Well for one the wife didn't force the man through physical force. — john27
I understand that may not be entirely colloquial, and that's why I shared the definition I'm using. — Tzeentch
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. — Tzeentch
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. — Tzeentch
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. — Tzeentch
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. — Tzeentch
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. — Tzeentch
He could have kept his mouth shut. — Tzeentch
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. — Tzeentch
Every violent group action is justified.
This isn't ethics. It is a template for atrocity. — Tzeentch
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. — Tzeentch
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. — Tzeentch
I don't think it's ethical for society, or indeed anyone, to make me the victim of its own imperfections. — Tzeentch
And the truth is always temporary, facts of today will be overtaken by the science of tomorrow. — Tobias
Basing the right on truth only makes its foundation more shaky than when you just base in on the ' right' . — Tobias
No it is not an appeal to authority it is an appeal to experience. — Tobias
You hold an all or nothing view. Either you have an unshakeable foundation or we have nothing to go on. — Tobias
However, in practice we do not have an unshakeable foundation and we still have guiding lights to go on, namely practice and experience. It is not authority based on nothing it is authority based on a past record of equitable and fair judgement. — Tobias
Here your reasoning spirals wildly out of control. Common reasoning is not the same as some truth being discovered. — Tobias
And so since we are not sure of these things, no one's view can be imposed on others.... well so much for society than. — Tobias
Is placing traffic lights imposing the view of city planners on others? — Tobias
If ethics only concerns oneself it becomes meaningless when you do not also provide me some unshakable truth on which it can be based. — Tobias
How do I know which ethical maxims you hold when there is, as you admit no truth to base them on? — Tobias
The problem with your slippery slope is you already assume we are at the bottom. — Tobias
His taking a life is regrettable, not unethical. He is forced in society, we all are. — Tobias
It is the common answer and it doesn't work. The murderer knows Kant is a Kantian so when everyone respects this maxim it is easy for the murderer to know the person is indeed in your house, ... — Tobias
You have a condescending tone... — Tobias
..., it is not the same as excusing violence whenever it is convenient. One must make an argument for this use of violence and that argument must be plausible in the eyes of others who have proven to be able to discern right arguments from wrong arguments. — Tobias
A. might be of the opinion that the use of force was necessary and then A. would have the task of defending his course of action. If A. says " well violence was justified because that ugly head of his constitutes a bad situation" we will tell him he committed a wrong. His ugly head does not provide a justification for violence since A. you basically do not commit violence out of a whim and B. even if he is god ugly the harm he suffered stands in no proportion to the harm you suffered. — Tobias
Every violent group action is justified.
This isn't ethics. It is a template for atrocity. — Tzeentch
No it is not and that is precisely because there does exist some kind of common reasoning. Exactly the one you seem to base your argument on and deny at will. In no society will " he had an ugly head" fly as an excuse for murder. — Tobias
The point is, people can an do reason with each other about what is right and wrong. — Tobias
In your view nothing is left and so it is every man for himself to determine what is ethical. A recipe for a war of all against all, not for an ethical society. — Tobias
Just saying it doesn't work does not mean it doesn't work. Demonstrate it with either argument or empiric facts. — Tobias
Facts are stacked against you, because we are doing it in this way now for ages. — Tobias
It might not be perfect, but it does keep people from killing each other. — Tobias
This is what deontology comes down to and I think it exposes one of its core weaknesses. It assumes a kind of free floating individual, unattached to social bonds. — Tobias
The problem is you think you are perfect. — Tobias
I get that, but the term does have overtly physical connotations. I thought that disengaging the term "violence" from the whole idea of ethical violence might be meaningful. After all, people can do a whole lot of horrendous damage to other people without ever lifting a finger against them. Disenfranchising a person or a group, for example. Maybe "trespassing" is a suitable match for the concept? In which case the question becomes, is it ever ethical to trespass against others? — Pantagruel
Then it is not truth, and they were not facts. — Tzeentch
A shaky foundation is the best one can hope for. However, being unsure or having a shaky foundation is entirely acceptable if one does not allow others to become the victim of one's ignorance, which is exactly what one risks in the case of violence. — Tzeentch
Unless some reasoning is presented, there's no difference between the two. And if a line of reasoning is presented, then it is an appeal to reason or logic. — Tzeentch
That is an interesting discussion in its own right. Not only is it my view that such an individual exists in every one, I'm also considering that analyzing and reevaluating one's core beliefs as imposed by one's upbringing, social climate or state may be a prerequisite for being a moral agent. — Tzeentch
The acknowledgement of one's fundamental ignorance can be a great basis for ethics. For one it should lead to a serious caution when imposing on others, violence being an example of one such imposition. — Tzeentch
If person A justifies his violence towards person B based on what he considers his "fair judgement", what should stop person B from doing the same?
And what should indeed stop anyone from basing their justifications for violence on their "fair judgement"?
More likely, there are factors that constitute what you call "fair judgement", that determine whether one person's claim to it may be better than another's; principles. — Tzeentch
To an extent we are forced to live in a society - a regrettable circumstance. The role we ascribe ourselves in that circumstance is one we choose voluntarily. Whether we choose to adopt its views of what constitutes justified violence is voluntary.
Now, there is an argument to be made here that society brainwashes individuals from a very young age into adopting its views. I'd agree with that, which is why I consider the non-consensual aspects of society to be highly problematic. — Tzeentch
Those things mean nothing to me. It is authority based on opinions. However many atrocities haven't been committed by individuals who made an appeal to past traditions or were under the false impression they were capable of fair judgement?
These things sound reasonable on paper, but the flaws become apparent when one is confronted with someone who has an entirely different frame of reference. — Tzeentch
As far as I am concerned that is perfectly acceptable. Our involvement in this affair is entirely involuntary, and thus inaction is an acceptable route to take if the alternative is unethical conduct. If our involvement is voluntary then we were foolish to begin with, and our forced choice between two evils is entirely our own mistake. — Tzeentch
I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't see how any of what I said is condescending.
In written discussions it is not always easy to know whether the other side understands what logical path I am taking, which is why I wrote it out in full.
I can be uncompromising and blunt, but you'll have to take the fact that I am writing page-long replies to you as evidence that I value our conversation and your contribution to it. — Tzeentch
This is utterly subjective and based on opinion. It may sound reasonable at first glance, but completely falls apar — Tzeentch
To the contrary. Every person who understands they have no foot to stand on should steer clear from violence and impositions on others, lest they make others the victim of their ignorance. — Tzeentch
A. is of the opinion that stoning a married woman is necessary because she looked at another man. A is tasked with defending his course of action, and whatever not-entirely-hypothetical society A is a part of deems this a justifiable use of force.
If we stick to your line of reasoning, we cannot consider this unethical. It seems to boil down to, everything can justify violence as long as there's a society willing to accept it. — Tzeentch
One would wish for this to be the case, but my previous example shows our reasonings not to be as common as hoped.
Here's another example: Kiri-sute gomen
The "right" to murder, based on a perceived affront.
What about witch burnings? What about pogroms? We could continue, but I think my point is clear.
I think our disconnect lies in that you seem to assume (but correct me if I am wrong) that average behavior of individuals must be ethical. That whatever societies agree on is acceptable, must be justified and ethical. — Tzeentch
To the contrary. Every person who understands they have no foot to stand on should steer clear from violence and impositions on others, lest they make others the victim of their ignorance. — Tzeentch
Perfect it is most certainly not, but where do you get the idea that it keeps people from killing each other? Only a few decades ago mankind was a button-press away from killing, literally, everyone. We still are.
If the historical trend of ever more deadly warfare is to continue, the next war will be deadlier than World War II. — Tzeentch
That is an interesting discussion in its own right. Not only is it my view that such an individual exists in every one, I'm also considering that analyzing and reevaluating one's core beliefs as imposed by one's upbringing, social climate or state may be a prerequisite for being a moral agent. — Tzeentch
Of course not. I know I am not perfect, which is exactly why I am proposing these things. It is interesting that you interpret my attempts to reconcile my conduct with my imperfection as a claim to being perfect. — Tzeentch
State has got monopoly on violence in certain situations where people generally think it is needed. So yeah there is a great number of situations the for the state to use violence "ethically". — Wimbledon
I get that, but the term does have overtly physical connotations. I thought that disengaging the term "violence" from the whole idea of ethical violence might be meaningful. After all, people can do a whole lot of horrendous damage to other people without ever lifting a finger against them. Disenfranchising a person or a group, for example. Maybe "trespassing" is a suitable match for the concept? In which case the question becomes, is it ever ethical to trespass against others? — Pantagruel
Minimize suffering? Someone's dead! — john27
However, that doesn't make violence ethical. Violence is always unethical.
Many moral dilemmas maybe solved in this quite simple way - distinguish ethics from permissibility. — Agent Smith
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.