My argument with all of what you just said comes down to this…if what you are saying is that the Nazis should have been given everything they wanted with no argument…that they should have been allowed to take over Europe and possibly the rest of the world, and kill whomever they wanted to in the process, and that fighting all of that is wrong, then I can’t MAKE an argument. This worldview is so far from anything I consider right or just that I don’t think we can come to any kind of an understanding here.
I think that’s the first time on the SDMB I have ever said that.
Again with this strawman. No pacifist here is saying “take no action”, AFAICT. There’s *so *many ways of engaging in non-violent action it’s just not funny.
I don’t think it’s a strawman, and please note that I said it was an implication, not something you had outright stated. In fact, I’ll retract the word “implication” and replace it with “logical conclusion.”
When any of us make a choice for moral reasons (as opposed to fear or squeamishness), then there is a tacit criticism of the choices we demur. For example: in the other thread, you make the statement that you don’t rape every woman you find attractive*, with the clear context that you make this choice from moral rather than practical reasons. By making this choice, you implicitly state that rape is a moral wrong. (I agree with that, of course.) Likewise, by saiyng that it is so immoral to kill an attacker that you refuse to do it even to save your own life or that of persons in your family, you categorize anyone willing to do so as immoral.
But perhaps I should not have written "equivalent’ when I made my criticism. Comparable would have been a better choice. But, either way, that is how I read your claim.
Please tell me if I am wrong. If I kill a man who breaks into my house armed with a gun, who has made it clear that he intends to kill me and rape my wife, am I a murderer by your moral lights? If not, why not?
Of course, and if I was responding to you, I wouldn’t have said that, because I understand your position, though I might not agree with it. However, I was responding to NoJustice, whose exact words were:
I bolded the part I am concerned with. NoJustice believes that the Nazis should have been allowed to do what they pleased, and if they had, the world would be a better place. What pleased the Nazis was to take over Europe and solve the “Jewish Problem.” So if NoJustice wants to explain to me what would be better about Europe and maybe the world being run by fascists, I’m willing to hear it, but I doubt very very much that he will ever be able to convince me that it would be better than what we have now.
But implicit in your deduction is the idea that what I consider immoral for me is always immoral for everyone. This is not the basis of my morality. I have things I consider universals, like not murdering or raping or stealing, which are immoral regardless of who does them, and things I consider personal, like not lying or killing sapients.
I do not intend the personals to apply to everyone (anymore than a Jew should condemn you for eating pork.) You haven’t made a personal vow to live in such a way as you would like everyone else to, so you are not at moral fault. But were I to do as you do, I would be at fault.
Not a murderer. I’ve been very careful to use the word “killer” when I refer to preventative violence, not “murderer”. And you wouldn’t be a murderer because you would have the legal right to do it, of course. But also, you are not a willing subscriber to my moral code. If you wanted to be, I would welcome it, of course, because I consider mine better than any other, but I don’t force it on anyone or generally expound at length on it unless asked.
So as far as I’m concerned, other people who kill in self defence have all the moral weight of a dog that chases cats or digs in the garden. It’s perfectly understandable, and natural, if a little disappointing to me, personally, IYKWIM.
I find this to be a monstrously self-serving belief. Suppose refugees are hiding from genocidal soldiers in an attic. I bear guilt if I direct the soldiers to their location. Perhaps I do not bear as much guilt as the soldiers, depending on mitigating circumstances and all, but I could reasonably predict the outcome of my involvement and therefor I bear responsibility. To deny that responsibility seems to be trying to have your cake and eat it too. After all, as long as I don’t commit an immoral act myself I can freely benefit from it. Seems like I could use that line of reasoning to justify just about anything. Want someone dead? Just hire a hitman. All you’re doing is handing over some money, the killing is on HIS head.
Both those bolded bits are direct actions, aren’t they? But no, if you hire a hitman, he still has to choose to kill. Yes, you bear great moral blame, but you are not a killer.
What you’re missing is that we sometimes have a positive duty to act.
If a child I know confesses to me that she is being molested by her schoolteacher, I MUST act to help her. If I don’t I am guilty of colluding, of adding to her suffering, and I am, by my moral lights, scum. I do not believe I have the moral option to do nothing.
If my wife or child is being attacked by a person intent on doing them harm, it is my duty to intervene. If necessary I will use violence. If I am using violence I risk killing the other person, and I cannot abstain from doing so for concerns such as you have espoused, because your reasons are, frankly, so divorced from the real world as the contention that it’s unethical for Clark Kent to write newspaper articles about Superman.
If you happen to live in a 21st century liberal democracy, pacifism (or at least claims of it) is a luxury you can probably afford, like an SUV or an X-Box or whatever. I don’t really see how embracing or denying such luxuries automatically has any bearing on a person’s moral character.
I live in the real world, as do you. It is, quite frankly, absolutely wrong on your part to say that my ideals don’t work in the real world, as, clearly, they do.
MrDibble, I hope this doesn’t bother you, but I am not going to respond to statements about your, personally, anymore. It’s not that I don’t think your philosophies worth discussing; it’s that I don’t want this to be about personalities, and I don’t want to become insulting to you personally. If I had I would have opened this in the Banana-Pudding Pit.
And this is partly what I was trying to get at with my questions. In case you’ve missed them, I’ll state them again:
How do you define “violence?” Similarly, how do you define “action?”
How does the harm of violence compare to other harms, such as coercion and enthrallment?
Is it also an underpinning of your philosophy that only positive action can transmit moral responsibility?
And three more questions I didn’t explicitly state before:
What exactly do you believe the long-term effects of widespread pacifism would be?
More particularly, what is your goal? Is it the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people possible, or is it simply the ending of violence?
Do you have a principle akin to Jeremy Bentham’s felicific calculus, considering the quality, extent and proximity of impact to the happiness of persons present and future? Or, in broader terms, is there a utilitarian component to pacifism?
I’m, not sure society has, or can exert a will of it’s own. In the end, it’s the individual people who actually commit a violent act whoose will is being forced upon others.
It’s not an either-or proposition. I think the choices of each individual should be respected. Whenever one persons choices infringe on another person, harm is done. No matter how minor or extreme the infraction, the fact remains there is no way to undo that harm. We should simply forgive and continue trying to make the world a better place for everyone through our own actions (the only actions we can control without harming others). Instead far too many people concern themselves with other peoples choices. They try to force their will on others. This is harmful.
What is success? if you prevent one act of violence but in doing so you perpetuate a continuing cycle of violence, this ‘success’ is meerly an illusion of your limited perspective in time.
I don’t think it is a strawman. Many praise acts of violence, both extreme and minor because they do not respect the humanity of the person being harmed and do not understand the reprecussions for all of humanity. Even if you reduce your statement to a pragmatic one, the fact remains that if you say a certain choice has better outcomes than any other choice, including inaction, that is the same as saying it is good. If you say it is the best solution for a certain cases, you are saying it is good in those cases. I don’t know any other definitions of ‘good’.
Those guidelines are good to the degree that they discourage violence. However, they also encourage violence in certain cases. The best guideline is to never resort to violence at all.
The immediate problem is solved but a continuing cycle of violence is perpetuated, the harm of which far outweighs the damage any sociopathic murderer could do on his own.
First of all, I’m not sure you actually understand what anarchy means. It is not necessarily a bad thing. 2nd, humanity can only advance if people allow it to. Not everyone makes the best choices, but if you give them the chance, they can do well enough. It’s the only hope we as a species have.
Our safety from violence is, to a large degree, dictated by the choices of others and plays a big part in our freedom. We in turn make choices which affect the safety and freedom of others. We cannot control the choices of others, even when they affect our safety and freedom. If we try to, we may appear to succeed in increacing our own safety and freedom, but in so doing we reduce the safety and freedom of others. We are only safe, we are only free, to the degree to which we respect each others choices.
“The state calls it’s own violence law, but that of the individual crime.” - Max Stirner.
Once again you take the worst human failings and dress them up in noble terms. But in the end it’s the same thing. We all fear opression, and respond by opressing each other. This is the source of ‘law’.
You know perfectly well it serves as a perfect example of nothing. You know Godwin applies. You said it yourself. I see no purpose in continuing to dance around this, so I’ll just let it go.
I am trying to reduce pain, reduce suffering, reduce fear, increace freedom, and increace happyness… for all people. I’m not sure there can be any other goal in life. Stealth Potato:
I only brought up inaction in response to the claim that sometimes violence is the ONLY option. I am not claiming that inaction has some special status as having no moral weight. Though, I’m not sure I can think of a case where inaction would itself be violent. Heck, it’s hard to define inaction in absolute terms. If you are standing in a doorway, does remaining there count as inaction if you know you are blocking someone’s path? hard to say. The point is that the claim that violence is the only option ignores the reality that even if you can’t think of a nonviolent means to accomplish something, there is always the option of simply accepting that failure. It does not necessarily mean failure in your ultimate goals in life. This is closely associated with people’s odd tendancy to forget that inaction is a valid choice with outcomes of it’s own.
MrDibble may see this differently but I myself have never claimed otherwise. But the choice to act, to commit violence yourself is also not free this weight. Too many people say “don’t blame me. I had no choice. It had to be done!” But you do have a choice. If you have the integrity to admit this, good for you, but you’re not done yet. You must also accept the weight of other, less obvious consequences. By choosing to force your will on another you perpetuate a cycle of violence which continues far into the future. Everyone must live under the threat of your violence should you ever decide once again to enforce your view of right and wrong upon the rest of us. That fear inevitably leads to further violence.
Umm, nope. There is a difference between allowing something and aiding something. And this issue of yours about ‘positive action’ has nothing to do with it.
I don’t consider it a philosphy. That’s precicely because I am only concerned with things which DO have a basis in reality. Philosophy, as I see it, is pretty much defined by it’s seperation from reality. I know people are gonna say I’m wrong about that and maybe I am, but that’s always how it’s seemed to me. That’s why I don’t care much about guilt or morality. I only care about making choices which will be more likely to make the world a better place.
You are not giving mankind enough credit. We are not at the mercy of blind instinct. Your concern would be justified for any other animal. I think you are very close to the crux of the issue here. This might=right rule is necessary to maintain order against competitive pressures in a pack of dogs, but we are different. Not in some magical, mystical, or spiritual way. We have an ability which dogs lack. We have the ability to reason. Because we have that ability we don’t have to live like dogs if we don’t want to. We can choose to be better than that.
I consider slavery to be violence. It is the forcing of one person’s will upon another.
Oh how I wish I had payed more attention in math class I know exactly what you’re saying but it’s such a shame I’m unable to answer this in the apropriate, purely mathematical terms. I suppose I could bring up entropy. Violence is like disorder; the energy of one person turned against the energy of another, reducing the potential of humanity as a whole, and indeed all life. You can tell I’m talking out of my ass in terms of the math but hopefully you get my meaning.
Which is it you think is unreasonable?
That all humans have the same potential as you to discover the truth of what actions are right and wrong?
That other people are as capable of good as you are?
That the world is made a better place by recognising that others are as capable of good as you are?
That every time you enforce your own judgement on others, you hold back the advancement of humanity as a whole.
I suspect it’s the last one… For my reasoning, see the entropy ass-pull above
Frylock:
You measure wether or not something ‘works’ purely by the immediate reaction of someone you dissagree with. THAT is your mistake. Your choices have much more far reaching consequences which you must take responsibility for.
Sarahfeena:
Just to clarify… no violence does not have to mean no argument.
Thus, Godwin’s Law. Let it go.
Garula:
I don’t think it has to be a black and white scenario. The ‘moral actor’ thing just seems like a bit of a simplification. Even among dogs there are those who are more vicious… more mean than others. Just as among people there are those who, perhaps due to fear or past trauma are more prone to violence. I don’t think there’s a hard line where one person’s responsibility stops and another’s begins. As for the example, telling the soldiers where the refugees are goes beyond allowing their actions and into aiding them. An important distinction.
So, it is not better to force your will on one person than to have than to have that person force his will upon 10?
But we are talking about ways of preventing that harm, or rather preventing a greater harm at the cost of a smaller harm. Does innocence mean nothing to you? Is killing a baby morally equivalent to killing someone who had killed already and is about to kill more?
In the given examples, we are only concerning ourselves with the choices of others which directly affect us. Not concerning yourself with this, and doing something about it, is harmful. It is one thing to forgive someone behind bars (put there through violence or the threat of violence, no doubt) and quite another to forgive him while he is killing. Forgiving him after you have killed him works also.
Success is the survival of me and my loved ones. In the unlimited perspective of time, we are all dead. I see no evidence that violence used as a last resort to stop killers perpetuates a cycle of violence. Not letting society do so, out of justice, not vengeance, in fact perpetuates revenge killings. There would be far more violence, and far more killing, in your fantasy world than in the real one.
No one here says violence is good in and of itself. People in society do - some of them are the very people we need society to protect ourselves from. And yes I will say violence is good when it is required. That does not mean it is good in general. Saying that killing a dog about to maul a baby is good does not mean that killing dogs in general is good. Letting a dog kill a baby (or letting a person do so) is not good.
They only encourage violence when it is the best means to minimize the harm to society. I’m unaware of any studies showing that justified police violence degrades society as a whole. Have any - or do you just define harm to society your way?
How does allowing the murderer to kill more not continue the cycle of violence more than the police killing him? If every act contributes, he may do it ten times to the once of the police.
Ever read Hobbes? Do you really believe that every person in the world will do well enough? You sound like HAL9000 - “I haven’t made the best decisions recently.”
Jail is all about reducing the freedom of those who have been proven to use freedom to harm others. We start out free, and it must be proved that in the case of a particular person freedom isn’t working to the best interests of society. A person shooting up the town is decreasing his safety; but that is by his choice. He is decreasing the safety of others, not by their choice. Does he merit more safety than the people he harms?
In civilized states, we do not “oppress” others out of our fear of oppression - we do it only when the others have been demonstrated to actually oppress others. State violence is not equivalent to law. There is state violence under the law, but there can be illegal state violence outside the law. I was way to close to a police riot when I was in college, so I know of what I speak.
Your dismissal of this example does not make it go away.
Does the death of many innocents instead of one psychopath increase or decrease suffering? Does the knowledge that a killer is on the loose, and no one will stop him increase or decrease fear? There are areas of our country where control has broken - have you increased the freedom of the people living there by forbidding violence by authorities that might stop it, including the credible threat of violence? Have you increased their happiness? I’d say your position fails miserably in achieving your stated goals.
I know exactly what you’re saying but it’s such a shame I’m unable to answer this in the apropriate, purely mathematical terms. I suppose I could bring up entropy. Violence is like disorder; the energy of one person turned against the energy of another, reducing the potential of humanity as a whole, and indeed all life. You can tell I’m talking out of my ass in terms of the math but hopefully you get my meaning.