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

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. — NOS4A2

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? — john27

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.

It is not my subjective judgment that is key here, but intersubjective judgment. — Tobias

I find neither are a good basis for ethics. Majority opinions have been terribly wrong in their collective judgement countless times.

Principles are rules of thumb, ... — 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.

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

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: — 180 Proof

:roll:

Mine is: to (attempt to) make another act in accordance to one's desires through the use of physical force. — Tzeentch

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?'

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.

There is a desired reaction they are after. — Tzeentch

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. — 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. 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. — 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.

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

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. — Tobias

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, ... — 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.

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

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. — Tobias

Lets hear it!

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

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. — 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.

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

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.

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.

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. — Tzeentch

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 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. — Tzeentch

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? — Agent Smith

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? — john27

Assuming there's no third-party whose will is going to be violated, yes. It is not violence.

:up:

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

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. — 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.

Lets hear it! — 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.

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

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. — 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.

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

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. — Tobias

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. — 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.

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

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). — 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.

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

He could have kept his mouth shut.

Violence is fine to use in certain situations because the situations are bad and need to be resolved. — 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.

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

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.

Society needs such rules, we call it law. — Tobias

I don't think it's ethical for society, or indeed anyone, to make me the victim of its own imperfections.

Assuming there's no third-party whose will is going to be violated, yes. It is not violence. — Tzeentch

This seems contradictory; So in essence I must conform to the wills of others, even if my own desire is at risk?

That's not what I said.

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.

In that case, the third person's desires must be taken into account. — Tzeentch

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.

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. — Tzeentch

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?

Therefore if you name that previous example as violence, you would do well to admit that it is malleable/contextual? — john27

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.

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

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. — Tzeentch

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.