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. — NOS4A2
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. — NOS4A2
In the event that violence is pleasurable, physically, would it remain categorically unethical? — john27
It is not my subjective judgment that is key here, but intersubjective judgment. — Tobias
Principles are rules of thumb, ... — Tobias
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. — Tobias
Mine is: to (attempt to) make another act in accordance to one's desires through the use of physical force. — Tzeentch
I find neither are a good basis for ethics. Majority opinions have been terribly wrong in their collective judgement countless times. — Tzeentch
Principle: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning. — Tzeentch
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. — Tzeentch
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. — Tobias
All truth is temporary, especially those concerning the social world and ethics is social, ... — Tobias
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. — Tobias
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. — Tobias
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". — Tobias
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. — Tobias
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) — Tom Storm
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. — Tzeentch
The question is, is the settlement we've reached - some violence - like what people disparagingly call gateway crime, a stepping stone towards extreme violence? — Agent Smith
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. — Tzeentch
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. — Tzeentch
Lets hear it! — Tzeentch
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? — Tzeentch
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. — Tzeentch
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. — Tzeentch
Maybe I was imprecise with my reference to truth Ethics does not deal with true and false but with right or wrong. — Tobias
To discern right from wrong we need people experienced in doing so. — Tobias
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. — Tobias
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). — Tobias
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. — Tobias
Violence is fine to use in certain situations because the situations are bad and need to be resolved. — Tobias
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. — Tobias
Society needs such rules, we call it law. — Tobias
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. — Tzeentch
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. — Tzeentch
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. — Tzeentch
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.