, I'm afraid, be done so as an equal (as a good, as ethical). Suffice it to say that violence must know its place; it's a necessary evil and those who share my views have been gracious enough to reclassify violence, not as a necessary evil but as goodish. That's a huge concession I'm making here.
You treat concepts like Platonic forms. The form of violence, the form of the good. Violence is a means to an end. It is a suspect means because it harms people and people tend to dislike being harmed. It is not good or bad 'in itself'. It is good or bad dependent on context. Donating a kidney is a generally good act, committing violence is generally bad. Context may change our judgment though. There simply is no need for categorical judgments.
Agent SmithJanuary 09, 2022 at 12:42#6404250 likes
You treat concepts like Platonic forms. The form of violence, the form of the good. Violence is a means to an end. It is a suspect means because it harms people and people tend to dislike being harmed. It is not good or bad 'in itself'. It is good or bad dependent on context. Donating a kidney is a generally good act, committing violence is generally bad. Context may change our judgment though. There simply is no need for categorical judgments.
Ethics is absolute and universal in my opinion. Thou shalt not kill means thou shalt not kill, plain and simple. Ethical injunctions are binding to all, everywhere, every time. True, there are factions that claim that ethical rules have exceptions (the present OP being an exploration of one such), but that, as far as I can tell, is more a case of confusion rather than nuance, subtlety. How? Violence of the kind that people consider acceptable (e.g. self-defense or "for the greater good") have been erroneously categorized with good and that's been the point of origin of endless, unnecessary, controversy. Don't do that! Come to think of it, even goodish is too much of a concession.; let's stick to necessary evil, shall we?
Ethics is absolute and universal in my opinion. Thou shalt not kill means thou shalt not kill, plain and simple. Ethical injunctions are binding to all, everywhere, every time.
Well than you are living in a dream world because no one recognizes those injunctions as binding to all everywhere and every time. Not even the most absolutist of ethicists, Kant did. No one also "categorizes things with good". They ask what the right thing to do is, pace Sandel, not what the form of the good is.
And of course the controversy is not unnecessary, what kind of silliness is that? Sure, ethicists and lawyers for ages have been debating whether for instance euthanasia is justified, whether self defense is justified, whether killing in war is justified, no on along comes a fella called Agent Smith who tells the greatest minds in history it is all baloney. Wonderful.
If violence is to be admitted into the company of the good it can't, I'm afraid, be done so as an equal (as a good, as ethical).
I concur with your sentiment, but ethical violence is more often than not a "product" or a will to do good. How then can one separate a child from its parent?
Agent SmithJanuary 09, 2022 at 15:03#6404530 likes
Well than you are living in a dream world because no one recognizes those injunctions as binding to all everywhere and every time. Not even the most absolutist of ethicists, Kant did. No one also "categorizes things with good". They ask what the right thing to do is, pace Sandel, not what the form of the good is.
And of course the controversy is not unnecessary, what kind of silliness is that? Sure, ethicists and lawyers for ages have been debating whether for instance euthanasia is justified, whether self defense is justified, whether killing in war is justified, no on along comes a fella called Agent Smith who tells the greatest minds in history it is all baloney. Wonderful.
It is simplicity itself. I don't know why it fails to make the right impression with you.
If including a certain object (violence) in a class (good) results in controversy and unsolvable conundrums, why not create a new category (goodish) and settle the matter once and for all? That way we can all sleep in peace.
Agent SmithJanuary 09, 2022 at 15:04#6404540 likes
I concur with your sentiment, but ethical violence is more often than not a "product" or a will to do good. How then can one separate a child from its parent?
If including a certain object (violence) in a class (good) results in controversy and unsolvable conundrums, why not create a new category (goodish) and settle the matter once and for all? That way we can all sleep in peace.
Because not all violence is goodish, most violence is simply bad. Volence is not a species of an object that can be classified under a certain class. Violence is the description of an act. Now what that act is, is not clear, as pointed out earlier in the thread, there are many kinds of violence and whether that act is a good act or bad depends on the circumstances in which is act is performed. Moreover, I have no idea what to make of the glass 'goodish' it is not defined. We could as well rubricate it under the class 'badish' or 'iffy'...
Property rights, border control etc there are numerous such ethical reasons for violence or the threat of it which is esentially the same thing. It is obviously to be pointed out that ethical standards are always subjective.
The idea of universal ethical standards is pure fiction not very different from the worship of an almighty god. Of course it’s a powerful argument that has been used since ancient times. Whatever benefits the tribe is ethical. Spanish bringing the wrath of god to the incas and Aztecs. Ethics being an enabling doctrine for horrible actions. Primitive tribes eating human flesh believing that they’ll inherit the powers of the dead warriors and for food anyway being scarce. Ethical is a comparative argument for the right choice that people make for social reasons. The ethics in the west have of course developed into effort minimazing suffering, but obviously it is just a peak of the iceberg.
Alkis PiskasJanuary 09, 2022 at 18:32#6405140 likes
Reply to john27
Violence is a behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. How can it be ethical???
Violence is a behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. How can it be ethical???
Well, I don't know! That's what we're trying to figure out. So far I think the general consensus is that violence isn't good, but necessary in some cases.
Violence is a behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. How can it be ethical??? — Alkis Piskas
When it is done to prevent something worse from taking place. Who are you, Gandhi? :wink:
Gandhi used physical force in the form of public physical resistance against the, at the time, British empire’s ownership of India - thereby harming, damaging, and in a sense even provoking the death of the British empire as a force. Sorry, couldn’t resist. :grin: But yes, in agreement with many of the previous posts, conflict in general is always a wrong in an ultimate sense, if there is such a thing, but sometimes is a far less wrong that the wrong of not willfully engaging in conflict – and this applies to conflict in the form of physical violence. As one example, you are a guy of average enough heft and you come upon another guy that intends to rape and/or kill a child in some back alley. In an ultimate sense, as per Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War”*, it’s best to win the battle before ever even engaging in it. You’re not momentarily of enough wits to know how to do so. So then, is it a greater wrong to not engage in any violence and allow the perpetrator to rape and kill the child, or a greater wrong to at least attempt to spill some of the perpetrator’s blood so as to prevent the child from being raped/killed?
* “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” – Sun Tzu
Agent SmithJanuary 10, 2022 at 04:08#6407250 likes
Because not all violence is goodish, most violence is simply bad. Volence is not a species of an object that can be classified under a certain class. Violence is the description of an act. Now what that act is, is not clear, as pointed out earlier in the thread, there are many kinds of violence and whether that act is a good act or bad depends on the circumstances in which is act is performed. Moreover, I have no idea what to make of the glass 'goodish' it is not defined. We could as well rubricate it under the class 'badish' or 'iffy'
Isn't killing one person to save many in the grey area of ethics? These are the kinds of situations the concept of goodish (badish being somewhat of a mirror image) apply. I believe we've come to some kind of agreement on the issue. :up:
And the things we call truth nowadays, are they truth and facts or will time tell? And what should we do with our principles based on these? Were they principles or weren't they?
Time will tell, or maybe it won't.
If one is so inclined, one may seek for truth and likely this will sooner translate into discarding false beliefs rather than ever uncovering truth itself.
But that essential uncertainty is fine, until one attempts to impose their will on others.
Yes but reasoning is presented, that is the whole point. When a police agent shoots a man he is asked why. If he then explains that the man was holding a gun and was shooting and that is why the officer took him down he presents
So it is not an appeal to authority or experience that is being made, but an appeal to reason, is what I am trying to say.
I am all for serious cautions. That is why the use of violence is generally prohibited by law.
Law is nothing but to threaten with violence. It's the imposition of the will, but on a much larger scale. I subject it to the same scrutiny I would subject an individual's impositions to, and find the same objections.
In order to guide fair judgment we have education and law, training people in using fair judgment.
Do you not think the individuals and societies discussed in my examples were under the impression they were capable of fair judgement?
This muddy line of reasoning can only lead to what I already eluded to: that anything that societies accept can be ethical. Ethics loses its meaning.
The alternative is for one to present factors that demonstrate why certain judgements are fairer than others, but then again one only has one's own frame of reference to base it on, just like all the people who were deemed incapable of fair judgement.
If one is to take this line of reasoning, either one accepts that ethics is meaingless, or one goes down the slippery slope of appointing oneself or others as the superior judge.
The course of action society takes is to have these justification examined by a third person, even more trained and educated in weighing arguments and indeed judging the relative wight of principles.
This doesn't solve anything. Ethics is then whatever a "qualified" third person considers it to be.
Indeed! and you have the idea that you are capable of fair judgment based on principles you seem able to discern, however many would be disagreeing with you.
Is it not my right to have my own thoughts, and to be wrong?
It is not my right however, to impose these potentially wrong ideas on others, through violence or otherwise.
Yes, that is what Kantian reasoning comes down to an where the achilles heel of such reasoning has been pointed out. It cannot make sense of the idea of special obligations. No friend of yours will choose your house. Your wife will not ask whether you like her dress, your children will not expect any kind of special treatment from you...
This line of thinking is entirely coherent, I grant you that, and entirely absurd.
What is absurd is the idea that such considerations as murderers coming to knock on one's door play a serious role in my interactions with other people. But if what people come to me for is protection from murderers then I'll gladly show them out myself.
The problem with this line of anti-social ethics is that you end up with a life that is solitary nasty brutish and short, exactly what we all strive to avoid.
What is anti-social or brutish about striving for consensuality in human interaction? It's the basis of ethical conduct, as far as I am concerned.
Also those terms which may be vague, gain their content from the way they are used in practical discussion and argument. It is not utterly subjective, it is intersubjective.
So ethics is whatever a group of people decide it is. It loses its meaning. On what basis will you claim that burning the witch, stoning the woman or cutting down the peasant is unethical? Didn't a group of people "intersubjectively" decide to call it justice?
Actually the example shows the problem of your ethical system. Since all judgment is based on this one principle, you cannot make any difference between the police offiicer in my example and the man stoning his wife.
Indeed. And I don't seek to differentiate. And I believe you can't coherently differentiate between the two either - at least not with the framework you have put forward so far.
You hold on to a kind of monological ethics by which you can set our own moral compass.
And whose moral compasses would you like to set? And perhaps more importantly, what makes you believe you are the right person or part of the right society to do so?
In Japan no one has the right to murder anymore, witches live their lives in peace and their broomsticks are now tax deductible! Progroms have been eradicated in most countries and I can go on. That is not because Kant came along and told them, or because everyone just miraculously came to see the miracle of the categorical imperative.
You haven't presented a basis as to why these behaviors were unethical, other than "we don't do those things anymore", which is not a basis at all.
Yes and since there is no foot to stand on, you reach the conclusion that violence should not be stopped by countervailing force when it starts and we should allow ourselves and others to get killed in the name of ethics.
I make no claims about what "we" should do. I'm only presenting you the reasoning behind what I think I should do, and asking for yours.
Of course not. I know I am not perfect, which is exactly why I am proposing these things. It is interesting that you interpret my attempts to reconcile my conduct with my imperfection as a claim to being perfect.
That is because the assumption of perfection is needed. You wish to base your ethics on absolute truth and so there must be a kind of truth to which you have privileged access.
No such assumption is needed, because I do not impose. I can be as imperfect as I like, if I do not attempt to impose my imperfections on others.
And I make no claims about having priviledged access to absolute truth. Let's keep the discussion fair and honest.
Perfection is maybe not the words, but you have to presume some sort of moral superiority above others.
I'm sorry to say, but this must be projection.
It is out of understanding of my own ignorance that I choose not to impose. It is those who would impose that must by definition consider their ethics or morals to be superior over those of others, and thus give them the right to do so.
Alkis PiskasJanuary 10, 2022 at 11:48#6408240 likes
This is true, e.g. hitting someone who is threatening you, i.e. as self-defence. Well, this may be necessary, as you say, and also justified and not considered illegal in a court, but I don't think that it can be called "ethical". Because then you can kill a violent person and consider that you are doing good to the society, towards which he behaves violently. That is, consider that the society is better without him.
Then there's punishment, which is generally considered violent, even in the form of just restricting someone's freedom. This is often necessary. But can we call it "ethical"?
Ethics have to do with moral principles. The above examples cannot be included in such principles. So, I believe that in such special cases, ethics should not be involved; they have nohing to do with them. Not doing so, we extend ethics to unexplored territories, making it more difficult to define them than what it already is! :smile:
Alkis PiskasJanuary 10, 2022 at 12:03#6408310 likes
Comments (147)
Quoting Outlander
Mm. It's neat how some ethical reforms were built on the backs of violent revolutions, which isn't necessarily hypocritical in this case, but kind of anyways.
Well in general it is not, it hurts people. Generally it is not nice to hurt people. It can be ethical, when it saves someone (or many) from a greater hurt. Even in that case it not always is, but sometimes violence is justified, unless you are a very strict Kantian perhaps.
Quoting john27
Self-defence - but with minimal force.
It seemed obvious to some planners that bombing factories, oil refineries, mills, and the like would be most productive. Other planners felt that bombing factories, refineries, mills... would kill too many people. The British government officially decided that they would not et out to kill people. Property yes, people no.
Despiser what the government officially decided, once WWII started, it became obvious that deliberately killing people made sound military sense--in the context of "total war" and in the context of (possible) existential threats. So they soon starting bombing factories and, significantly, neighborhoods. (So did the Germans.). The British were very careful to maintain the PR fiction that they only bombed "military targets" even if the "military target was a neighborhood where ordinary workers lived.
all this was complicated by the fact that a bomb intended to hit a railroad might instead hit a house or a school. Bombs aimed at a factory might end up hitting the surrounding workers' homes.
Quoting john27
I don't know; I believe just about any violence will be declared "ethical" IF and WHENEVER large nation interests are at stake. This goes for pretty much any country. "War is diplomacy conducted by other methods." Violence is not always useful, it doesn't always achieve what is desired; but it works often enough that it is high on the list of options.
Ethics applied to individual cases are much easier.
Is justifiable and ethical the same thing?
Hm. Suppose you are in a lethal situation with another dude, would you still follow this?
Sometimes, I feel like we should just enact a global presidential boxing match. Let them fight their own problems.
...the age of reason confined. It confined the debauched, spendthrift fathers, prodigal sons, blasphemers, men who "seek to undo themselves," libertines. And through these parallels, these strange complicities, the age sketched the profile of its own experience of unreason.
Huh. So violence is like a cure/response to madness, if I understand correctly?
I don't know if I entirely agree...
I agree with that.
That is the suggestion, as an historical analysis. Violence as enforcing reason. It is kind of chilling.
Yeah, despite the dire setting, I wouldn't necessarily agree that violence is an ethical response.
I don't believe that violence is ever an ethical choice. But I think that the "defense of reason" position may be one of the strongest.
edit:
Toward the middle of the eighteenth century, a farmer in the north of Scotland had his hour of fame. He was said to possess the art of curing insanity. Pinel notes in passing that this Gregory had the physique of a Hercules: "His method consisted in forcing the insane to perform the most difficult tasks of farming, in using them as beasts of burden, as servants, in reducing them to an ultimate obedience with a barrage of blows at the least act of revolt."
No, but they are complementary. Preemptive, proportional violence sufficient to neutralize violent aggression and deter (disincentivizes e.g. punishes) further aggressions is justified. Responsive, proportional violence sufficient to reduce further harms to aggressors and/or victims is ethical. Protection from violence and reduction of violence, respectively.
Quoting Book273
How reactionary (monkey brain "macho") of you. :brow:
Example:
A) One is attacked in an alley, and having no previous training or weapons with which to defend oneself, one is subject to the will and whims of ones attacker. However long, or painful the attacker wants thing to go, that is what the victim must endure. Wallet theft, rape, murder, whatever the attacker wants, the attacker gets, within whatever parameters they elect to pursue. The victim relies on the goodness of their fellow man for protection.
B) One is attacked in the same alley, same attacker, however, the victim is packing a knife and knows how to use it. After two minutes the attacker is dead, the victim, bleeding, goes to the hospital for minor stiches. One is more reliant on the self to defend against fellow man.
C) Same alley, same attacker. The person attacked is highly trained in highly efficient use of violence. Within seconds the attacker is incapacitated (dead or unconscious) and the victim of the attack carries on along their previous path, having barely broken a sweat.
Option A has the largest, longest violence and the most suffering for the victim, and potentially for the attacker, on the premise that violence harms in both directions. Option B) has the next highest level of violence, as violence occurs to both parties and the event lasts longer than it needs to. Option C has the least violence involved, both in duration of time and energy expended committing violence, therefore Option C is the most ethical position.
Violence should not be one's opening option, however, once it is there, one should be fully conversant with it and use it as efficiently as possible, minimizing suffering.
Well justifiable is a legal term, so when violence is justified depends on the system of law. Whether violence is ethical depends on what ethical theory one follows. "is violence ethical?" Is actually an incomplete question. Firstly because the answer is rather straight forward, in no ethical system is violence per se ethical, all frown upon it, but then the thornier question becomes: when is violence considered ethical. This depends on one's system of ethics. A utilitarian might for instance argue in favour of torturing a terrorist in case of a ticking time bomb scenario, whereas a Kantian would argue against.
I tend to take a rather casuistic approach in such matters, because I do not believe in context independent ethical systems and generally take recourse to law, a field that has more experience in casustic conflict resolution than ethics. Therefore my argument would be that the default position is that violence is unethical, but there might be cases in which it may be ethical to use force.
Minimize suffering? Someone's dead!
Well it certainly is understandable.
Quoting Pantagruel
What a picturesque scenario. Almost romantic, in a weird way.
How could we complete/reform the question?
Quoting Tobias
I see no harm in that.
Yes, although I'm not sure if picturesque or graphic is the word I'd choose....
Well first I think you need an indication beyond yes and no. Is violence always ethical, sometimes ethical, never ethical, now it becomes a yes or no question as if there are two flavours possible, yes violence is ethical, no it is not. Whereas here I think midddle grounds are possible. I think the responses would also be batter if you limit the question to a certain ethical theory. "I violence always unethical according to Kantian ethics?" The problem here is that people will jsut tell you there own observations but as you yourself pointed out already, many meanings are still unclear, for instance the difference between justifiable and ethical.
I suppose then it wouldn't necessarily be violence, but a physical act of control. However, violence is often brutal. Sometimes justifiable, yet not necessarily ethical, which would illustrate a sort of conflict between the two. I guess maybe a more accurate question would be, is the act of inflicting injury upon someone else ethical?
But then it'd be too easy! :joke:
No, I see what you're saying. Perhaps in the question of ethical reform, or societal reform, are acts of injury permissible? (i.e riots, revolutions)
Same answer. When your threaten to slit Proof's' throat from ear to ear with the flick knife you are wielding and I punch you in the face disarming you, then my 'act of control' amounts to inflicting injury aka violence, maybe even public violence if this were to happen in the street. Is this justified? Legally it is. (I know of no legal system which would convict in this case). Is it ethical? I think saving Proof''s life is an ethical action. hitting you might be unethical in normal circumstances but it was the appropriate means to a right end. In my book this would be a form of ethical violence.
Ahhh, see that is a different question and will indeed beget different answers. None of mine yet as I have to get back to work.
Yeah, I know. In retrospect, I was just searching for something to argue about.
Even in the case of self-defense, its use must not be regarded as a victory (ethical), but as a personal defeat (unethical).
Context matters. :point:
Quoting Tzeentch
Context-be-damned huh? :roll:
Should I not celebrate my self preservation? Or is the will to live a desire?
What if the desires of the other are unethical and my violence stops him from bringing these desires into effective action?
Self-preservation is a futile endeavor, and to sacrifice one's spiritual integrity for it is not an act worth celebrating, but such is my view. I'll yield that in a situation of self-defense it would not be easy. I'm not sure if I could do it.
Quoting john27
Of course.
Quoting Tobias
Two wrongs don't make a right.
I imagine how this conversation would go. "Sorry Proof, I have to let John slit your throat from ear to ear... I could nog John in the face I could, would knock him out cold, but that would be kinda unethical, I am sure you would understand right, being a long term member of PF and all"
You think 180 Proof would understand my reasoning?
Yes.
I don't deny that life is not meant to be kept, but am a little skeptical on how the love of ones life impedes or incapacitate one's spiritual integrity.
Quoting Tzeentch
Slippery slope fallacy?
Yes, but that is a big if. I do not think that violence can turn into a rigt whenever it suits me or my whims. My desire must be one that itself aims at the greater good. Is that hard to establish? Yes sure. That is why I would answer negative to John's latter question, is violence ethical when it is used to steer a society in a good direction. However not all situations have that degree of difficulty. the weighing of interests between Proof's life and John's broken nose is a pretty easy one to make. (provided that proof is not threatening to blow up a city or whatever). Why should I refrain from making this calculation and acting accordingly, in the name of some kind of pie in the sky context independent ethical maxim?
Violence is ethical if it is used to counter unjust violence. I would even say it is ethical when used in the service of justice, for instance, with the death penalty. So an ethical violence would have to be a just violence.
Quoting NOS4A2
By counter, do you mean reciprocate?
The principle of justice is to act morally, ethically, to be righteous to an extent. I'm not sure if reciprocating death is just.
I mean specifically to protect the innocent from violence, to counter one act of violence with another. But I also believe violent reciprocation is often warranted. Sometimes it just isn’t right that someone should get away with certain acts without a comeuppance.
I would say that's fine.
Quoting NOS4A2
Warranted maybe, but should you reciprocate?
We're discussing the means (violence) and not the ends (motivations).
I don't think ends can justify means, so one's motivations for choosing violence are not relevant in my view.
And it would impede one's spiritual integrity in the way that any unethical deed does. Any ethical discussion presupposes we see an inherent value in being/striving to be ethical. That it is Good for its own sake, and thus that doing wrong is undesirable.
Quoting Tobias
The issue is that in this example, one is using their own subjective judgement to determine what is merited. By doing so, one must also accept when another uses their subjective jdugement to do the same, unless one wishes to argue their judgement is somehow more special than others.
What you end up with is a world in which people constantly use violence against one another, and wonder why others are doing the same to them. That's what we see throughout history.
Quoting Tobias
The point of an ethical principle is that it is context independent.
Like I said to , if we need to ask why following ethical principles is even important at all, then this will not be very constructive. An ethical discussion presupposes they matter to us.
Of course what is up for debate is what these ethical principles are, and I've just shared a rather bold one; violence is categorically unethical. I'm sure you will try to find grounds to disagree, and that is why we're here.
In the event that violence is pleasurable, physically, would it remain categorically unethical?
Under what principle, context dependent or otherwise would the death penalty be justified?
I suppose if a crime shows such a disregard for human life and dignity the perpetrator deserves nothing less than to be put down.
The principle is justice. With his actions he has proven he isn’t deserving of human life and dignity.
I don't understand the question.
No. I use my subjective judgment and I am prepared to defend it in front of an intersubjective forum of people who get to judge my actions and I provide reasons for it in full conviction that they will agree with me. It is not my subjective judgment that is key here, but intersubjective judgment. That is why the question is important that Proof would accept my reasoning or not for not saving him. (sorry 180 Proof you are under constant threat of death in my examples, fortunately it is only an example.) I use my judgment in the service of people (or other creatures) not ethical maxims.
Quoting Tzeentch
No, what we see throughout history is the constant marginalisation of violence as a means to settle interpersonal conflict.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes principles matter to us, but I disagree that ethical principles are or can be context independent. Principles are rules of thumb, accepted wisdom that holds true most of the time, but not all the time. They guide our courses of action, not prescribe them.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, but the disagreement lies not in challenging the notion that if there are categorical principles, than violence may be considered categorically unethical. I argue on the other hand that there are no context independen principles, or at least that context may require us to act not in accordance to a principle. Therefore it may be ethical to act in disregard of the principle that violence is unethical. i.e. to commit violence.
The question was should you exercise minimal force even if your life is at risk, but I came to the conclusion earlier that yeah you probably should.
And who defines what justice is? Probably in your case the belove framers... why anyone would consider the word of 18th century well to do farmers as gospel is beyond me, anyway, different topic. Problem is that if the state likes to show it cares so much about human life and dignity, why does it act in flagrant and open contradiction of it? The state sends mixed signals. Categorically unethical that is ;) No, simply not warranted on whatever ethical maxim there is. There might be only one, the crudest one, the satisfaction of the brutish masses.
I’m not speaking about the state, though it is certainly one arbiter of justice. Anyone can be just and any amount of people can determine whether an act is just or not. To leave all that to the state is not too bright, for the reasons you mention.
Do you suppose that a man who murders an innocent person deserves the same treatment as the man who kills the murderer?
"Experience teaches us that the world is not a nursery" (S. Freud) or a Platonic / Kantian ivory tower. :roll:
Great, sure any amount of people can do it right, like the KKK, marvelous at determining what is right. angry mobs in general, such judge of character. Do tell, what innate wisdom has granted each individual man the ability to tell right from wrong and the ability to meat out fair and just punishment? In my nick of the words, we feel that a law study and then an extra three year education is on order.
You don’t know right from wrong? You can study laws until the cows come home, but if you do not know right from wrong, just from unjust, you could not know whether the laws are right or wrong or just and unjust. You’re simply abiding by dictate, not reason or any sense of justice. The idea that law dictates right or wrong, Justice or injustice, is not only absolutist, but an appeal to authority.
We have an intuition of right and wrong, we feel pleasure we feel pain. However, we will have to teach a child to share the things he gets with others, we teach kindness, we teach also how to punish in moderation. Both ethics and law are not learned by just being in the world. Which is good or I'd be out of a job.
Depends on one's definition of violence.
Mine is: to (attempt to) make another act in accordance to one's desires through the use of physical force.
As you can see, the forcing of one's desires upon another is a key ingredient. In the case of BDSM type situations another's will is not being violated.
I find neither are a good basis for ethics. Majority opinions have been terribly wrong in their collective judgement countless times.
Quoting Tobias
Principle: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.
Quoting Tobias
What context do you propose, then? Whenever our subjective judgement deems it desirable to commit violence? Whenever a lot of people agree it is desirable to commit violence? I find none of these particularly convincing.
:roll:
Just checking - I've met too many people who beat up or stab people without provocation and for no reason. In this case, would you consider the victim simply 'being available' to express violence upon to qualify for your 'in accordance with one's desire?'
Maybe. I think it may be more about outbursts of aggression - most of the people I know who have done this take no interest in the reactions. It's closer to onanism. (This comes from working with prisoners)
You confuse intersubjectivity with majority opinion. Not every vote counts in this forum as not everyone has the moral maturity or argumentative acumen to value and weigh the reasons set forth. You may not find it a good basis for ethics, but it is the only basis we got in a real world instead of an ideal one.
Quoting Tzeentch
In that sense we do not have such fundamental truths. All truth is temporary, especially those concerning the social world and ethics is social, ethics is about the way we comport ourselves to that which is 'other'. Therefore it takes two to tango.
Quoting Tzeentch
Whether the arguments that I propose for me committing violence are sound or not, meaning that they are understandable and plausible for others who have seen enough of such situations to be able to weigh them and imagine what they would do were they in my shoes. My outlook on ethics seems rather Aristotelian in that sense.
That does not mean I absolutely shun your preference for 'principles' in the sense that you like to use them. However they have to be applicable to the real world. Say you and I agree that 'violence is unethical', what can it mean? In your view it means that every use of violence is unethical. I find that unconvincing because I can citer many instances in which it seems that violence is not only the right thing to do, it seems even the necessary thing to do in such a situation. If we than say "ahhh but it is unethical!", then ethics simply becomes a system of restraint, kind of like the place of sin in religion.
What it means to say that 'violence is unethical' in a way that it can be informative and yet retain some of its context inependent quality is to say that "we should strive for a world without violence, because in an ideal world violence is not necessary". In that sense I would agree with you. In practice however we need rules to allow for violence when necessary. In a sense this ethical discussion mirrors he perennial problem of metaphysics how to cross over from the ideal into the real.
Basing the question of whose opinions matter on yet more opinions isn't going to help.
Quoting Tobias
I disagree. What was unethical 1,000 years ago is unethical now, and vice versa. We can't cherry pick based on what is convenient, normal or accepted. Burning witches at the stake was never ethical, even if it was accepted at points in history.
Quoting Tobias
It is opinion, then. This will get us nowhere when we try to talk about ethics, because opinions are so different between individuals, time periods and locations. If we accept this approach, it would be more appropriate to talk about customs or culture rather than ethics.
The opinions of others is not a sound basis for ethics. It loses its meaning. Everything could be ethical.
Quoting Tobias
Lets hear it!
Quoting Tobias
Ok, I can get behind that, but there's a principle hidden in that last sentence.
But why would we want a world free of violence if we have all these opinions telling us it's perfectly fine to use in certain situations?
Not too long ago all the superpowers in the world were spending trillions on developing bombs that could wipe the Earth clean of life, all in the name of self-defense and "necessary violence". Doesn't it seem our leniency towards practical considerations is contrary to our goals? On what basis should we allow ourselves such leniency?
Quoting Tobias
I don't require such rules. Who does, exactly? You? Society? The world? Coincidentally, it seems they who require such rules are usually those who stand most to gain.
Lastly, what stops one from bringing the ideal into the real? Desires that we dress up as "practical considerations". Desire is what stops us from applying principles consistently. One may apply them to feel good about oneself, until it conflicts with one's desires, and then one may seek for a pretense as to why that is acceptable. That is not ethics. That's doing whatever the hell one wants whenever it's convenient.
Sometimes one must (attempt to) build a tower, to rise above the mud.
Well, I'd assume they're lying (or equally likely, unaware of what drives them). If they had no interest in the reaction of the victim, and all they were interested in was stabbing for self-gratification they'd be stabbing a rock or a tree.
Yes, that's it. I think violence is sometimes like a broken machine. Certainly that's what post trauma states seem to indicate. :up:
What we have to settle for: Some violence (something's better than nothing; least worst option)
What we don't want: Violence maxed out (worst-case scenario)
The question is, is the settlement we've reached - some violence - like what people disparagingly call gateway crime, a stepping stone towards extreme violence?
So as long as I engage in physical force on the behalf of another's pleasure, or in accordance to someone else's desire, it would not be considered as violence?
We're not living in a world with some violence.
For one, only a few decades ago, and perhaps still today, every being on Earth was being threatened with death every day. The world's superpowers had and still have their nuclear weapons aimed at each other, ballistic missile submarines on constant patrol in striking range of capital cities.
Secondly, large amounts of people live under threat of armed conflict every day. In places like Ukraine and the South China Sea, we are an incident away from large-scale armed conflict, perhaps even World War III.
Thirdly, every nation on Earth depends heavily on their ability to use and threaten with violence against its own population to maintain control. That is to say, every citizen of every country on Earth is being threatened with violence every day by its own government.
Violence is present in every facet of life. Most nations' populations, and especially those of superpowers, are working around the clock to improve their nation's capacity for violence to even greater levels. Whole civilizations are built around it, whether they realize it or not.
We do not live in a world of some violence. We live in a world of extreme violence.
That's the game humanity has played, and will likely lose sometime in the future. A millenia-long prisoner's dilemma and arms-race that has lead to an accumilation of power that no individual is capable of wielding, ending up in the hands of exactly the imperfect human beings we're trying to keep ourselves safe from.
Assuming there's no third-party whose will is going to be violated, yes. It is not violence.
Quoting Tzeentch
Maybe I was imprecise with my reference to truth Ethics does not deal with true and false but with right or wrong. True and false might be context independent (though I am not sure I agree with that either) but right or wrong is context dependent. I am not saying that wat matters is opinion I am saying that what matters is context. Using violence to save a friend might be right or wrong dependent on context, not dependent on historical epoch. When violence is used, the violence is presumed to be wrong, unless plausible argument can be given in regard to why it was right in the case at hand. To discern right from wrong we need people experienced in doing so. Because something might be right or wrong, but if we cannot tell right from wrong, it does not matter a tidbit.
Quoting Tzeentch
I do not think opinions are so different between individuals. Actually ethics, also in the absolutist variation you propose is only possible if opinions are not that different, or at least we must presuppose that by the light of common reason we can discern ethical principles. Actually, common reason must be more an assumption of yours than it needs to be mine. For you it is necessary that we can mentally at every age discern ethical principles by deduction alone. For me, only a fallibilist conception that we can find common ground is enough.
Quoting Tzeentch
Well, if I am a police agent and I see a man shooting with a machine gun in a school aiming to kill teachers and pupils and I take him down with my fire arms, than I am praised and awarded and rightly so. My violence was necessary to stop further blood shed. I think even Kant would agree: We have an imperfect duty to intervene in this case. We cannot will people who inflict violence on the innocent to keep committing these kinds of acts (Kant was a notable proponent of the death penalty).
Another famous example, which brought Kant himself into trouble is the murderer at the door scenario. In Kant's scheme lying is categorically wrong just like in yours violence is. When confronted with the question of whether it is ok to lie when a friend hides inside your house from a murderer and the murderer asks the straightforward question whether this friend is in the house, Kant was forced to say that lying would not be appropriate in this case. For ages now Kantian scholars are trying to save the moralist from Konigberg from himself.
Quoting Tzeentch
There is a principle indeed, but principles in my line of reasoning work different then in yours. For you they are categorical prohibitions, principles work like rules. For me they are not, principles work as guidelines, leading lights, but by no means the only ones. I think you are mistaken about the nature of principles, which is actually common and reminds me of the debate between the legal philosophers HLA Hart and Ronald Dworkin. The intervention by Dwokin was a very timely one and brought attention to the function of principles in law.
Violence is fine to use in certain situations because the situations are bad and need to be resolved. In an ideal world there are no bad situations so no need for violence. However we do not live in an ideal world we live in an actual one. That does not mean we should not strive to live in an ideal world and ban violence as much as possible.
Quoting Tzeentch
Society needs such rules, we call it law. judges certainly need such rules because they need to know whether to convict someone when he saves the life of someone else using proportional force to prevent an unlawful, imminent attack on another person. Law currently stipulates no conviction is in order in such cases. Rightly so, I think.
Quoting Tzeentch
Well there might be so many things that stop us. However, making the best and enemy of the better seems to throw away the baby with the bathwater (no worries I am out of trite expressions ;;) ) Ethics is the search for principles, but the application of them is a question or practical wisdom. It is also required when one wants to build towers on muddy soil.
To me those two cannot be seperated. That which is Good or right must be based on truth. That which is wrong must be based on falsehoods or delusions. Truth-seeking is therefore a vital part of ethics.
Quoting Tobias
That would be an appeal to authority. Unless said person can back up their claims with reason, I would not put any value in any experience or authority on a subject they might have.
Quoting Tobias
Like you said, my view of ethics is dependent on there being some truth to be discovered, or common reasoning. However, we may never be sure of these things, which is why I am also against imposing one's views on others. One's ethics should concern oneself and one's own behavior in regards to others alone. Attempting to force one's views on others risks making them the victim of one's ignorance.
But yes, to put it clearly, my view is that some of the principles I have discussed so far are (potentially) fundamental and I try to back this up by showing how ignoring those principles leads to slippery slopes in which notions of right and wrong become meaningless and all violent behaviors can be justified.
Quoting Tobias
I think in that situation the police agent's use of violence was still unethical, even if it had desirable effects as well. He had to take a life; something which I consider highly undesirable. Considering his circumstances it is understandable, however his choices in life contributed to putting himself in a position where he may have to take a life. Nothing forced him to associate with a society in which it is normal to murder children, yet he did.
Quoting Tobias
He could have kept his mouth shut.
Quoting Tobias
At risk of repeating myself, this is akin to excusing violence whenever one or others deem it convenient. At most it serves as a explanation as to why individuals choose violence, but not as a limitation on it.
The problem with this line of reasoning is clear; person A deems it fine to commit violence against person B because person A is of the opinion there's a bad situation that needs to be resolved.
Every violent action is justified.
You may say, well person A has a group of people who share his opinion so instead; Group A deems it is fine to commit violence against person B because group A is of the opinion there's a bad situation that needs to be resolved.
Every violent group action is justified.
This isn't ethics. It is a template for atrocity.
More likely, there are factors that, in your view, can excuse violence. Self-defense for example, so it would probably be more useful to move on to those critical factors, because this intersubjectivity line of reasoning doesn't work and indeed any line of reasoning that depends on opinion rather than a fundamental truth or principle ends this way.
Quoting Tobias
That is a weak excuse! One cannot control the goings-on of the world, but one can control one's own behavior and whether one lives in accordance to ideals is a product of one's will to do so. The problem is that we often lack the desire to do so, or doing so conflicts with our desires.
If one believes the ideal is for there to be no violence, it is up to oneself to commit none.
Quoting Tobias
I don't think it's ethical for society, or indeed anyone, to make me the victim of its own imperfections.
This seems contradictory; So in essence I must conform to the wills of others, even if my own desire is at risk?
You asked whether something would still be considered violence if physical force was applied in accordance to the would-be victims desires.
I answered, it is not violence. A doctor pulling a rotten tooth is not violence, or two partners engaging in some kinky intercourse is not violence.
The question that seemed to be implied was: but what if the victim's desires involve a third person?
In that case, the third person's desires must be taken into account.
Could I not be considered as the third person? e.g My wife wants me to engage in some kinky stuff, but deep down in my heart I find it disgusting.
However this denotes violence to be act in accordance to one's own desires through physical force. Therefore if you name that previous example as violence, you would do well to admit that it is malleable/contextual?
How come? Isn't a subject being forced to do something against their will through physical force? It's violence, and, like all violence, unethical.
Perhaps the use of the term violence is misleading. I was a martial artist, and our tournament fighting was extremely violent, but our philosophy was highly ethical.
As you say, the really violent thing is, what, imposing one's will on another? Maybe that could be rephrased as not respecting the sanctity of the other. The categorical imperative, right?
Well for one the wife didn't force the man through physical force. Nor did she have knowledge that the man's will was being violated. He was violated of his own accord. If this is violence, either the definition would have to change, or it would have to become contextual.
I thought we were talking about BDSM, so I assume the wife is hurting him or something along those lines.
That's to force (it is against the man's will) one's desires (the wife desires to engage in this type of interaction) through physical force (hurting).
And don't turn this into a discussion about what constitutes BDSM, please.
I understand that may not be entirely colloquial, and that's why I shared the definition I'm using.
Don't worry, I will :naughty:
(just kidding.)
Sure if the woman was hitting his man out of pleasure, that could be determined as violence. However, what if the man was hitting the woman, for her pleasure?
I get that, but the term does have overtly physical connotations. I thought that disengaging the term "violence" from the whole idea of ethical violence might be meaningful. After all, people can do a whole lot of horrendous damage to other people without ever lifting a finger against them. Disenfranchising a person or a group, for example. Maybe "trespassing" is a suitable match for the concept? In which case the question becomes, is it ever ethical to trespass against others?
And the truth is always temporary, facts of today will be overtaken by the science of tomorrow. Basing the right on truth only makes its foundation more shaky than when you just base in on the ' right' .
Quoting Tzeentch
No it is not an appeal to authority it is an appeal to experience. You hold an all or nothing view. Either you have an unshakeable foundation or we have nothing to go on. However, in practice we do not have an unshakeable foundation and we still have guiding lights to go on, namely practice and experience. It is not authority based on nothing it is authority based on a past record of equitable and fair judgement. Not compared to some unshakable foundation but compared to plausible arguments.
Quoting Tzeentch
Here your reasoning spirals wildly out of control. Common reasoning is not the same as some truth being discovered. I agree on common reasoning, that is the intersubjectivity criterion that you despises. I disagree with your search for fundamental ethical truths. And so since we are not sure of these things, no one's view can be imposed on others.... well so much for society than. Is placing traffic lights imposing the view of city planners on others? If ethics only concerns oneself it becomes meaningless when you do not also provide me some unshakable truth on which it can be based. How do I know which ethical maxims you hold when there is, as you admit no truth to base them on?
Quoting Tzeentch
But I do not think they are so we do not have common ground, so there is no common principle, ergo no basis for our ethics. The problem with your slippery slope is you already assume we are at the bottom.
Quoting Tzeentch
His taking a life is regrettable, not unethical. He is forced in society, we all are. We are born here, raised here, we speak the language of our society. I am happy that he chose to put himself in that position, because others, me for instance, might be too hesitant and it would lead to more harm. Seems to me he was the right man at the right place. A cause for social celebration for celebration.
Quoting Tzeentch
It is the common answer and it doesn't work. The murderer knows Kant is a Kantian so when everyone respects this maxim it is easy for the murderer to know the person is indeed in your house, otherwise you would have said something, saving life and limb by sending the murderer off to elsewhere. There might be one nice move to make, but it would need another maxim, namely one does not talk to murders. However that too, would fall to the objection that this ideal world is totally removed from the real one.
Quoting Tzeentch
You have a condescending tone which is not based on the strength of your argument, I dislike that, Anyway, no it is not the same as excusing violence whenever it is convenient. One must make an argument for this use of violence and that argument must be plausible in the eyes of others who have proven to be able to discern right arguments from wrong arguments. A. might be of the opinion that the use of force was necessary and then A. would have the task of defending his course of action. If A. says " well violence was justified because that ugly head of his constitutes a bad situation" we will tell him he committed a wrong. His ugly head does not provide a justification for violence since A. you basically do not commit violence out of a whim and B. even if he is god ugly the harm he suffered stands in no proportion to the harm you suffered.
Quoting Tzeentch
No it is not and that is precisely because there does exist some kind of common reasoning. Exactly the one you seem to base your argument on and deny at will. In no society will " he had an ugly head" fly as an excuse for murder. Other things might, witchcraft might. Well than it is up to others to demonstrate there is no such thing as witchcraft and that killing someone on that basis is the same as killing an innocent man. No society condones the killing of the innocent except in certain situations such as war. The point is, people can an do reason with each other about what is right and wrong. Again your either
/ or dychotomy. Or we have some fundamental principle (which we do not have as you earlier conceded) or we have nothing. In your view nothing is left and so it is every man for himself to determine what is ethical. A recipe for a war of all against all, not for an ethical society.
Quoting Tzeentch
Just saying it doesn't work does not mean it doesn't work. Demonstrate it with either argument or empiric facts. Facts are stacked against you, because we are doing it in this way now for ages. It might not be perfect, but it does keep people from killing each other.
Quoting Tzeentch
This is what deontology comes down to and I think it exposes one of its core weaknesses. It assumes a kind of free floating individual, unattached to social bonds.
Quoting Tzeentch
The problem is you think you are perfect. I am happy it does make everyone the victim of its own imperfection, i.e. place traffic lights at highways, coordinates aid relief and indeed, tasks a judiciary and a police force with the task of fighting crime and insure an ordered society.
Oops. I'll warrant that I'm not exactly uh, current with the ethical systems we use, but I definitely could've done some research.
:up:
Then it is not truth, and they were not facts.
Quoting Tobias
A shaky foundation is the best one can hope for. However, being unsure or having a shaky foundation is entirely acceptable if one does not allow others to become the victim of one's ignorance, which is exactly what one risks in the case of violence.
Quoting Tobias
Unless some reasoning is presented, there's no difference between the two. And if a line of reasoning is presented, then it is an appeal to reason or logic.
Quoting Tobias
Indeed. I would require nothing less than an unshakable foundation from someone who attempts to justify violence.
Quoting Tobias
Those things mean nothing to me. It is authority based on opinions. However many atrocities haven't been committed by individuals who made an appeal to past traditions or were under the false impression they were capable of fair judgement?
These things sound reasonable on paper, but the flaws become apparent when one is confronted with someone who has an entirely different frame of reference.
Quoting Tobias
I shouldn't have used the term "common reasoning".
What I meant to say is that I believe these foundational truths to be accessible through reason and logic, so in theory accessible to all (though in practice, probably not), hence the use of the word "common".
Quoting Tobias
Indeed. I consider all non-consensual aspects of society to be highly undesirable.
Quoting Tobias
No, but threatening individuals with violence for not stopping is.
Quoting Tobias
I disagree. I think that search for a foundation is incredibly meaingful. But each is to judge that for themselves.
Quoting Tobias
The acknowledgement of one's fundamental ignorance can be a great basis for ethics. For one it should lead to a serious caution when imposing on others, violence being an example of one such imposition.
Quoting Tobias
No. But when one attempts to justify actions based on slippery slopes, one must either accept that the bottom is also justifiable, or be hypocritical.
Again;
If person A justifies his violence towards person B based on what he considers his "fair judgement", what should stop person B from doing the same?
And what should indeed stop anyone from basing their justifications for violence on their "fair judgement"?
More likely, there are factors that constitute what you call "fair judgement", that determine whether one person's claim to it may be better than another's; principles.
Quoting Tobias
To an extent we are forced to live in a society - a regrettable circumstance. The role we ascribe ourselves in that circumstance is one we choose voluntarily. Whether we choose to adopt its views of what constitutes justified violence is voluntary.
Now, there is an argument to be made here that society brainwashes individuals from a very young age into adopting its views. I'd agree with that, which is why I consider the non-consensual aspects of society to be highly problematic.
Quoting Tobias
As far as I am concerned that is perfectly acceptable. Our involvement in this affair is entirely involuntary, and thus inaction is an acceptable route to take if the alternative is unethical conduct. If our involvement is voluntary then we were foolish to begin with, and our forced choice between two evils is entirely our own mistake.
But I am not here to defend Kant's claim.
Quoting Tobias
I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't see how any of what I said is condescending.
In written discussions it is not always easy to know whether the other side understands what logical path I am taking, which is why I wrote it out in full.
I can be uncompromising and blunt, but you'll have to take the fact that I am writing page-long replies to you as evidence that I value our conversation and your contribution to it.
Quoting Tobias
This is utterly subjective and based on opinion. It may sound reasonable at first glance, but completely falls apart when we consider how many different interpretations there may be from the various terms you use here (plausible, proven, right, wrong, etc.). Those interpretations tend to be guided by merely what is desirable at the time; convenience.
You may think that is fine, but it leads to every action being justifiable, and ethics becoming meaningless via the slippery slope I have discussed.
Quoting Tobias
Reasonable at first glance, but then;
A. is of the opinion that stoning a married woman is necessary because she looked at another man. A is tasked with defending his course of action, and whatever not-entirely-hypothetical society A is a part of deems this a justifiable use of force.
If we stick to your line of reasoning, we cannot consider this unethical. It seems to boil down to, everything can justify violence as long as there's a society willing to accept it.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tobias
One would wish for this to be the case, but my previous example shows our reasonings not to be as common as hoped.
Here's another example: Kiri-sute gomen
The "right" to murder, based on a perceived affront.
What about witch burnings? What about pogroms? We could continue, but I think my point is clear.
I think our disconnect lies in that you seem to assume (but correct me if I am wrong) that average behavior of individuals must be ethical. That whatever societies agree on is acceptable, must be justified and ethical.
I disagree with this.
Quoting Tobias
And regularly they come to conclusions which are clearly unethical, like burning people at the stake baesd on superstition, or murdering people in the street based on perceived insults.
Quoting Tobias
To the contrary. Every person who understands they have no foot to stand on should steer clear from violence and impositions on others, lest they make others the victim of their ignorance.
Quoting Tobias
I have, by trying to show you that basing ethics on opinion makes ethics meaningless.
Quoting Tobias
And war and man-made suffering run like a red line through mankind's history. That may be the best mankind is capable of, but individuals need not settle for that mess.
Quoting Tobias
Perfect it is most certainly not, but where do you get the idea that it keeps people from killing each other? Only a few decades ago mankind was a button-press away from killing, literally, everyone. We still are.
If the historical trend of ever more deadly warfare is to continue, the next war will be deadlier than World War II.
Quoting Tobias
That is an interesting discussion in its own right. Not only is it my view that such an individual exists in every one, I'm also considering that analyzing and reevaluating one's core beliefs as imposed by one's upbringing, social climate or state may be a prerequisite for being a moral agent.
Quoting Tobias
Of course not. I know I am not perfect, which is exactly why I am proposing these things. It is interesting that you interpret my attempts to reconcile my conduct with my imperfection as a claim to being perfect.
I see where you're coming from.
Allow me to try and explore:
What can make the use of physical force unethical, is when it is used against someone else's will. So the unethical aspect of this is that it is an imposition. Impositions can include a variety of non-violent behaviors as well.
There was a great and lengthy discussion about impositions in this thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12197/the-reason-for-expressing-opinions/p8
Some of its points I have echoed here.
And the things we call truth nowadays, are they truth and facts or will time tell? And what should we do with our principles based on these? Were they principles or weren't they? Quoting Tzeentch
Do you have children? If so they will become the victim of your ignorance whether you want it or not.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes but reasoning is presented, that is the whole point. When a police agent shoots a man he is asked why. If he then explains that the man was holding a gun and was shooting and that is why the officer took him down he presentsQuoting Tzeentch
a reason for his/her actions. Is it an appeal to logic? No. It is a justification of her use of force. It is actually an appeal to inductive reasoning. She feared the gunman might shoot again. Everything pointed towards it, though there was no certainty the gunman would have fired. It is an appeal to practical wisdom indeed.
Quoting Tzeentch
I am all for serious cautions. That is why the use of violence is generally prohibited by law.
Quoting Tzeentch
Indeed. In order to guide fair judgment we have education and law, training people in using fair judgment. That does not mean rote learning of context independent principles, it means evaluating the context we find ourselves in and handling the context appropriately. That is what learning means. Now of course there may be differences as to what an appropriate reaction is. The course of action society takes is to have these justification examined by a third person, even more trained and educated in weighing arguments and indeed judging the relative wight of principles.
Quoting Tzeentch
I disagree, a lot depends on upbringing, learning, social environment etc. We are not free to rewrite the social contract. whenever we feel like it. However, society
Quoting Tzeentch
Indeed! and you have the idea that you are capable of fair judgment based on principles you seem able to discern, however many would be disagreeing with you. You let nobody tell you otherwise though because that be societal influence trying to brainwash you...
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, that is what Kantian reasoning comes down to an where the achilles heel of such reasoning has been pointed out. It cannot make sense of the idea of special obligations. No friend of yours will choose your house. Your wife will not ask whether you like her dress, your children will not expect any kind of special treatment from you... I want to be able to be offered shelter by a friend. I expect them to lie for me if need be. The problem with this line of anti-social ethics is that you end up with a life that is solitary nasty brutish and short, exactly what we all strive to avoid... This line of thinking is entirely coherent, I grant you that, and entirely absurd.
Quoting Tzeentch
Sure, nothing wrong with uncompromising and blunt and I say that without any sarcasm. I may well have misread it. If so my apologies. I value your remarks and page long replies as well.
Quoting Tzeentch
I disagree. Also those terms which may be vague, gain their content from the way they are used in practical discussion and argument. It is not utterly subjective, it is intersubjective. We appeal to common usage of terms, common reason indeed. However not in the meaning you attach to it, deducible principles independent of context. The search has been on for centuries but in this absolutist guise it has been fruitless.
Quoting Tzeentch
No we do not need to accept that conclusion, but we have to work a little harder than just saying: "violence is unethical, you use violence against a married woman, therefore you act unethically". Actually the example shows the problem of your ethical system. Since all judgment is based on this one principle, you cannot make any difference between the police offiicer in my example and the man stoning his wife.
In fact Your ethics restricts you to only apply judgment to yourself and your own actions. Thinking for others is unethical. There is no reason for you to help this woman. Therefore in your system it is perfectly fine to sign an arms deal with just such a society. What we have to do is argue and try to convince this society that their law is unjust. then we have to try to find common ground and indeed look for principles, but a wholly different kind of principles. We will have to go about asking what the essence of law is, what does law do and what is its corner stone. I would say it is equal treatment. Are laws justified that make such a difference between man and woman. I would say it is against the nature of law to do so. Therefore I would try to convince the other of my arguments or at least try to convince my government not to sign an arms deal with such a country. The main difference is that for me ethics is only relevant when it is dialogical, discursive, argumentative. You hold on to a kind of monological ethics by which you can set our own moral compass. I do not see that as relevant because we are not on our own.
Quoting Tzeentch
Your point is clear and the same reasoning applies. We try to convince and argue and try to find common ground. And indeed, it pays off! In Japan no one has the right to murder anymore, witches live their lives in peace and their broomsticks are now tax deductible! Progroms have been eradicated in most countries and I can go on. That is not because Kant came along and told them, or because everyone just miraculously came to see the miracle of the categorical imperative.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes and since there is no foot to stand on, you reach the conclusion that violence should not be stopped by countervailing force when it starts and we should allow ourselves and others to get killed in the name of ethics. I agree if everyone would see the wisdom in your words we would all be safe, but not everyone does.
Quoting Tzeentch
our world in stats
Look especially at the homicide rates over time. They plummeted. Sure mass atrocities may still occur. we never know when a next more deadly war will happen. What we do know is that the categorical imperative will not prevent it, but communication and the great entwinement of the global world order just might.
Quoting Tzeentch
I agree with that sentiment, but examining them is something else than cutting them. I even so wholeheartedly agree that I consider the social climate, upbringing and bonds necessary for our emancipation as moral agents. That means that 'social brainwashing' as you name it, has its particular function as a moment of our emancipation.
Quoting Tzeentch
That is because the assumption of perfection is needed. You wish to base your ethics on absolute truth and so there must be a kind of truth to which you have privileged access. Or, at least, there is someone like you inside of everyone, but not nearly everyone, I daresay not nearly most, accept your conclusions. Perfection is maybe not the words, but you have to presume some sort of moral superiority above others.
Ok.... that was my longest PF post yet I think and that considering that I should be working. Ohh dear...
Well these are the rules for citizens. State has got monopoly on violence in certain situations where people generally think it is needed. So yeah there is a great number of situations the for the state to use violence "ethically".
That's interesting. Care to elaborate?
I guess in a practical standard, the question becomes a little different. I think for the state violence becomes efficient, which in a casual sense relates to ethics, but I still don't necessarily agree that its the right "choice" per say.
I think that might help resolve transgressions in a more general sense, but violence is peculiar in a sense that it's...courageous? Brave? not the best words, but the personal/physical aspect of violence is a neat complication, one that other forms of moral trespass lack, In my opinion.
If you're driven into a corner, you're outta options, violence is inevitable. In that sense, to the degree you're forced, violence is permissible.
However, that doesn't make violence ethical. Violence is always unethical.
Many moral dilemmas maybe solved in this quite simple way - distinguish ethics from permissibility.
Take the trolley problem. It is always unethical to kill a person and it doesn't matter how many people you'll save when you do that. Nevertheless, it's ok to kill one for, as they say, "the greater good". Is this a good time to introduce a new concept in ethics? I call it goodish. Utilitarian philosophy, to the extent it condones what in Kantian ethics is absolutely immoral, is goodish.
It's amazing how a new concept (a new word) can clear things up.
Yes. Death does not equate to suffering. I am not clear what your objection is. I suppose you could define suffering, however, as I understand it, once someone is dead their physical suffering is over, therefore death equates to the end of suffering.
As long as both are consenting, that would be a good time.
If my only recourse to save a friend who is in danger without having provoked or caused the danger, is by using force than my action is not only permissible, it is also ethical. (subject to limitations of proportionality, subsidiarity, 'ultimum remedium' etc) At least I maintain that is is, Tzeentch does not.
Death is suffering, for everyone else involved. Don't joke about that please.
:yikes:
Medical assisted suicide and actively inciting "efficacy" against your opponent is not the same. I think you know that.
So your objection is not that death does not relieve suffering but that killing an enemy as a means of expediency is wrong...based on what premise? If I am attacked I have the right to defend myself as I see fit. If I am better at violence than the attacker even better for me. I did not initiate the situation but I am going to end it as rapidly and efficiently as possible with the least amount of risk to myself or my family. Under most circumstances that means striking hard, fast, and enough times so the attacker is unable to rise again. The faster I can accomplish that, the better, as my family and myself will continue to be at risk until the threat is gone. The faster it happens the less violence my family, me, and the attacker have to endure. I will lose no sleep if the attacker dies while I defend myself or my family.
Ever been in a fist fight? or one with weapons involved?
I respect your decision on the account that you do this to protect your family. I'm telling you right now though, that you are wrong. Death is not fun.
I'm going to keep on dropping dramatic two-liners till you get the point.
Death is not a minimization of suffering. Hence, the pursuit of death in violence is wrong.
That I am more inclined to agree with. There could be a situation, hypothetically speaking, where killing is needed. I don't deny that.
Bob is a generally violent guy, takes whatever he wants from whoever he wants, whenever he wants, in whatever fashion he likes at the time. Maybe he wants somebody's sandwich, he does whatever he needs to to get the sandwich. Maybe he wants money, maybe he feels like raping somebody. Whatever it is, he will move forward on his desire, being as violent as required to achieve his goal. He leaves a path of trauma and suffering in his wake. Mike is eating in the park with his family. The park is by a deep strong river. Mike can see Bob making his way through the park, victimizing picnickers and passersby with various levels of violence and general mayhem. When Bob approaches Mike's family, intent on committing more harms, Mike intercedes with a rapid blow to the side of the head, knocking Bob unconscious. One single blow. Unknownst to Bob or Mike, Bob suffers a cerebral bleed and dies within minutes. Bob is no longer able to continue inflicting harm, trauma, and suffering upon others, as he is dead, thereby saving countless future victims from Bob's ravaging. Whether Mike accidentally killed Bob, or meant to, the end result of Bob's death is less suffering overall, even for Bob, as he was struck once and died. Had he continued to live he would have continued to experience more violence inflicted on him from others who chose to attempt to defend themselves from Bob.
Which would you prefer?
1. To save your friend without violence
or
2. To save your friend with violence
?
There's a difference there and, for me, it needs to be made explicit by developing a new concept: goodish (2).
And what of Bob's family? What of Bob's son? Could he not have benefited from a rectified father figure?
Violence is a saviour to all; except the moral system, where in its dismay now regards death as not only a veritable solution to a problem, but a good one. Oh, woe is me. It is in my belief that justice stands to rectify, not to "dish out". Imagine this equally ridiculous situation:
Mike, in his anger and fear for his family, raises his deadly fist. However, he stops. He sees a despair in Bob's eye, a deep trauma that control's his behaviour. Mike, in his empathetic understanding, disolocates Bob from his family and offers him a beer. There they talk, and after a bit Bob walks off, a new man.
I'm not saying everyone can change. I think that is pretty impossible. But when we discuss a moral system, or a moral categorization, one should strive for the best possible solution. And that is, Bob now teaches bobby that yeah he once was a tough dude, but hitting people is overrated.
By goodish, would you mean that "good" performs on a spectrum? As in, something could be more good or less good.
1 of course. However sometimes that is impossible. It does not go anywhere to answer the question whether violence can be ethical though. If I could safe my friend 1. through donating a kidney or 2. I could save him without donating a kidney I would also choose 2. That does not make me donating a kidney any less ethical to save my friend any less ethical.
Yes. The Battle of Britain.
My intention, if it could be considered that, is to try my best to leave the notion of good, in its original form (absolute, clear, and beyond the clutches of bargaining) unmolested.
If violence is to be admitted into the company of the good it can't, I'm afraid, be done so as an equal (as a good, as ethical). Suffice it to say that violence must know its place; it's a necessary evil and those who share my views have been gracious enough to reclassify violence, not as a necessary evil but as goodish. That's a huge concession I'm making here.
Vide supra.
You treat concepts like Platonic forms. The form of violence, the form of the good. Violence is a means to an end. It is a suspect means because it harms people and people tend to dislike being harmed. It is not good or bad 'in itself'. It is good or bad dependent on context. Donating a kidney is a generally good act, committing violence is generally bad. Context may change our judgment though. There simply is no need for categorical judgments.
Ethics is absolute and universal in my opinion. Thou shalt not kill means thou shalt not kill, plain and simple. Ethical injunctions are binding to all, everywhere, every time. True, there are factions that claim that ethical rules have exceptions (the present OP being an exploration of one such), but that, as far as I can tell, is more a case of confusion rather than nuance, subtlety. How? Violence of the kind that people consider acceptable (e.g. self-defense or "for the greater good") have been erroneously categorized with good and that's been the point of origin of endless, unnecessary, controversy. Don't do that! Come to think of it, even goodish is too much of a concession.; let's stick to necessary evil, shall we?
Quoting Agent Smith
Well than you are living in a dream world because no one recognizes those injunctions as binding to all everywhere and every time. Not even the most absolutist of ethicists, Kant did. No one also "categorizes things with good". They ask what the right thing to do is, pace Sandel, not what the form of the good is.
And of course the controversy is not unnecessary, what kind of silliness is that? Sure, ethicists and lawyers for ages have been debating whether for instance euthanasia is justified, whether self defense is justified, whether killing in war is justified, no on along comes a fella called Agent Smith who tells the greatest minds in history it is all baloney. Wonderful.
I concur with your sentiment, but ethical violence is more often than not a "product" or a will to do good. How then can one separate a child from its parent?
You misunderstand me.
Quoting Tobias
It is simplicity itself. I don't know why it fails to make the right impression with you.
If including a certain object (violence) in a class (good) results in controversy and unsolvable conundrums, why not create a new category (goodish) and settle the matter once and for all? That way we can all sleep in peace.
It's an adopted child.
Haha. well then, Goodish it is.
Because not all violence is goodish, most violence is simply bad. Volence is not a species of an object that can be classified under a certain class. Violence is the description of an act. Now what that act is, is not clear, as pointed out earlier in the thread, there are many kinds of violence and whether that act is a good act or bad depends on the circumstances in which is act is performed. Moreover, I have no idea what to make of the glass 'goodish' it is not defined. We could as well rubricate it under the class 'badish' or 'iffy'...
Property rights, border control etc there are numerous such ethical reasons for violence or the threat of it which is esentially the same thing. It is obviously to be pointed out that ethical standards are always subjective.
The idea of universal ethical standards is pure fiction not very different from the worship of an almighty god. Of course it’s a powerful argument that has been used since ancient times. Whatever benefits the tribe is ethical. Spanish bringing the wrath of god to the incas and Aztecs. Ethics being an enabling doctrine for horrible actions. Primitive tribes eating human flesh believing that they’ll inherit the powers of the dead warriors and for food anyway being scarce. Ethical is a comparative argument for the right choice that people make for social reasons. The ethics in the west have of course developed into effort minimazing suffering, but obviously it is just a peak of the iceberg.
Violence is a behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. How can it be ethical???
Well, I don't know! That's what we're trying to figure out. So far I think the general consensus is that violence isn't good, but necessary in some cases.
When it is done to prevent something worse from taking place. Who are you, Gandhi? :wink:
Gandhi used physical force in the form of public physical resistance against the, at the time, British empire’s ownership of India - thereby harming, damaging, and in a sense even provoking the death of the British empire as a force. Sorry, couldn’t resist. :grin: But yes, in agreement with many of the previous posts, conflict in general is always a wrong in an ultimate sense, if there is such a thing, but sometimes is a far less wrong that the wrong of not willfully engaging in conflict – and this applies to conflict in the form of physical violence. As one example, you are a guy of average enough heft and you come upon another guy that intends to rape and/or kill a child in some back alley. In an ultimate sense, as per Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War”*, it’s best to win the battle before ever even engaging in it. You’re not momentarily of enough wits to know how to do so. So then, is it a greater wrong to not engage in any violence and allow the perpetrator to rape and kill the child, or a greater wrong to at least attempt to spill some of the perpetrator’s blood so as to prevent the child from being raped/killed?
* “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” – Sun Tzu
Isn't killing one person to save many in the grey area of ethics? These are the kinds of situations the concept of goodish (badish being somewhat of a mirror image) apply. I believe we've come to some kind of agreement on the issue. :up:
Time will tell, or maybe it won't.
If one is so inclined, one may seek for truth and likely this will sooner translate into discarding false beliefs rather than ever uncovering truth itself.
But that essential uncertainty is fine, until one attempts to impose their will on others.
Quoting Tobias
I don't have children, and children indeed become the victim of their parents' ignorance.
Quoting Tobias
So it is not an appeal to authority or experience that is being made, but an appeal to reason, is what I am trying to say.
Quoting Tobias
Law is nothing but to threaten with violence. It's the imposition of the will, but on a much larger scale. I subject it to the same scrutiny I would subject an individual's impositions to, and find the same objections.
Quoting Tobias
Do you not think the individuals and societies discussed in my examples were under the impression they were capable of fair judgement?
This muddy line of reasoning can only lead to what I already eluded to: that anything that societies accept can be ethical. Ethics loses its meaning.
The alternative is for one to present factors that demonstrate why certain judgements are fairer than others, but then again one only has one's own frame of reference to base it on, just like all the people who were deemed incapable of fair judgement.
If one is to take this line of reasoning, either one accepts that ethics is meaingless, or one goes down the slippery slope of appointing oneself or others as the superior judge.
Quoting Tobias
This doesn't solve anything. Ethics is then whatever a "qualified" third person considers it to be.
Quoting Tobias
There is no social contract that I have voluntarily put my signature under.
Quoting Tobias
Is it not my right to have my own thoughts, and to be wrong?
It is not my right however, to impose these potentially wrong ideas on others, through violence or otherwise.
Quoting Tobias
Quoting Tobias
What is absurd is the idea that such considerations as murderers coming to knock on one's door play a serious role in my interactions with other people. But if what people come to me for is protection from murderers then I'll gladly show them out myself.
Quoting Tobias
What is anti-social or brutish about striving for consensuality in human interaction? It's the basis of ethical conduct, as far as I am concerned.
Quoting Tobias
So ethics is whatever a group of people decide it is. It loses its meaning. On what basis will you claim that burning the witch, stoning the woman or cutting down the peasant is unethical? Didn't a group of people "intersubjectively" decide to call it justice?
Quoting Tobias
Indeed. And I don't seek to differentiate. And I believe you can't coherently differentiate between the two either - at least not with the framework you have put forward so far.
Quoting Tobias
What makes you think that an individual who abhors violence should go around selling weapons?
Quoting Tobias
What if the society cannot be convinced, or worse yet, what if the society instead convinces yours to change their laws so stoning is ethical again?
Quoting Tobias
And whose moral compasses would you like to set? And perhaps more importantly, what makes you believe you are the right person or part of the right society to do so?
Quoting Tobias
You haven't presented a basis as to why these behaviors were unethical, other than "we don't do those things anymore", which is not a basis at all.
Quoting Tobias
I make no claims about what "we" should do. I'm only presenting you the reasoning behind what I think I should do, and asking for yours.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tobias
No such assumption is needed, because I do not impose. I can be as imperfect as I like, if I do not attempt to impose my imperfections on others.
And I make no claims about having priviledged access to absolute truth. Let's keep the discussion fair and honest.
Quoting Tobias
I'm sorry to say, but this must be projection.
It is out of understanding of my own ignorance that I choose not to impose. It is those who would impose that must by definition consider their ethics or morals to be superior over those of others, and thus give them the right to do so.
This is true, e.g. hitting someone who is threatening you, i.e. as self-defence. Well, this may be necessary, as you say, and also justified and not considered illegal in a court, but I don't think that it can be called "ethical". Because then you can kill a violent person and consider that you are doing good to the society, towards which he behaves violently. That is, consider that the society is better without him.
Then there's punishment, which is generally considered violent, even in the form of just restricting someone's freedom. This is often necessary. But can we call it "ethical"?
Ethics have to do with moral principles. The above examples cannot be included in such principles. So, I believe that in such special cases, ethics should not be involved; they have nohing to do with them. Not doing so, we extend ethics to unexplored territories, making it more difficult to define them than what it already is! :smile:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/640824
:up:
Glad you agree! :smile: