Well for one the wife didn't force the man through physical force. — john27

I thought we were talking about BDSM, so I assume the wife is hurting him or something along those lines.

That's to force (it is against the man's will) one's desires (the wife desires to engage in this type of interaction) through physical force (hurting).

And don't turn this into a discussion about what constitutes BDSM, please.

To me, consensual exchanges of physical force do not constitute violence, and that can include more extreme forms like combat sports.

I understand that may not be entirely colloquial, and that's why I shared the definition I'm using.

Don't worry, I will :naughty:
(just kidding.)

Sure if the woman was hitting his man out of pleasure, that could be determined as violence. However, what if the man was hitting the woman, for her pleasure?

I understand that may not be entirely colloquial, and that's why I shared the definition I'm using. — Tzeentch

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?

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

And the truth is always temporary, facts of today will be overtaken by the science of tomorrow. Basing the right on truth only makes its foundation more shaky than when you just base in on the ' right' .

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

No it is not an appeal to authority it is an appeal to experience. You hold an all or nothing view. Either you have an unshakeable foundation or we have nothing to go on. 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. Not compared to some unshakable foundation but compared to plausible arguments.

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

Here your reasoning spirals wildly out of control. Common reasoning is not the same as some truth being discovered. I agree on common reasoning, that is the intersubjectivity criterion that you despises. I disagree with your search for fundamental ethical truths. 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. Is placing traffic lights imposing the view of city planners on others? If ethics only concerns oneself it becomes meaningless when you do not also provide me some unshakable truth on which it can be based. How do I know which ethical maxims you hold when there is, as you admit no truth to base them on?

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

But I do not think they are so we do not have common ground, so there is no common principle, ergo no basis for our ethics. The problem with your slippery slope is you already assume we are at the bottom.

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

His taking a life is regrettable, not unethical. He is forced in society, we all are. We are born here, raised here, we speak the language of our society. I am happy that he chose to put himself in that position, because others, me for instance, might be too hesitant and it would lead to more harm. Seems to me he was the right man at the right place. A cause for social celebration for celebration.

He could have kept his mouth shut. — Tzeentch

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, otherwise you would have said something, saving life and limb by sending the murderer off to elsewhere. There might be one nice move to make, but it would need another maxim, namely one does not talk to murders. However that too, would fall to the objection that this ideal world is totally removed from the real one.

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

You have a condescending tone which is not based on the strength of your argument, I dislike that, Anyway, no 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. 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.

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. Other things might, witchcraft might. Well than it is up to others to demonstrate there is no such thing as witchcraft and that killing someone on that basis is the same as killing an innocent man. No society condones the killing of the innocent except in certain situations such as war. The point is, people can an do reason with each other about what is right and wrong. Again your either
/ or dychotomy. Or we have some fundamental principle (which we do not have as you earlier conceded) or we have nothing. 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.

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

Just saying it doesn't work does not mean it doesn't work. Demonstrate it with either argument or empiric facts. Facts are stacked against you, because we are doing it in this way now for ages. It might not be perfect, but it does keep people from killing each other.

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

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.

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

The problem is you think you are perfect. I am happy it does make everyone the victim of its own imperfection, i.e. place traffic lights at highways, coordinates aid relief and indeed, tasks a judiciary and a police force with the task of fighting crime and insure an ordered society.

See John, this whole debate would have been entirely avoided had you just specified the ethical system from which you asked your question. ;) I am not an ethicist, but ascribe to some sort of virtue ethics. Actually I draw on various ethical systems on a casuistic bases, they are great at providing plausible arguments. A strict deontologist will never be convinced by an equally strict utilitarian and otherwise. If there is one ethical maxim I hold on to is that one should never absolutize ethical systems because doing that leads to the exact contradictions you like to avoid.

Oops. I'll warrant that I'm not exactly uh, current with the ethical systems we use, but I definitely could've done some research.

Nahhh, no worries. It wasn't criticism, it just made me smile because earlier in the threat I said the question needed specification on this point... :D I just found it funny to say: "now you see what happens!" It is actually a good debate I think so cheers to you for opening the thread.

:up:

And the truth is always temporary, facts of today will be overtaken by the science of tomorrow. — Tobias

Then it is not truth, and they were not facts.

Basing the right on truth only makes its foundation more shaky than when you just base in on the ' right' . — Tobias

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.

No it is not an appeal to authority it is an appeal to experience. — Tobias

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.

You hold an all or nothing view. Either you have an unshakeable foundation or we have nothing to go on. — Tobias

Indeed. I would require nothing less than an unshakable foundation from someone who attempts to justify violence.

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

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.

Here your reasoning spirals wildly out of control. Common reasoning is not the same as some truth being discovered. — Tobias

I shouldn't have used the term "common reasoning".

What I meant to say is that I believe these foundational truths to be accessible through reason and logic, so in theory accessible to all (though in practice, probably not), hence the use of the word "common".

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

Indeed. I consider all non-consensual aspects of society to be highly undesirable.

Is placing traffic lights imposing the view of city planners on others? — Tobias

No, but threatening individuals with violence for not stopping is.

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

I disagree. I think that search for a foundation is incredibly meaingful. But each is to judge that for themselves.

How do I know which ethical maxims you hold when there is, as you admit no truth to base them on? — Tobias

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.

The problem with your slippery slope is you already assume we are at the bottom. — Tobias

No. But when one attempts to justify actions based on slippery slopes, one must either accept that the bottom is also justifiable, or be hypocritical.

Again;

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.

His taking a life is regrettable, not unethical. He is forced in society, we all are. — Tobias

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.

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

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.

But I am not here to defend Kant's claim.

You have a condescending tone... — Tobias

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.

..., 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

This is utterly subjective and based on opinion. It may sound reasonable at first glance, but completely falls apart when we consider how many different interpretations there may be from the various terms you use here (plausible, proven, right, wrong, etc.). Those interpretations tend to be guided by merely what is desirable at the time; convenience.

You may think that is fine, but it leads to every action being justifiable, and ethics becoming meaningless via the slippery slope I have discussed.

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

Reasonable at first glance, but then;

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.

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

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.

I disagree with this.

The point is, people can an do reason with each other about what is right and wrong. — Tobias

And regularly they come to conclusions which are clearly unethical, like burning people at the stake baesd on superstition, or murdering people in the street based on perceived insults.

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

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.

Just saying it doesn't work does not mean it doesn't work. Demonstrate it with either argument or empiric facts. — Tobias

I have, by trying to show you that basing ethics on opinion makes ethics meaningless.

Facts are stacked against you, because we are doing it in this way now for ages. — Tobias

And war and man-made suffering run like a red line through mankind's history. That may be the best mankind is capable of, but individuals need not settle for that mess.

It might not be perfect, but it does keep people from killing each other. — Tobias

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.

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

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.

The problem is you think you are perfect. — Tobias

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.

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

I see where you're coming from.

Allow me to try and explore:

What can make the use of physical force unethical, is when it is used against someone else's will. So the unethical aspect of this is that it is an imposition. Impositions can include a variety of non-violent behaviors as well.

There was a great and lengthy discussion about impositions in this thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12197/the-reason-for-expressing-opinions/p8

Some of its points I have echoed here.

:up:

If we treat ethics as ethical ‘norms’ , then ethics, as justice, is itself inherently violent.

Then it is not truth, and they were not facts. — Tzeentch

And the things we call truth nowadays, are they truth and facts or will time tell? And what should we do with our principles based on these? Were they principles or weren't they?

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

Do you have children? If so they will become the victim of your ignorance whether you want it or not.

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

Yes but reasoning is presented, that is the whole point. When a police agent shoots a man he is asked why. If he then explains that the man was holding a gun and was shooting and that is why the officer took him down he presents

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

a reason for his/her actions. Is it an appeal to logic? No. It is a justification of her use of force. It is actually an appeal to inductive reasoning. She feared the gunman might shoot again. Everything pointed towards it, though there was no certainty the gunman would have fired. It is an appeal to practical wisdom indeed.

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

I am all for serious cautions. That is why the use of violence is generally prohibited by law.

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

Indeed. In order to guide fair judgment we have education and law, training people in using fair judgment. That does not mean rote learning of context independent principles, it means evaluating the context we find ourselves in and handling the context appropriately. That is what learning means. Now of course there may be differences as to what an appropriate reaction is. The course of action society takes is to have these justification examined by a third person, even more trained and educated in weighing arguments and indeed judging the relative wight of principles.

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

I disagree, a lot depends on upbringing, learning, social environment etc. We are not free to rewrite the social contract. whenever we feel like it. However, society

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

Indeed! and you have the idea that you are capable of fair judgment based on principles you seem able to discern, however many would be disagreeing with you. You let nobody tell you otherwise though because that be societal influence trying to brainwash you...

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

Yes, that is what Kantian reasoning comes down to an where the achilles heel of such reasoning has been pointed out. It cannot make sense of the idea of special obligations. No friend of yours will choose your house. Your wife will not ask whether you like her dress, your children will not expect any kind of special treatment from you... I want to be able to be offered shelter by a friend. I expect them to lie for me if need be. The problem with this line of anti-social ethics is that you end up with a life that is solitary nasty brutish and short, exactly what we all strive to avoid... This line of thinking is entirely coherent, I grant you that, and entirely absurd.

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

Sure, nothing wrong with uncompromising and blunt and I say that without any sarcasm. I may well have misread it. If so my apologies. I value your remarks and page long replies as well.

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

t when we consider how many different interpretations there may be from the various terms you use here (plausible, proven, right, wrong, etc.). Those interpretations tend to be guided by merely what is desirable at the time; convenience.

You may think that is fine, but it leads to every action being justifiable, and ethics becoming meaningless via the slippery slope I have discussed.

I disagree. Also those terms which may be vague, gain their content from the way they are used in practical discussion and argument. It is not utterly subjective, it is intersubjective. We appeal to common usage of terms, common reason indeed. However not in the meaning you attach to it, deducible principles independent of context. The search has been on for centuries but in this absolutist guise it has been fruitless.

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

No we do not need to accept that conclusion, but we have to work a little harder than just saying: "violence is unethical, you use violence against a married woman, therefore you act unethically". Actually the example shows the problem of your ethical system. Since all judgment is based on this one principle, you cannot make any difference between the police offiicer in my example and the man stoning his wife.

In fact Your ethics restricts you to only apply judgment to yourself and your own actions. Thinking for others is unethical. There is no reason for you to help this woman. Therefore in your system it is perfectly fine to sign an arms deal with just such a society. What we have to do is argue and try to convince this society that their law is unjust. then we have to try to find common ground and indeed look for principles, but a wholly different kind of principles. We will have to go about asking what the essence of law is, what does law do and what is its corner stone. I would say it is equal treatment. Are laws justified that make such a difference between man and woman. I would say it is against the nature of law to do so. Therefore I would try to convince the other of my arguments or at least try to convince my government not to sign an arms deal with such a country. The main difference is that for me ethics is only relevant when it is dialogical, discursive, argumentative. You hold on to a kind of monological ethics by which you can set our own moral compass. I do not see that as relevant because we are not on our own.

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

Your point is clear and the same reasoning applies. We try to convince and argue and try to find common ground. And indeed, it pays off! In Japan no one has the right to murder anymore, witches live their lives in peace and their broomsticks are now tax deductible! Progroms have been eradicated in most countries and I can go on. That is not because Kant came along and told them, or because everyone just miraculously came to see the miracle of the categorical imperative.

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

Yes and since there is no foot to stand on, you reach the conclusion that violence should not be stopped by countervailing force when it starts and we should allow ourselves and others to get killed in the name of ethics. I agree if everyone would see the wisdom in your words we would all be safe, but not everyone does.

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

our world in stats

Look especially at the homicide rates over time. They plummeted. Sure mass atrocities may still occur. we never know when a next more deadly war will happen. What we do know is that the categorical imperative will not prevent it, but communication and the great entwinement of the global world order just might.

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

I agree with that sentiment, but examining them is something else than cutting them. I even so wholeheartedly agree that I consider the social climate, upbringing and bonds necessary for our emancipation as moral agents. That means that 'social brainwashing' as you name it, has its particular function as a moment of our emancipation.

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

That is because the assumption of perfection is needed. You wish to base your ethics on absolute truth and so there must be a kind of truth to which you have privileged access. Or, at least, there is someone like you inside of everyone, but not nearly everyone, I daresay not nearly most, accept your conclusions. Perfection is maybe not the words, but you have to presume some sort of moral superiority above others.

Ok.... that was my longest PF post yet I think and that considering that I should be working. Ohh dear...

If you look at the laws for example in western countries it's like this. The exemptions (like self defence) are written as separate laws or can in some other way later be used in the process as an argument for defence. It's like -> Yeah you did a bad thing, but you did not have a choice.

Well these are the rules for citizens. 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".

If we treat ethics as ethical ‘norms’ , then ethics, as justice, is itself inherently violent. — Joshs

That's interesting. Care to elaborate?

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 guess in a practical standard, the question becomes a little different. I think for the state violence becomes efficient, which in a casual sense relates to ethics, but I still don't necessarily agree that its the right "choice" per say.

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

I think that might help resolve transgressions in a more general sense, but violence is peculiar in a sense that it's...courageous? Brave? not the best words, but the personal/physical aspect of violence is a neat complication, one that other forms of moral trespass lack, In my opinion.

It's my firm belief that we need to introduce a difference here, between ethical and permissible.

If you're driven into a corner, you're outta options, violence is inevitable. In that sense, to the degree you're forced, violence is permissible.

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.

Take the trolley problem. It is always unethical to kill a person and it doesn't matter how many people you'll save when you do that. Nevertheless, it's ok to kill one for, as they say, "the greater good". Is this a good time to introduce a new concept in ethics? I call it goodish. Utilitarian philosophy, to the extent it condones what in Kantian ethics is absolutely immoral, is goodish.

It's amazing how a new concept (a new word) can clear things up.

Minimize suffering? Someone's dead! — john27

Yes. Death does not equate to suffering. I am not clear what your objection is. I suppose you could define suffering, however, as I understand it, once someone is dead their physical suffering is over, therefore death equates to the end of suffering.

However, what if the man was hitting the woman, for her pleasure? — john27

As long as both are consenting, that would be a good time.

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

If my only recourse to save a friend who is in danger without having provoked or caused the danger, is by using force than my action is not only permissible, it is also ethical. (subject to limitations of proportionality, subsidiarity, 'ultimum remedium' etc) At least I maintain that is is, Tzeentch does not.

Yes. Death does not equate to suffering. — Book273

Death is suffering, for everyone else involved. Don't joke about that please.

As long as both are consenting, that would be a good time. — Book273

:yikes:

I am not joking. I work healthcare, I have patients and family ask me to "assist" with death on a nearly daily basis to relieve suffering. There is now a program for that in Canada: Medical Assistance In Dying. It has been along time coming, far too long.

Medical assisted suicide and actively inciting "efficacy" against your opponent is not the same. I think you know that.

I do see a difference with M.A.I.D and efficient self defense: one is by choice and the other is forced upon an unwilling party. However, by initiating the conflict, one opens the door to all responses.

So your objection is not that death does not relieve suffering but that killing an enemy as a means of expediency is wrong...based on what premise? If I am attacked I have the right to defend myself as I see fit. If I am better at violence than the attacker even better for me. I did not initiate the situation but I am going to end it as rapidly and efficiently as possible with the least amount of risk to myself or my family. Under most circumstances that means striking hard, fast, and enough times so the attacker is unable to rise again. The faster I can accomplish that, the better, as my family and myself will continue to be at risk until the threat is gone. The faster it happens the less violence my family, me, and the attacker have to endure. I will lose no sleep if the attacker dies while I defend myself or my family.

Ever been in a fist fight? or one with weapons involved?

I respect your decision on the account that you do this to protect your family. I'm telling you right now though, that you are wrong. Death is not fun.

Fun is not the debate. Ethical violence is. My position is that under specific circumstances, violence, no matter the required level, is ethical. I am also adding the qualifier that in order to ensure the highest level of ethical violence, one should be thoroughly adept at violence and able to dispense said violence as efficiently as possible in order to minimize suffering.

I'm going to keep on dropping dramatic two-liners till you get the point.

Death is not a minimization of suffering. Hence, the pursuit of death in violence is wrong.