My position is that under specific circumstances, violence, no matter the required level, is ethical. — Book273

That I am more inclined to agree with. There could be a situation, hypothetically speaking, where killing is needed. I don't deny that.

Death, efficiently applied, can result in a minimization of suffering. I will provide you with a ridiculous example to demonstrate:

Bob is a generally violent guy, takes whatever he wants from whoever he wants, whenever he wants, in whatever fashion he likes at the time. Maybe he wants somebody's sandwich, he does whatever he needs to to get the sandwich. Maybe he wants money, maybe he feels like raping somebody. Whatever it is, he will move forward on his desire, being as violent as required to achieve his goal. He leaves a path of trauma and suffering in his wake. Mike is eating in the park with his family. The park is by a deep strong river. Mike can see Bob making his way through the park, victimizing picnickers and passersby with various levels of violence and general mayhem. When Bob approaches Mike's family, intent on committing more harms, Mike intercedes with a rapid blow to the side of the head, knocking Bob unconscious. One single blow. Unknownst to Bob or Mike, Bob suffers a cerebral bleed and dies within minutes. Bob is no longer able to continue inflicting harm, trauma, and suffering upon others, as he is dead, thereby saving countless future victims from Bob's ravaging. Whether Mike accidentally killed Bob, or meant to, the end result of Bob's death is less suffering overall, even for Bob, as he was struck once and died. Had he continued to live he would have continued to experience more violence inflicted on him from others who chose to attempt to defend themselves from Bob.

it is also ethical — Tobias

Which would you prefer?

1. To save your friend without violence

or

2. To save your friend with violence

?

There's a difference there and, for me, it needs to be made explicit by developing a new concept: goodish (2).

Whether Mike accidentally killed Bob, or meant to, the end result of Bob's death is less suffering overall, even for Bob, as he was struck once and died. — Book273

And what of Bob's family? What of Bob's son? Could he not have benefited from a rectified father figure?

Violence is a saviour to all; except the moral system, where in its dismay now regards death as not only a veritable solution to a problem, but a good one. Oh, woe is me. It is in my belief that justice stands to rectify, not to "dish out". Imagine this equally ridiculous situation:

Mike, in his anger and fear for his family, raises his deadly fist. However, he stops. He sees a despair in Bob's eye, a deep trauma that control's his behaviour. Mike, in his empathetic understanding, disolocates Bob from his family and offers him a beer. There they talk, and after a bit Bob walks off, a new man.

I'm not saying everyone can change. I think that is pretty impossible. But when we discuss a moral system, or a moral categorization, one should strive for the best possible solution. And that is, Bob now teaches bobby that yeah he once was a tough dude, but hitting people is overrated.

There's a difference there and, for me, it needs to be made explicit by developing a new concept: goodish (2). — Agent Smith

By goodish, would you mean that "good" performs on a spectrum? As in, something could be more good or less good.

Which would you prefer?

1. To save your friend without violence

or

2. To save your friend with violence

?

There's a difference there and, for me, it needs to be made explicit by developing a new concept: goodish (2). — Agent Smith

1 of course. However sometimes that is impossible. It does not go anywhere to answer the question whether violence can be ethical though. If I could safe my friend 1. through donating a kidney or 2. I could save him without donating a kidney I would also choose 2. That does not make me donating a kidney any less ethical to save my friend any less ethical.

Is violence ethical, and if so, when and where? — john27

Yes. The Battle of Britain.

By goodish, would you mean that "good" performs on a spectrum? As in, something could be more good or less good. — john27

My intention, if it could be considered that, is to try my best to leave the notion of good, in its original form (absolute, clear, and beyond the clutches of bargaining) unmolested.

If violence is to be admitted into the company of the good it can't, I'm afraid, be done so as an equal (as a good, as ethical). Suffice it to say that violence must know its place; it's a necessary evil and those who share my views have been gracious enough to reclassify violence, not as a necessary evil but as goodish. That's a huge concession I'm making here.

Vide supra.

If violence is to be admitted into the company of the good it can't, I'm afraid, be done so as an equal (as a good, as ethical). Suffice it to say that violence must know its place; it's a necessary evil and those who share my views have been gracious enough to reclassify violence, not as a necessary evil but as goodish. That's a huge concession I'm making here. — Agent Smith

You treat concepts like Platonic forms. The form of violence, the form of the good. Violence is a means to an end. It is a suspect means because it harms people and people tend to dislike being harmed. It is not good or bad 'in itself'. It is good or bad dependent on context. Donating a kidney is a generally good act, committing violence is generally bad. Context may change our judgment though. There simply is no need for categorical judgments.

You treat concepts like Platonic forms. The form of violence, the form of the good. Violence is a means to an end. It is a suspect means because it harms people and people tend to dislike being harmed. It is not good or bad 'in itself'. It is good or bad dependent on context. Donating a kidney is a generally good act, committing violence is generally bad. Context may change our judgment though. There simply is no need for categorical judgments. — Tobias

Ethics is absolute and universal in my opinion. Thou shalt not kill means thou shalt not kill, plain and simple. Ethical injunctions are binding to all, everywhere, every time. True, there are factions that claim that ethical rules have exceptions (the present OP being an exploration of one such), but that, as far as I can tell, is more a case of confusion rather than nuance, subtlety. How? Violence of the kind that people consider acceptable (e.g. self-defense or "for the greater good") have been erroneously categorized with good and that's been the point of origin of endless, unnecessary, controversy. Don't do that! Come to think of it, even goodish is too much of a concession.; let's stick to necessary evil, shall we?

Ethics is absolute and universal in my opinion. Thou shalt not kill means thou shalt not kill, plain and simple — Agent Smith

Ethics is absolute and universal in my opinion. Thou shalt not kill means thou shalt not kill, plain and simple. Ethical injunctions are binding to all, everywhere, every time. — Agent Smith

Well than you are living in a dream world because no one recognizes those injunctions as binding to all everywhere and every time. Not even the most absolutist of ethicists, Kant did. No one also "categorizes things with good". They ask what the right thing to do is, pace Sandel, not what the form of the good is.

And of course the controversy is not unnecessary, what kind of silliness is that? Sure, ethicists and lawyers for ages have been debating whether for instance euthanasia is justified, whether self defense is justified, whether killing in war is justified, no on along comes a fella called Agent Smith who tells the greatest minds in history it is all baloney. Wonderful.

If violence is to be admitted into the company of the good it can't, I'm afraid, be done so as an equal (as a good, as ethical). — Agent Smith

I concur with your sentiment, but ethical violence is more often than not a "product" or a will to do good. How then can one separate a child from its parent?

Well than you are living in a dream world because no one recognizes those injunctions as binding to all everywhere and every time. Not even the most absolutist of ethicists, Kant did. No one also "categorizes things with good". They ask what the right thing to do is, pace Sandel, not what the form of the good is. — Tobias

You misunderstand me.

And of course the controversy is not unnecessary, what kind of silliness is that? Sure, ethicists and lawyers for ages have been debating whether for instance euthanasia is justified, whether self defense is justified, whether killing in war is justified, no on along comes a fella called Agent Smith who tells the greatest minds in history it is all baloney. Wonderful. — Tobias

It is simplicity itself. I don't know why it fails to make the right impression with you.

If including a certain object (violence) in a class (good) results in controversy and unsolvable conundrums, why not create a new category (goodish) and settle the matter once and for all? That way we can all sleep in peace.

I concur with your sentiment, but ethical violence is more often than not a "product" or a will to do good. How then can one separate a child from its parent? — john27

It's an adopted child.

It's an adopted child. — Agent Smith

Haha. well then, Goodish it is.

If including a certain object (violence) in a class (good) results in controversy and unsolvable conundrums, why not create a new category (goodish) and settle the matter once and for all? That way we can all sleep in peace. — Agent Smith

Because not all violence is goodish, most violence is simply bad. Volence is not a species of an object that can be classified under a certain class. Violence is the description of an act. Now what that act is, is not clear, as pointed out earlier in the thread, there are many kinds of violence and whether that act is a good act or bad depends on the circumstances in which is act is performed. Moreover, I have no idea what to make of the glass 'goodish' it is not defined. We could as well rubricate it under the class 'badish' or 'iffy'...

Property rights, border control etc there are numerous such ethical reasons for violence or the threat of it which is esentially the same thing. It is obviously to be pointed out that ethical standards are always subjective.

The idea of universal ethical standards is pure fiction not very different from the worship of an almighty god. Of course it’s a powerful argument that has been used since ancient times. Whatever benefits the tribe is ethical. Spanish bringing the wrath of god to the incas and Aztecs. Ethics being an enabling doctrine for horrible actions. Primitive tribes eating human flesh believing that they’ll inherit the powers of the dead warriors and for food anyway being scarce. Ethical is a comparative argument for the right choice that people make for social reasons. The ethics in the west have of course developed into effort minimazing suffering, but obviously it is just a peak of the iceberg.

Violence is a behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. How can it be ethical???

Violence is a behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. How can it be ethical??? — Alkis Piskas

Well, I don't know! That's what we're trying to figure out. So far I think the general consensus is that violence isn't good, but necessary in some cases.

Violence is a behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. How can it be ethical??? — Alkis Piskas

When it is done to prevent something worse from taking place. Who are you, Gandhi? :wink:

Violence is a behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. How can it be ethical??? — Alkis Piskas

When it is done to prevent something worse from taking place. Who are you, Gandhi? :wink: — Tom Storm

Gandhi used physical force in the form of public physical resistance against the, at the time, British empire’s ownership of India - thereby harming, damaging, and in a sense even provoking the death of the British empire as a force. Sorry, couldn’t resist. :grin: But yes, in agreement with many of the previous posts, conflict in general is always a wrong in an ultimate sense, if there is such a thing, but sometimes is a far less wrong that the wrong of not willfully engaging in conflict – and this applies to conflict in the form of physical violence. As one example, you are a guy of average enough heft and you come upon another guy that intends to rape and/or kill a child in some back alley. In an ultimate sense, as per Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War”*, it’s best to win the battle before ever even engaging in it. You’re not momentarily of enough wits to know how to do so. So then, is it a greater wrong to not engage in any violence and allow the perpetrator to rape and kill the child, or a greater wrong to at least attempt to spill some of the perpetrator’s blood so as to prevent the child from being raped/killed?

* “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” – Sun Tzu

Because not all violence is goodish, most violence is simply bad. Volence is not a species of an object that can be classified under a certain class. Violence is the description of an act. Now what that act is, is not clear, as pointed out earlier in the thread, there are many kinds of violence and whether that act is a good act or bad depends on the circumstances in which is act is performed. Moreover, I have no idea what to make of the glass 'goodish' it is not defined. We could as well rubricate it under the class 'badish' or 'iffy' — Tobias

Isn't killing one person to save many in the grey area of ethics? These are the kinds of situations the concept of goodish (badish being somewhat of a mirror image) apply. I believe we've come to some kind of agreement on the issue. :up:

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? — Tobias

Time will tell, or maybe it won't.

If one is so inclined, one may seek for truth and likely this will sooner translate into discarding false beliefs rather than ever uncovering truth itself.

But that essential uncertainty is fine, until one attempts to impose their will on others.

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

I don't have children, and children indeed become the victim of their parents' ignorance.

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 — Tobias

So it is not an appeal to authority or experience that is being made, but an appeal to reason, is what I am trying to say.

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

Law is nothing but to threaten with violence. It's the imposition of the will, but on a much larger scale. I subject it to the same scrutiny I would subject an individual's impositions to, and find the same objections.

In order to guide fair judgment we have education and law, training people in using fair judgment. — Tobias

Do you not think the individuals and societies discussed in my examples were under the impression they were capable of fair judgement?

This muddy line of reasoning can only lead to what I already eluded to: that anything that societies accept can be ethical. Ethics loses its meaning.

The alternative is for one to present factors that demonstrate why certain judgements are fairer than others, but then again one only has one's own frame of reference to base it on, just like all the people who were deemed incapable of fair judgement.

If one is to take this line of reasoning, either one accepts that ethics is meaingless, or one goes down the slippery slope of appointing oneself or others as the superior judge.

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. — Tobias

This doesn't solve anything. Ethics is then whatever a "qualified" third person considers it to be.

We are not free to rewrite the social contract. whenever we feel like it. — Tobias

There is no social contract that I have voluntarily put my signature under.

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. — Tobias

Is it not my right to have my own thoughts, and to be wrong?

It is not my right however, to impose these potentially wrong ideas on others, through violence or otherwise.

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... — Tobias

This line of thinking is entirely coherent, I grant you that, and entirely absurd. — Tobias

What is absurd is the idea that such considerations as murderers coming to knock on one's door play a serious role in my interactions with other people. But if what people come to me for is protection from murderers then I'll gladly show them out myself.

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. — Tobias

What is anti-social or brutish about striving for consensuality in human interaction? It's the basis of ethical conduct, as far as I am concerned.

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. — Tobias

So ethics is whatever a group of people decide it is. It loses its meaning. On what basis will you claim that burning the witch, stoning the woman or cutting down the peasant is unethical? Didn't a group of people "intersubjectively" decide to call it justice?

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. — Tobias

Indeed. And I don't seek to differentiate. And I believe you can't coherently differentiate between the two either - at least not with the framework you have put forward so far.

Thinking for others is unethical. ... Therefore in your system it is perfectly fine to sign an arms deal with just such a society. — Tobias

What makes you think that an individual who abhors violence should go around selling weapons?

What we have to do is argue and try to convince this society that their law is unjust. — Tobias

What if the society cannot be convinced, or worse yet, what if the society instead convinces yours to change their laws so stoning is ethical again?

You hold on to a kind of monological ethics by which you can set our own moral compass. — Tobias

And whose moral compasses would you like to set? And perhaps more importantly, what makes you believe you are the right person or part of the right society to do so?

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. — Tobias

You haven't presented a basis as to why these behaviors were unethical, other than "we don't do those things anymore", which is not a basis at all.

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. — Tobias

I make no claims about what "we" should do. I'm only presenting you the reasoning behind what I think I should do, and asking for yours.

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. — Tobias

No such assumption is needed, because I do not impose. I can be as imperfect as I like, if I do not attempt to impose my imperfections on others.

And I make no claims about having priviledged access to absolute truth. Let's keep the discussion fair and honest.

Perfection is maybe not the words, but you have to presume some sort of moral superiority above others. — Tobias

I'm sorry to say, but this must be projection.

It is out of understanding of my own ignorance that I choose not to impose. It is those who would impose that must by definition consider their ethics or morals to be superior over those of others, and thus give them the right to do so.

violence isn't good, but necessary in some cases — john27

This is true, e.g. hitting someone who is threatening you, i.e. as self-defence. Well, this may be necessary, as you say, and also justified and not considered illegal in a court, but I don't think that it can be called "ethical". Because then you can kill a violent person and consider that you are doing good to the society, towards which he behaves violently. That is, consider that the society is better without him.

Then there's punishment, which is generally considered violent, even in the form of just restricting someone's freedom. This is often necessary. But can we call it "ethical"?

Ethics have to do with moral principles. The above examples cannot be included in such principles. So, I believe that in such special cases, ethics should not be involved; they have nohing to do with them. Not doing so, we extend ethics to unexplored territories, making it more difficult to define them than what it already is! :smile:

When it is done to prevent something worse from taking place. — Tom Storm

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/640824

:up:

Glad you agree! :smile: