Yeah, I know. In retrospect, I was just searching for something to argue about.

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).

:up:

Context matters. :point:

Violence is categorically unethical. — Tzeentch

Context-be-damned huh? :roll:

its use must not be regarded as a victory (ethical), but as a personal defeat (unethical). — Tzeentch

Should I not celebrate my self preservation? Or is the will to live a desire?

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. — Tzeentch

What if the desires of the other are unethical and my violence stops him from bringing these desires into effective action?

Should I not celebrate my self preservation? — john27

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.

... is the will to live a desire? — john27

Of course.

What if the desires of the other are unethical and my violence stops him from bringing these desires into effective action? — Tobias

Two wrongs don't make a right.

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?

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".

Context-be-damned huh? — 180 Proof

Yes.

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. — Tzeentch

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". — Tzeentch

Slippery slope fallacy?

↪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". — Tzeentch

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. — 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 mean specifically to protect the innocent from violence, to counter one act of violence with another. — NOS4A2

I would say that's fine.

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. — NOS4A2

Warranted maybe, but should you reciprocate?

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. — john27

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). — 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.

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? — 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.

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. — Tzeentch

In the event that violence is pleasurable, physically, would it remain categorically unethical?

I would even say it is ethical when used in the service of justice, for instance, with the death penalty. — NOS4A2

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.

So the state responds by showing disregard for human life and dignity.... great.

The principle is justice. With his actions he has proven he isn’t deserving of human life and dignity.

Suppose you are in a lethal situation with another dude, would you still follow this? — john27

I don't understand the question.

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. — Tzeentch

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. — Tzeentch

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

Of course. Especially in those cases.

The principle is justice. With his actions he has proven he isn’t deserving of human life and dignity. — NOS4A2

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?

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?

Violence is categorically unethical.
– Tzeentch

Context-be-damned huh?
— 180 Proof

Yes. — Tzeentch

"Experience teaches us that the world is not a nursery" (S. Freud) or a Platonic / Kantian ivory tower. :roll:

Try this on for size ahimsa fans: Forrester's Paradox.