I agree

Hrm.

So we are not all really bad people deep down?

Just so we are on the same page, I know I am not in the horror movie but I still find horror movies frightening.

People who have not put themselves at risk of punishment have no need to fear punishment. What many people feel when they see other people being punished is not fear, but rather schadenfreude. Others feel satisfaction that justice is being done. Some people don't give a rats ass about other people.

(Either your argument is dumb or i misunderstood it, the second being more likely) — QuirkyZen

You could have put that more tactfully. But never mind, have no fear. You will not be severely beaten for it.

Fear can be learned and unlearned, quite apart from the matter of punishment.

Yeah not all are bad deep down. Some still got that maybe little but of goodness in them. Btw your answers were short yet so meaningful. I appreciate it And yeah if we follow through the final thought that we agreed on it kind of makes the things back to what we think these days. basically turns things back to normal

people who have not put themselves at risk of punishment have no need to fear punishment. — BC

Then basically they avoid evil acts and stuff because of fear of "fear of punishment"

People who have not put themselves at risk of punishment have no need to fear punishment. — BC

I find this to be a bit of a misconception. Surely you can understand why.

Yeah i am telling this guy the same. but he isn't understanding :cry: :cry:

Then basically they avoid evil acts and stuff because of fear of "fear of punishment" — QuirkyZen

People who are law abiding and do not perform criminal acts need not have a fear of being punished.

In some countries, saying the wrong thing about the maximum leaders is sufficient to get one punished. People in those countries have reason to fear punishment for speaking their minds the way free people do.

I find this to be a bit of a misconception. Surely you can understand why. — Outlander

If you are consistently law abiding, Outlander, why would you fear punishment for wrongdoing?

because of fear — QuirkyZen

You want a fear-based system? Fine. Enjoy.

If you are consistently law abiding, Outlander, why would you fear punishment for wrongdoing? — BC

Oh come now. No innocent man has ever been framed. No bad thing has ever happened to a good person? What fanatical idealism is this? And yes, you know quite well I'm religious but even in my eyes such a sentiment is a stretch far beyond any sort of rationale.

I don't want a fear based system but our system to such extend is fear based. Why do you think a homeless beggar who has nothing to loose does not steal but begs for money. Not in all cases but in most BECAUSE OF THE FEAR OF PUNISHMENT. When your stomach is empty, you haven't eaten from 2 days you don't give a damn about morals or right or wrong(of course they are some exceptions) So yeah the only thing keeping them back is fear of punishment, fear of getting caught and getting punished. This was one of the instances, there are many more if you want.

Well your scenario is that the perception of retribution is lost. So for the portion of society that 1) is prone to do "bad" things on a regular basis AND 2) only doesn't currently do that because of the risk of societal retribution, the answer is: yes, having lost their reason for holding back on doing bad things routinely, they'll do them repetitively. The question is, how many people fit both criteria? You're supposing that's at least 51% of all people. That's not my read of the situation.

Why do you think majority of the population won't be like this. and they dont like have to do bad things routinely. like today i have to finish my 10 kills and 5 rapes. Absolutely not its kinda like they will do it when they want in some cases maybe 5 "bad things" in a day like 5 horrible crime or maybe 1 bad thing in 2 month. When you have this kind of facility then it will be kind of casual than a routine.

Not in all cases but in most BECAUSE OF THE FEAR OF PUNISHMENT. When your stomach is empty, you haven't eaten from 2 days you don't give a damn about morals or right or wrong(of course they are some exceptions) So yeah the only thing keeping them back is fear of punishment, fear of getting caught and getting punished. This was one of the instances, there are many more if you want. — QuirkyZen

There is nothing evil about taking food if you are starving. Rather it is evil to refuse to share food when others are starving. At this point property law is not the arbiter of goodness.

Yeah true true. At this point i kinda got trapped in the box when talking to the guy about fear of punishment and mistakenly i dont know how and why assumed law's as the standard. I messed up there i guess :cry:

Oh come now. No innocent man has ever been framed. No bad thing has ever happened to a good person? — Outlander

Oh yes, bad things happen to the innocent and the good. And good things happen to the guilty and the bad. "The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike." That's life. Adults understand this and do not go berserk when it happens to other people. When it happens to them is another story, of course.

I don't want a fear based system but our system to such extend is fear based. — QuirkyZen

Fear of punishment and guilt is a key experience for children: it's the essential route to developing a strong moral sense. However, once the moral sense has developed (in childhood, before adulthood) the individual is likely to be consistently law abiding the rest of his life. True, there may be lapses, but billions of people go through life without becoming fearful criminals.

Psychopaths and sociopaths, however, don't develop the usual fear + guilt = moral facility the rest of do. Why don't they? Apparently, the pathways between the emotional centers of the brain and the prefrontal cortex are defective. As a consequence, they don't feel guilt, and consequently perform far more criminal acts than normal people.

Adults can manage belief and behavior to minimize fearfulness and guilt. Healthy people don't like fearfulness and are able to do something about it. Most adults will not attempt to steal the expensive watch. It isn't just fear of "punishment". It's the potential loss of 'place' in the community; the intense cognitive dissonance between their sense of moral self and criminality. The expensive watch will, in almost all cases, not become an irresistible object of desire.

What about the fires of hell? Fear-driven hellfire and damnation works if you accept the premise that a loving god will punish souls forever for sins committed. For many people hell is simply incompatible with their view of god and/or the cosmos and it doesn't work. BUT, if you like that kind of thinking and focus on it, it can be the dominant theme of one's life.

Should the usual strong guardrails fail, and the normal person commits a serious crime (like a felony with mandatory prison time), they will fear the punishment.

Not all political / legal systems are fair and just. If specific groups of people (like blacks, for instance) are subjected to arbitrary arrest and punishment, fear of law enforcement makes sense. If one is a Mexican working in a meat packing plant where many undocumented aliens work, it makes sense to fear an ICE raid.

One of the benefits of living in a more or less just political and legal system, is that the law-abiding, norm-conforming citizen need not live in fear. This doesn't work for everybody, as I just explained above.

Fear of punishment and guilt is a key experience for children: it's the essential route to developing a strong moral sense. However, once the moral sense has developed (in childhood, before adulthood) the individual is likely to be consistently law abiding the rest of his life — BC

Yeah but why does the individual mostly becomes a law abiding person because the fear gets ingrained in him. You are literally saying the thing i said at first. I don't know why it took you so long to understand this and at start you weren't even considering fear as reason for law abiding. I guess people on this forum debate to prove others wrong than getting to the truth

I don't know why it took you so long to understand this — QuirkyZen

I'm trying to forward the idea that there is a difference between walking around in fear most of the time, on the one hand, and on the other hand having the normal experience of consistent mild discipline as a young child -- from whence comes a conscience, a moral backbone, and confidence that one can resist the impulse to do wrongful acts--in other words, live a decent life.

Some people have very unpleasant anxiety disorders where they often feel anxious, threatened, and fearful without any external cause. Usually there isn't any clear cause, other than brain dysfunction (neurotransmitters, etc.). A little anxiety is normal, like if you don't pass oral exams, all your work toward an advanced degree may be down the drain. Maybe a snake scares you. That's normal. But fearfulness all the time isn't normal.

The ability to feel guilt is another critical part of having strong morals, and being able to resist the temptation to do bad things that land us in trouble which we quite properly fear. As the saying goes, "Guilt is the gift that keeps on giving." I got a lot of training in guilt as a child, and it took years of effort on my part to get it under control. A little guilt is good; a lot of guilt (without any cause) is disabling.

For some people, bad acts may not lead to fear and guilt: those who regularly do bad things (drive by shootings, felony theft, felony assault, (attempted) murder and manslaughter, wife (or husband) beating -- all that crap -- have other concerns, like maintaining their standing as gang members; maintaining their reputation as 'tough'; acquiring goods that are markers of success in the culture at large, but which they can not obtain through high levels of productive behavior -- like the expensive watch. They haven't had a job in 10 years, so the gold watch is pretty much not going to happen, unless one does a smash and grab theft.

People who work in organized crime are likely to be fearful, because the Organization doesn't punish failure by firing you and giving you a bad reference. They are more likely to kill you if your performance is poor. Intermediate level drug dealers may get drugs on credit, and pay for them after sales are made. IF, for any reason, cash is not produced when it is due, the drug dealer has every reason to sweat bullets and try to find the cash, even if that means robbing a bank. No cash? No life.

Why? Because, the vast majority of the population has committed no murders nor rapes. You know this. Your theory is that a majority of folks would murder and rape except that they're afraid of the legal system. Personally I'm not interested in murder and rape regardless of whether I could get away with it or not. In my experience you're underestimating the number of folks who DON'T use the illegality of murder and rape as the primary reason they don't perform those acts.

We could have been having this discussion in Washington state in 2011, at the time 9% of folks there smoked weed, one could suppose that lots feared the illegality of Marijuana, however currently only 30% of Washingtonians smoke weed, so about 21% wanted to smoke weed AND were not doing so because it was illegal. 70% just aren't interested in Marijuana. I'm not interested in murder and rape.

I think that people are involving the government too much in this conversation.
If this were a conversation to determine a governmental system or a certain governments effects on right and wrong it would be fine.
However, this is about right and wrong the government has little role in my mind.
To begin with the government is made by the hand of the people and is thus imperfect in anything other than being able to use the hand of the people. (Win for democracy)
That is not my main point; each person has their own sense of right and wrong and their views of others (whether they are good or bad is based on this) The same cannot be said for the laws, their are bad acts that are completely within the law and vice versa.
For example, businesses are usually able to set their own prices for goods. This way they can take advantage of people, this is completely within the law but I would consider it bad.
I'm sure that most people can think of a bad person who is on the right side of the law.
The main point is that law is not a perfect measure of right and wrong.
I wouldn't consider a schemer a good person, just not yet a criminal.
There needs to be a separation between government and self. The government is the will of millions or billions of people and you are a singular will and are more pure in a way. There is no problem in following your own will.
Personally I believe that fear is not the way to create a moral person. (That is not to say that it does not create a person who follows morals) Guilt is however a major part, but so is sympathy. Fear puts you below something, and sympathy equal to.

I've been reflecting on a thought: if people were given the chance to do things society and general are considered "bad" or "evil" with no one ever finding out, and with zero chance of anyone suspecting them, most would likely take it(correct me if i am wrong). — QuirkyZen

How could you possibly know that? At best you know (apparently) that you would do those things if you had the chance. Be wary of projecting your own badness onto others.

@J @Moliere @Hanover

if people were given the chance to do things society and general are considered "bad" or "evil" with no one ever finding out, and with zero chance of anyone suspecting them, most would likely take it(correct me if i am wrong) — QuirkyZen

Well, there’s a few maybe unexamined premises here. I take one to be that morality works based on predetermined standards that merely need to be implemented (judged on). Thus, if there is “no one” to do that (judge), because they ‘never find out’, we are free to do whatever we want. This would also include other sources of oversight, like God or a (separate) conscience.

Also, it appears there is the implication that even the (pre)determination of our standards is up in the air, perhaps because, if no one is there to enforce them, it doesn’t even matter if they are there to begin with; thus there appears to be no basis for action, leaving whatever worst-possible scenario you want: anarchy, whim, “indulgence”, evil. I believe we can use the traditional catch-all: “self interest”.

In addition, we are assuming not only that norms are “decided”, but that, either who we are is in place already and determines the choices we make, and/or that the decision about, and judgment of, standards is not just about right and wrong, but implicates our very nature (not just our actions), thus:

Does that make them a bad person? — QuirkyZen

Nietszche suggests we move beyond good and evil not as an argument for some other standard (or just self-interest) but as an observation about the structure of morality. If you decide a thing is right, or “good”, and I don’t follow it, I could either be bad or just wrong. Good and evil assumes an inherent intention (beforehand) behind our acts and/or a constant nature or self that is the cause of them, instead of our just being responsible for our actions after the fact. Thus why there are excuses, extenuating circumstances, bad acts for good reasons, etc. (This also allows for the possibility someone does something horrible because of something inherent in them, and/or for our categorizing who they are for us as part of something they have done—but not in every instance as a function of morality as a whole.)

We do have social norms, but sometimes there is no guide for what we should do (they come to an end or a new situation), and we have to insert ourselves into the moral future as it were, not based on whether we are good or bad, or having decided what is right or wrong, but in so doing we stand up for what is important to us. Wittgenstein saw that our common standards reflect our shared interests in our practices, so (correct) judgment of a novel act is based on the extension of those interests (standards), not a judgment of the individual (their nature or “intention”), say, their selfishness, or selflessness, etc. If we were certain about what was right beforehand (and of all instances), there would be no cases where defying a norm was the right thing to do, or any error or fickleness in our praise and condemnation (mere moralizing).

On some older views that have fallen out of fashion, what defines a state of "virtue" is that the virtuous person both tends to do what is right, and enjoys doing what is right. On this view, enjoying evil would, in some sense, denote a lack of perfected virtue.

I'd hesitate to say this makes people "bad" though, since this conception is most at home in a metaphysics that assumes that everything, (and particularly every living thing, and among them particularly man) is good, in that they are revelations of infinite being itself (or God in the Islamic and Christian traditions). Rather, it means that everyone is good to some degree, but they can be more or less perfected in this goodness, more or less fully actualized. So, the saint or sage, who prefers only the good, has in a sense more fully actualized their humanity. They are more self-determining and more free because they know their own acts and desires as good, and prefer them as such, whereas the person who doesn't know what is truly better is constrained by ignorance, and the person who does what they know to be evil is divided against themselves.

Does that make them a bad person? If so, doesn’t that mean we’re all bad people deep down?

I think every intentional act, to be properly intentional, aims at some good. In terms of theft, some good is being aimed at. It isn't wrong to seek such goods. It is wrong to prioritize lesser goods over greater ones though. And the idea would be that prioritizing wealth over virtue is a sort of misprioritization that stems from ignorance or weakness of will (both of which are limits on a perfected freedom). I guess there is a notion of harmony here too. Evil is a sort of unintelligibly in action, it is to be out of step with nature (nature as perfected) or to "miss the mark."

Since no one is omniscient or perfectly virtuous, all people would seem to be susceptible to the ignorance or weakness of will, but some moreso than others. I suppose that, wanting nothing, such that one does not want to commit any "perfect crimes," is itself it's own sort of freedom too.

I think every intentional act, to be properly intentional, aims at some good. In terms of theft, some good is being aimed at. It isn't wrong to seek such goods. It is wrong to prioritize lesser goods over greater ones though. And the idea would be that prioritizing wealth over virtue is a sort of misprioritization that stems from ignorance or weakness of will (both of which are limits on a perfected freedom). I guess there is a notion of harmony here too. Evil is a sort of unintelligibly in action, it is to be out of step with nature (nature as perfected) or to "miss the mark." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I understand the concept of ignorance and unintelligibility in the context of knowledge. Such limitations occur in spite of the strongest will to know, due to constraints that exceed individual intention. But what is the genesis and nature of the sort of ignorance and unintelligiblity connected to this magical thing called ‘weakness of will’? Isnt it just that, an irreducible mystery?

I'm not sure if I understand the question, but I'll try my best. Weakness of will is when we do something, despite having a strong desire not to do that thing, because we understand it to be a bad course of action. For instance, someone might want to quit smoking, go on a diet, stop consuming pornography, etc., and think that this path is best and what is best for them, and perhaps even pray or meditate on how much they want to not do those things, and nonetheless do them.

Classically, the will is part of the rational soul. It's the appetitive faculty vis-á-vis goodness. So the will targets what is understood as truly best (as opposed to the other appetites, which have particular formal objects, e.g., food, sex, etc.). It's called "weakness of will," because what is understood to be best is not what is acted upon.

By contrast, when someone fails to cheat on his wife, or succeeds in quitting smoking, we don't tend to speak of a "weakness of appetite." In those cases, they might still possess the appetite (e.g. sex, nicotine, etc.), yet it is the appetite of the will that is followed, through the will (which is also the volitional faculty involved in choice).

So weakness of will involves current knowledge, what is understood to be best. If we make poor choices out of ignorance about what is truly best, that would simply be a case of ignorance. Weakness of will is a conflict between different appetites. It's untinelligible in that it doesn't correspond to the intellect. The action is not in accord with what is understood, but is instead contrary to it.

Maybe that answered the question?

So weakness of will involves current knowledge, what is understood to be best. If we make poor choices out of ignorance about what is truly best, that would simply be a case of ignorance. Weakness of will is a conflict between different appetites. It's untinelligible in that it doesn't correspond to the intellect. The action is not in accord with what is understood, but is instead contrary to it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It seems to be a description without an origin. Do you mean to say that whenever any of us encounter a conflict of appetites, weakness of will arises of necessity? Nietzsche would argue that whatever drive is strongest prevails, but this would not constitute a weakness.

Do you mean to say that whenever any of us encounter a conflict of appetites, weakness of will arises of necessity?

No, weakness of will is when one of the lower appetites, the concupiscible (related to pleasure/pain) or irascible (related to hope/fear), overrules the rational appetite for what is understood as good (the will). I'm not super committed to that exact typology, but it seems to describe a common enough phenomenon. That is, bodily or emotional appetites overwhelming our "better judgement," i.e. our understanding of what would be truly best.

When the will overrules the lower appetites, that is the opposite of weakness of will, i.e., the proper ordering.

That "ordering of the appetites" -- I wonder if that's absent from Nietzsche?

I don't think so, given his general appreciation for master morality.

But I agree with @Joshs in saying that Nietzsche's order is different from the notion of a "weakness of the will", however we parse that.

↪Joshs ↪Count Timothy von Icarus

That "ordering of the appetites" -- I wonder if that's absent from Nietzsche?

I don't think so, given his general appreciation for master morality — Moliere

The ranking of drives would be individualistic, and based on to what extent they enhance life and further creativity and self-overcoming vs encourage passivity, resentment and decay. The rational appetite, or will to knowledge, is itself an expression of , and directed by will to power. If it is used in a way that does not optimize the aims of creative self-overcoming, then they work against life enhancement and constitute self-weakening drives.

:up: Sounds right to me.

So -- rather than there being no ranking, there's a difference in how things are ranked.

Nietzsche orders appetites therefore we can't say something like...

No, weakness of will is when one of the lower appetites, the concupiscible (related to pleasure/pain) or irascible (related to hope/fear), overrules the rational appetite for what is understood as good (the will). I'm not super committed to that exact typology, but it seems to describe a common enough phenomenon. That is, bodily or emotional appetites overwhelming our "better judgement," i.e. our understanding of what would be truly best.

When the will overrules the lower appetites, that is the opposite of weakness of will, i.e., the proper ordering. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Since the tripartite division is not the same.

****

There's a sense in which I can understand akrasia -- where I've dedicated myself to do such and such, like quit smoking, that the "rational" frame makes sense of -- but I'm more inclined that Nietzsche is right in that when I quit smoking it's because my desire to quit smoking was more powerful than my desire to smoke, for whatever reason/cause.

I had to work on not-wanting in order to stop-wanting. And that was a desire I built up in order to stop-want.