Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: TrashMan on January 29, 2009, 06:55:53 am
-
..this one scares the s*** out of me. When someone comes of not only cold, but morally void - unable to comprehend what morals in essence are. Someone that thinks killing innocents is OK if it's for the greater good, and if it turned out to be wrong, one shouldn't regret it or feel remorse or guilt.
read:
http://dragonage.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=665216&forum=135&sp=75
From here till the end. Sylvius the Mad. At first I though he was joking, goading...but now I'm not so sure.
discuss.
-
Well in whatever study he's undertaken, he's been brought into believing morals are inferior, and apparently he has a degree in 'this crap'. To me, he sounds like a 'up-himself bastard'. Where his logic is never wrong, because logic cannot be right or wrong. What he fails to see, is the reaction to the application of logic, is what is termed right or wrong.
-
Well, technically his argumentation is valid. However, it obviously can't work in real world as such if you're not a sociopath...
The problem is two-fold: First, is logic and the available information enough to make a correct decision in any situation? Second, what should be used as criteria that separates "good" or "correct" decision from "bad" or "incorrect" decisions?
The first issue is the simpler one, and ties to the second one. But starting from the first one, let's take the old example where there's a loose train approaching a group of workers who apparently are not paying attention to their impending death. The train has impact sensors that trigger the auto-brakes when they hit a heavy enough object. You know you aren't heavy enough to trigger the sensors, but there's a hapless big-boned man standing on the platform next to you, and he is heavy enough to make the train brake and save the group of workers ahead.
You can either push the big guy in front of the train, killing him, or you can choose to do nothing and the train will squash the group of workers.
However, logic alone can not dictate the "correct" answer in cases like this, or any other where killing is hypothetically "necessary" for the greater good (personally I fail to see the point in that kind of greater good any way).
The problem with determining your actions with logic alone is that people are not inherently logically accurate beings, and the information we think is accurate may not be so. That means we should be aware that our "logically sound" decisions might not be the "correct" or "best" after events have unfolded, which means we shouldn't blindly do what seems to be logical either, especially in this kind of "the end justifies the means" situations. We can't know if seemingly logical action always leads to the best outcome.
Or rather, it should be taken into consideration when forming the logical response to something. The knowledge of the possible lack of information is information in itself. In the example, it is possible that even if you don't push the big guy under the train, the train will somehow be stopped by remote control or driver getting into controls. Or the group of workers might notice the threat and get away without you killing the big guy.
Or, it might be that the big guy fails to trigger the auto-brakes and the workers are still killed, but now there's an additional victim. Or, the big guy dies but workers would've noticed the threat and saved themselves, but the "logically sound" decision got the big guy killed...
The second issue about what kind of decision is correct is a more complex one.
In my opinion, morals and logic are not enough to go by. Morals are just the code of conduct in a particular community, and logic is not always applicable and with limited judgement capability and information can lead to really bad results. Laws and regulations are not always acceptable either but as long as they are legitimate, I prefer to sticking them but they aren't the highest authority that dictates my decisions.
To make decisions where you can live with the consequences is not possible with just logic and information alone. Or morals alone, or laws or regulations.
What you need in addition to laws, regulations, morals and logic is a set of ethically sound principles. Which is not the same thing as morals. Morality implies the commonly accepted "right" and "correct" behaviour, and can be really misleading - and they can be exploited and misused, even changed, by community authorities like political or religious leaders. Ethic principles, however, need to be thought through by each individual themselves, and are in my opinion the better choice between abiding to morals or ethics. Then you need to apply the ethics to the logic to see what kind of actions are acceptable - not by society, or laws, but by you.*
However, each person really needs to find their own ethical camp, two main ones being utilitarianism and Kantianism. I'm in the latter camp - in my opinion it wouldn't be acceptable to use the Big Guy as means to saving the workers from the impending death by train, even if that action had a chance of affecting positively to the workers' fate. All the unknown factors mentioned earlier would lead to the same conclusion if I were an utilitarian thinker, but that's beside the point. Also, along with information, intuition and instinct are also sometimes needed.
Rationalizing all mistakes and decisions that had negative consequences by saying that they were the logically best option at the time is just bull****, since obviously the logic failed to take into account the fact that information might be flawed or lacking. Not feeling regret or remorse after making a wrong decision is not normal. People make mistakes all the time, and I don't think most people aim to behave illogically. There is some logic (aka motives) behind every decision made, and at the time they obviously seem like correct decisions. So is he saying that no one should feel bad about their mistakes? That makes no sense at all. Feeling bad about a mistake, no matter how correct the decision seemed at time, is how we learn not to repeat the decision in similar conditions. When you make a decision that has negative consequences, it is normal to wish you had chosen differently, or that you could have avoided being forced to make that decision. Especially in situations where the decision affects other people.
*Obviously there are people whose ethics don't work the same as mot people's do, and they need the laws and regulations to prevent them from causing harm to the society...
-
If people drag him outside and lynch him, then he made a bad decision.
The first responsibility, is the one to take responsibility.
People think morals are a personal thing, but in reality, when they effect other people, they are a societal issue.
-
Whilst the logic is correct and i can see where he's coming from...Hell, i agree in part with it - but morally i could never support it.
The logic is undeniably and there lies the problem - you can justify anything with logic, thats is strength, but also its greatest flaw
-
Morals require a lot of extra effort.
-
Someone that thinks killing innocents is OK if it's for the greater good, and if it turned out to be wrong, one shouldn't regret it or feel remorse or guilt.
That is not a question of morals or logic, its a question of compassion. The guy deliberately cut that part out, and now the others are reading more to his words than there actually is.
-
I've only skimmed his arguments, but most of his fundamental points are pretty sound.
And he is right that most morality is baseless and arbitrary...but still, in general, it's pretty useful.
His distrust of psychology is a bit absurd. He clearly doesn't know much about it.
-
As I have said before and will say again here - morals are subjective there are as many variations as there are people. No two people's morals are ever exactly the same, not even twins.
-
It's pretty hard to define even your own morals when we all live in a perfectly amoral universe.
-
moral
i prefer the french definition of this word
-
I don't know, we used to have a group mentality that when there was some ****er who thought he was above the rest, the group pretty much returned him back to reality or sent him to a place where he wouldn't cause trouble. Basically giving him his own medicine. Not so much any more.
Mika
-
I can't see anything wrong with the mb1713's reply if that's the one being linked.
That said, it's a freaking discussion about morals on the freaking internet. Anyone getting offended by it should just turn off their browser.
P.S.
Nor can I see anything wrong with the following replies.
-
What amuses me the most is that even the fictional paragon of logic Spock figured out in the end that applying it absolutely wasn't always the best course of action. You'd think most nerds out there would have seen the Star Trek films. :p
-
Why did they add a subtitle to Dragon Age? Are they going to do episodic releases or something? In all these years they could only make the beginning of the game?
-
Morals are NOT arbitrary - morals are the biological imperative for survival as a social species ingrained within each individual.
On a purely "survival-of-the-fittest" model, sociopaths/psychopaths/ASPD individuals actually embody all the qualities necessary for an individual to survive... UNLESS everyone else is programmed to act in a way that is best for the group as a whole. The group vs the individual is a unique social balance which is maintained in every social species. Morality IS perfectly logical - social species would be unable to survive without it.
Humans may apply all kinds of logic, faith, and everything in between to try to explain what is "good" and what is "evil," but the ultimate form of those parameters actually comes from behavioural evolution and is actually a very difficult thing to break. The only individuals exempt from that are those which psychology terms sociopaths/psychopaths - people which lack the biological program to make them play nice with others. That said, most sociopaths/psychopaths actually LEARN morality in order to survive as a member of a social species; while they may not understand why the rules exist, they do come to understand them and find it necessary to follow them (at least in contexts in which it is necessary for their own survival).
While many psychologists seem to still cling to the fantasy that behaviour is learned, the truth is that the majority of behaviour is biological in nature - choice and thought have less of a role than most people realize.
As a side note, for any of you post-secondary students with the requisite classes, see if your institution offers a Behavioural Genetics course. You won't regret taking it.
-
Whoa whoa whoa. As I had drilled into me throughout my various behavior genetics courses, the idea that morals are a product of evolution -- while reasonable -- is a hypothesis. EvoPsych is a very sketchy field at the moment, without much in the way of testable theory.
I agree that social evolution does occur. But we don't have the evidence to say that 'morals are genetic' or even that morality in its current state has evolved.
There are a number of subsidiary hypotheses which I would be much less hesitant to agree with. The existence of strong genetic components to social interaction, for instance, is clearcut -- but whether our current social structure is genetically determined is a whole different can of worms.
So don't go jumping too far ahead of science, MP-Ryan.
EDIT: Ooh, also. Even if morality has evolved -- which it probably has! -- that doesn't make it any less arbitrary. It's evolved because it's useful at keeping us alive. But in what way is staying alive good, and dying bad? Well, it's only that way because things that consider dying good don't last very long.
And then why can we say that lasting is good, and passing is bad? Only because we decided so.
So in the end it's pretty arbitrary anyway; at some point we just have to say 'living is good, dying is bad, and that's the way things are'.
-
Why did they add a subtitle to Dragon Age? Are they going to do episodic releases or something? In all these years they could only make the beginning of the game?
no, it's called Dragon Age: Origins for 2 reasons:
1) It's the return to Bioware's Roots, a heroic fantasy like Baldurs Gate
2) Origin stories, that completely change the gameplay experience, depending on which you took. The whole world percieves you differently, you get your own starting chapter depending on it and a lot of quests and NPC's are dependent on Origins. There's a FAQ in Bioware's page where you can read more.
A bit back on topic:
I don't really care what people believe or think - they are entiteled to it. BUT; people that don't care about morals, don't understand them or think them silly - those are the people that can very easily end up doing great harm, if they are given any power. Heck, they can even do harm without any power. I'm pretty sure Hitler had a similar thought pattern. If anything, I'd keep people like this under survailance and away from any important positions.
-
A bit back on topic:
I don't really care what people believe or think - they are entiteled to it. BUT; people that don't care about morals, don't understand them or think them silly - those are the people that can very easily end up doing great harm, if they are given any power. Heck, they can even do harm without any power. I'm pretty sure Hitler had a similar thought pattern. If anything, I'd keep people like this under survailance and away from any important positions.
I beg to differ, I think those who have morals (technically everyone has morals, but you know what I mean) are more dangerous than those without. People with morals tend to do things "because it's right" which can lead to some very disturbing things, while those "without" them tend to apply much more closely to game theory which ironically is what might have lead to the creation of those morals in the first place.
Hitler strikes me as a person with strong moral values, just not those that you and me consider "right". Of course I've got no evidence for that since I've never met the guy.
-
A bit back on topic:
I don't really care what people believe or think - they are entiteled to it. BUT; people that don't care about morals, don't understand them or think them silly - those are the people that can very easily end up doing great harm, if they are given any power. Heck, they can even do harm without any power. I'm pretty sure Hitler had a similar thought pattern. If anything, I'd keep people like this under survailance and away from any important positions.
I beg to differ, I think those who have morals (technically everyone has morals, but you know what I mean) are more dangerous than those without. People with morals tend to do things "because it's right" which can lead to some very disturbing things, while those "without" them tend to apply much more closely to game theory which ironically is what might have lead to the creation of those morals in the first place.
Hitler strikes me as a person with strong moral values, just not those that you and me consider "right". Of course I've got no evidence for that since I've never met the guy.
Yeah, this.
-
Maybe I should have used the term "ethics", but it doesn't really matter.
Ethics and morals, understanding them and feeling guilt/remorese is what makes a person good and far less likely to do any harm.
Believing that the ends justify the mean...any means - is what makes a person dangerous.
I fall in the same camp of thinking as Herra, in that I don't think I have the right to sacrifice other people for some goal, regardless how good that goal may be.
-
Whoa whoa whoa. As I had drilled into me throughout my various behavior genetics courses, the idea that morals are a product of evolution -- while reasonable -- is a hypothesis. EvoPsych is a very sketchy field at the moment, without much in the way of testable theory.
I agree that social evolution does occur. But we don't have the evidence to say that 'morals are genetic' or even that morality in its current state has evolved.
There are a number of subsidiary hypotheses which I would be much less hesitant to agree with. The existence of strong genetic components to social interaction, for instance, is clearcut -- but whether our current social structure is genetically determined is a whole different can of worms.
So don't go jumping too far ahead of science, MP-Ryan.
EDIT: Ooh, also. Even if morality has evolved -- which it probably has! -- that doesn't make it any less arbitrary. It's evolved because it's useful at keeping us alive. But in what way is staying alive good, and dying bad? Well, it's only that way because things that consider dying good don't last very long.
And then why can we say that lasting is good, and passing is bad? Only because we decided so.
So in the end it's pretty arbitrary anyway; at some point we just have to say 'living is good, dying is bad, and that's the way things are'.
Ignore the evolutionary psychology bull**** and look at the genetics side of things. Most of our behaviour is pre-programmed - which has been shown in various model organisms quite well. If you look at abnormal psychology, you find that the "serious" mental illnesses (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc) have strong genetic links. Think of it this way: If you have an infinite number of choices theoretically, your genetics narrows that down from infinite to a very few. Your learned personality then allows you to choose among those options. It's a top-down organization model.
Everything in science is a hypothesis or theory; doesn't mean it isn't accurate.
Morality is nothing more than simple rules - a biological imperative - to survive in a social context. Any social species has moral rules. That is why there are some things that are taboo in pretty much every known human society, while other things are looser. The basic rules we inherit from our biological nature - the specifics we fill in ourselves as a product of social interaction.
Arbitrariness implies there is no reason behind something. There is a very good reason behind morality... survival. Thus, if morality is biologically derived it is anything but arbitrary - rather, the ability to perceive and follow those rules ensures survival, which is the highest order rationale for any living thing.
Many people are inclined to think of biological evolution and behavioural evolution as two entirely different things. While behavioural evolution is faster than biological, the two are symbiotic. One cannot occur without the other.
-
Sylvius the Mad. I kinda like this guy. I agree with some of what he says, not all but, yeah.
-
Whoa whoa whoa. As I had drilled into me throughout my various behavior genetics courses, the idea that morals are a product of evolution -- while reasonable -- is a hypothesis. EvoPsych is a very sketchy field at the moment, without much in the way of testable theory.
I agree that social evolution does occur. But we don't have the evidence to say that 'morals are genetic' or even that morality in its current state has evolved.
There are a number of subsidiary hypotheses which I would be much less hesitant to agree with. The existence of strong genetic components to social interaction, for instance, is clearcut -- but whether our current social structure is genetically determined is a whole different can of worms.
So don't go jumping too far ahead of science, MP-Ryan.
EDIT: Ooh, also. Even if morality has evolved -- which it probably has! -- that doesn't make it any less arbitrary. It's evolved because it's useful at keeping us alive. But in what way is staying alive good, and dying bad? Well, it's only that way because things that consider dying good don't last very long.
And then why can we say that lasting is good, and passing is bad? Only because we decided so.
So in the end it's pretty arbitrary anyway; at some point we just have to say 'living is good, dying is bad, and that's the way things are'.
Ignore the evolutionary psychology bull**** and look at the genetics side of things. Most of our behaviour is pre-programmed - which has been shown in various model organisms quite well. If you look at abnormal psychology, you find that the "serious" mental illnesses (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc) have strong genetic links. Think of it this way: If you have an infinite number of choices theoretically, your genetics narrows that down from infinite to a very few. Your learned personality then allows you to choose among those options. It's a top-down organization model.
Everything in science is a hypothesis or theory; doesn't mean it isn't accurate.
Morality is nothing more than simple rules - a biological imperative - to survive in a social context. Any social species has moral rules. That is why there are some things that are taboo in pretty much every known human society, while other things are looser. The basic rules we inherit from our biological nature - the specifics we fill in ourselves as a product of social interaction.
Arbitrariness implies there is no reason behind something. There is a very good reason behind morality... survival. Thus, if morality is biologically derived it is anything but arbitrary - rather, the ability to perceive and follow those rules ensures survival, which is the highest order rationale for any living thing.
Many people are inclined to think of biological evolution and behavioural evolution as two entirely different things. While behavioural evolution is faster than biological, the two are symbiotic. One cannot occur without the other.
Right right, all true (of course I know that hypothesis and theory doesn't mean 'false and unproven!'), but then you have to ask -- why is survival good?
And then you have to make an arbitrary statement, i.e. survival is good, dying/nonexistence is bad.
-
Right right, all true (of course I know that hypothesis and theory doesn't mean 'false and unproven!'), but then you have to ask -- why is survival good?
And then you have to make an arbitrary statement, i.e. survival is good, dying/nonexistence is bad.
What have our merely human notions of "good" and "bad" have to do whether our behaviour follows genetically set rules? :confused:
-
Right right, all true (of course I know that hypothesis and theory doesn't mean 'false and unproven!'), but then you have to ask -- why is survival good?
And then you have to make an arbitrary statement, i.e. survival is good, dying/nonexistence is bad.
What have our merely human notions of "good" and "bad" have to do whether our behaviour follows genetically set rules? :confused:
MP-Ryan's argument is that our behavior has evolved because it helps us keep alive. We work well together; behavior that keeps us working together propagates.
Much of our behavior is genetic.
Ergo, some of the behaviors involved in our morality may have a biological component -- for example, physical disgust at the sight of violence.
-
Right right, all true (of course I know that hypothesis and theory doesn't mean 'false and unproven!'), but then you have to ask -- why is survival good?
And then you have to make an arbitrary statement, i.e. survival is good, dying/nonexistence is bad.
What have our merely human notions of "good" and "bad" have to do whether our behaviour follows genetically set rules? :confused:
MP-Ryan's argument is that our behavior has evolved because it helps us keep alive. We work well together; behavior that keeps us working together propagates.
Much of our behavior is genetic.
Ergo, some of the behaviors involved in our morality may have a biological component -- for example, physical disgust at the sight of violence.
Well yes? Would that somehow invalidate the concept of ethics being at least partially limited and controlled by genetics, or am I misunderstanding you?
-
Does it matter? It's somewhat of a moot point, since such theories can't be proven.
The question is - what would you do with people like that?
-
And then you have to make an arbitrary statement, i.e. survival is good, dying/nonexistence is bad.
Yes, because of fear. The basic constituent of any social norm :)
-
Right right, all true (of course I know that hypothesis and theory doesn't mean 'false and unproven!'), but then you have to ask -- why is survival good?
And then you have to make an arbitrary statement, i.e. survival is good, dying/nonexistence is bad.
What have our merely human notions of "good" and "bad" have to do whether our behaviour follows genetically set rules? :confused:
MP-Ryan's argument is that our behavior has evolved because it helps us keep alive. We work well together; behavior that keeps us working together propagates.
Much of our behavior is genetic.
Ergo, some of the behaviors involved in our morality may have a biological component -- for example, physical disgust at the sight of violence.
Well yes? Would that somehow invalidate the concept of ethics being at least partially limited and controlled by genetics, or am I misunderstanding you?
I think we're probably agreeing here.
-
Does it matter? It's somewhat of a moot point, since such theories can't be proven.
The question is - what would you do with people like that?
Let them be? They're not harming anyone, there isn't anything to be done.
-
Whoa whoa whoa. As I had drilled into me throughout my various behavior genetics courses, the idea that morals are a product of evolution -- while reasonable -- is a hypothesis. EvoPsych is a very sketchy field at the moment, without much in the way of testable theory.
I agree that social evolution does occur. But we don't have the evidence to say that 'morals are genetic' or even that morality in its current state has evolved.
There are a number of subsidiary hypotheses which I would be much less hesitant to agree with. The existence of strong genetic components to social interaction, for instance, is clearcut -- but whether our current social structure is genetically determined is a whole different can of worms.
So don't go jumping too far ahead of science, MP-Ryan.
EDIT: Ooh, also. Even if morality has evolved -- which it probably has! -- that doesn't make it any less arbitrary. It's evolved because it's useful at keeping us alive. But in what way is staying alive good, and dying bad? Well, it's only that way because things that consider dying good don't last very long.
And then why can we say that lasting is good, and passing is bad? Only because we decided so.
So in the end it's pretty arbitrary anyway; at some point we just have to say 'living is good, dying is bad, and that's the way things are'.
Ignore the evolutionary psychology bull**** and look at the genetics side of things. Most of our behaviour is pre-programmed - which has been shown in various model organisms quite well. If you look at abnormal psychology, you find that the "serious" mental illnesses (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc) have strong genetic links. Think of it this way: If you have an infinite number of choices theoretically, your genetics narrows that down from infinite to a very few. Your learned personality then allows you to choose among those options. It's a top-down organization model.
Everything in science is a hypothesis or theory; doesn't mean it isn't accurate.
Morality is nothing more than simple rules - a biological imperative - to survive in a social context. Any social species has moral rules. That is why there are some things that are taboo in pretty much every known human society, while other things are looser. The basic rules we inherit from our biological nature - the specifics we fill in ourselves as a product of social interaction.
Arbitrariness implies there is no reason behind something. There is a very good reason behind morality... survival. Thus, if morality is biologically derived it is anything but arbitrary - rather, the ability to perceive and follow those rules ensures survival, which is the highest order rationale for any living thing.
Many people are inclined to think of biological evolution and behavioural evolution as two entirely different things. While behavioural evolution is faster than biological, the two are symbiotic. One cannot occur without the other.
Right right, all true (of course I know that hypothesis and theory doesn't mean 'false and unproven!'), but then you have to ask -- why is survival good?
And then you have to make an arbitrary statement, i.e. survival is good, dying/nonexistence is bad.
You completely missed the point! Survival is "valid" because if a trait endangers or doesn't support survival, evolution is going to cull it!
It's simple really. Once upon a time when organisms were born, there were two kinds:
-Those that strived to reproduce and survive
-Thos who didn't give a damn!
Guess what? The later all died out, and all we're left with are life forms that try to survive and reproduce.
You know what, every once in a while we get things that are not so adapt at surviving. But these have nothing to do with the "old", "don't give a damn" species....the later died out. These are descendant of the damn givers who have gone astray, or better put yet, didn't keep up with the demands of life.
Guess what? These will die out to!
-
Does it matter? It's somewhat of a moot point, since such theories can't be proven.
The question is - what would you do with people like that?
Let them be? They're not harming anyone, there isn't anything to be done.
In essence yes, but their lack of respect for social norms and their twisted way of thinking can make them extreemly dangerous if given power. Look at Hitler, Stalin or other dictators. IMHO, persons that think like that are far more likely to cause harm.
But I guess you can't do anything until it's already too late.
-
Does it matter? It's somewhat of a moot point, since such theories can't be proven.
The question is - what would you do with people like that?
Let them be? They're not harming anyone, there isn't anything to be done.
In essence yes, but their lack of respect for social norms and their twisted way of thinking can make them extreemly dangerous if given power. Look at Hitler, Stalin or other dictators. IMHO, persons that think like that are far more likely to cause harm.
But I guess you can't do anything until it's already too late.
Like I said, those dictators may not have thought like that at all. And it's not at all obvious that such thought patterns make people kill each other. In fact quite the oposite, since they apply much more closely to game theory, the lack of gain and risks of killing someone in a social context may discourage it.
Also, like you said, if you want to follow on your earlier post
I don't think I have the right to sacrifice other people for some goal, regardless how good that goal may be.
you have no choice but not doing anything. Any sort of actions against people just because of their thought patterns could be considered some sort of sacrifice for some sort of goal.
-
Does it matter? It's somewhat of a moot point, since such theories can't be proven.
The question is - what would you do with people like that?
Let them be? They're not harming anyone, there isn't anything to be done.
In essence yes, but their lack of respect for social norms and their twisted way of thinking can make them extreemly dangerous if given power. Look at Hitler, Stalin or other dictators. IMHO, persons that think like that are far more likely to cause harm.
But I guess you can't do anything until it's already too late.
Like I said, those dictators may not have thought like that at all. And it's not at all obvious that such thought patterns make people kill each other. In fact quite the oposite, since they apply much more closely to game theory, the lack of gain and risks of killing someone in a social context may discourage it.
Really? Someone who thinks "everything is allowed" for the "greater good", and that you're good no matter what you do as long as your motivations are "good", someone who thinks that guilt and remorse are stupid even if you did the wrong thing - you're actually claiming that someone like that is more likely not to do something crazy than your average Joe??
Also, like you said, if you want to follow on your earlier post
I don't think I have the right to sacrifice other people for some goal, regardless how good that goal may be.
you have no choice but not doing anything. Any sort of actions against people just because of their thought patterns could be considered some sort of sacrifice for some sort of goal.
[/quote]
No, you're wrong. Not ANY sort of action. That would depend.
What, you think I'd want to kill them? Sending them to counceling, keeping tabs on them - maybe.
While I believe I don't have the right to sacrifice/hurt others, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't do it if specific circumstances were met. If I really, really couldn't find another way. no matter how hard I try, and if the stakes are high enough...I guess I would do that. Altough I probably wouldn't be able to live with myself after that.
Whereas the hypotherical guy in question wouldn't flinch. If that is not a crucial difference, I don't know what it.
-
Really? Someone who thinks "everything is allowed" for the "greater good", and that you're good no matter what you do as long as your motivations are "good", someone who thinks that guilt and remorse are stupid even if you did the wrong thing - you're actually claiming that someone like that is more likely not to do something crazy than your average Joe??
Perhaps not in that extreme case, but ordinarily, yes.
No, you're wrong. Not ANY sort of action. That would depend.
What, you think I'd want to kill them? Sending them to counceling, keeping tabs on them - maybe.
You are sacrificing something that belongs to them, either their privacy or their free time (and free will and patience). Hence you are sacrificing something for "the greater good".
So you are suggesting contradicting yourself. You may proceed to bury yourself more at that point, but as soon as you make the argument that the end doesn't justify the means, you are better off letting them be.
While I believe I don't have the right to sacrifice/hurt others, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't do it if specific circumstances were met. If I really, really couldn't find another way. no matter how hard I try, and if the stakes are high enough...I guess I would do that. Altough I probably wouldn't be able to live with myself after that.
Whereas the hypotherical guy in question wouldn't flinch. If that is not a crucial difference, I don't know what it.
You seem to be confused. Either you think the ends justify the means or you don't. Any sort of compromise involves some sort of slippery slope.
-
While I believe I don't have the right to sacrifice/hurt others, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't do it if specific circumstances were met. If I really, really couldn't find another way. no matter how hard I try, and if the stakes are high enough...I guess I would do that. Altough I probably wouldn't be able to live with myself after that.
Whereas the hypotherical guy in question wouldn't flinch. If that is not a crucial difference, I don't know what it.
You seem to be confused. Either you think the ends justify the means or you don't. Any sort of compromise involves some sort of slippery slope.
It's not that simple. I think TrashMan is trying to say (correct if I'm wrong) that since he has never been in that kind of situation where that kind of decision would be required, he can't know what he would actually choose in that kind of situation regardless of what his present ethics say would be the right thing, which is actually a very valid point - it's easy to stay on an ethical high horse before having to make a decision like that. In reality, people put in those situations tend to either freeze or make fast decisions that result in some kind of action and reaction, but in general the survival rate of the deciders is better than that of freezers, whether or not the results of those decisions end up being positive or negative.
As the golden rule of infantry says: If you do not know what to do, attack. If you don't know how to attack, flank them. If you don't know from which direction, flank to the left. Anything tends to be better than nothing...
Not to mention situations where loss of life is unavoidable but there's a choise between lesser and greater havoc, and fast decisions are required to limit consequences:
Also, like you said, if you want to follow on your earlier post
I don't think I have the right to sacrifice other people for some goal, regardless how good that goal may be.
you have no choice but not doing anything. Any sort of actions against people just because of their thought patterns could be considered some sort of sacrifice for some sort of goal.
Actually, the better formulation of this principle is never to use people as means to an end only. Or in other (and more) words, Categorical imperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_Imperative). It's pretty interesting reading...
According to categorical imperative, people have so called "perfect duty" not to act so that one could not accept as universally acceptable behaviour. Similarly, we have "imperfect duty" to only act so that it could be universally acceptable.
Obviously, in some hypothetical as well as real life occasions, people sometimes need to make decisions that invariably lead to someone getting hurt or killed. Inaction could result in the death of all involved, while action of any kind might save some people yet doom others. The most common and usually fastest decision is driven by self-preservance and can be ethically defended by the perfect duty - if no one cared about themselves and let themselves die, it leads to logical contradiction and would eventually end in the death of our species, which is undesireable. On the other hand, it contradicts the imperfect duty, because when you start sacrificing people to ensure your own survival, that would eventually at extreme case lead to just you being alive, which is just as undesireable as everyone dying. In cases like this, it is in fact utilitarian ethics that actually work better than Kantian ethics, in the sense that they allow one to make some kind of decision. Inaction, in most life-and-death situations, tends to make everything go south - the only worse thing is to panic (though again there are exceptions where panicking is the exact right thing to do).
It's also important to remember that in Kantianism, the underlying maxims in any action define the moral/ethical value of it, not just the nature of the action itself or the consequences of the action.
-
Perhaps not in that extreme case, but ordinarily, yes.
by what logic? I can't fanthom how you came to that conclusion....
You are sacrificing something that belongs to them, either their privacy or their free time (and free will and patience). Hence you are sacrificing something for "the greater good".
So you are suggesting contradicting yourself. You may proceed to bury yourself more at that point, but as soon as you make the argument that the end doesn't justify the means, you are better off letting them be.
No, I'm not contradicting myself. You're stretching the meaning of the word sacrifice.
By your logic we should abolish jails and all mental institutions - after all, we have no right to put anyone in there.
I'd never hurt anyone or kill - that's what I mean by sacrifice.
Privacy? Don't make me laugh.
If anything I'd have to sacrificing MY time to watch over those people.
You seem to be confused. Either you think the ends justify the means or you don't. Any sort of compromise involves some sort of slippery slope.
I'm not confused. I'm perfectly aware of everything I said and everything I believe.
Herra got what I was saying.
-
Whoa whoa whoa. As I had drilled into me throughout my various behavior genetics courses, the idea that morals are a product of evolution -- while reasonable -- is a hypothesis. EvoPsych is a very sketchy field at the moment, without much in the way of testable theory.
I agree that social evolution does occur. But we don't have the evidence to say that 'morals are genetic' or even that morality in its current state has evolved.
There are a number of subsidiary hypotheses which I would be much less hesitant to agree with. The existence of strong genetic components to social interaction, for instance, is clearcut -- but whether our current social structure is genetically determined is a whole different can of worms.
So don't go jumping too far ahead of science, MP-Ryan.
EDIT: Ooh, also. Even if morality has evolved -- which it probably has! -- that doesn't make it any less arbitrary. It's evolved because it's useful at keeping us alive. But in what way is staying alive good, and dying bad? Well, it's only that way because things that consider dying good don't last very long.
And then why can we say that lasting is good, and passing is bad? Only because we decided so.
So in the end it's pretty arbitrary anyway; at some point we just have to say 'living is good, dying is bad, and that's the way things are'.
Ignore the evolutionary psychology bull**** and look at the genetics side of things. Most of our behaviour is pre-programmed - which has been shown in various model organisms quite well. If you look at abnormal psychology, you find that the "serious" mental illnesses (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc) have strong genetic links. Think of it this way: If you have an infinite number of choices theoretically, your genetics narrows that down from infinite to a very few. Your learned personality then allows you to choose among those options. It's a top-down organization model.
Everything in science is a hypothesis or theory; doesn't mean it isn't accurate.
Morality is nothing more than simple rules - a biological imperative - to survive in a social context. Any social species has moral rules. That is why there are some things that are taboo in pretty much every known human society, while other things are looser. The basic rules we inherit from our biological nature - the specifics we fill in ourselves as a product of social interaction.
Arbitrariness implies there is no reason behind something. There is a very good reason behind morality... survival. Thus, if morality is biologically derived it is anything but arbitrary - rather, the ability to perceive and follow those rules ensures survival, which is the highest order rationale for any living thing.
Many people are inclined to think of biological evolution and behavioural evolution as two entirely different things. While behavioural evolution is faster than biological, the two are symbiotic. One cannot occur without the other.
Right right, all true (of course I know that hypothesis and theory doesn't mean 'false and unproven!'), but then you have to ask -- why is survival good?
And then you have to make an arbitrary statement, i.e. survival is good, dying/nonexistence is bad.
You completely missed the point! Survival is "valid" because if a trait endangers or doesn't support survival, evolution is going to cull it!
It's simple really. Once upon a time when organisms were born, there were two kinds:
-Those that strived to reproduce and survive
-Thos who didn't give a damn!
Guess what? The later all died out, and all we're left with are life forms that try to survive and reproduce.
You know what, every once in a while we get things that are not so adapt at surviving. But these have nothing to do with the "old", "don't give a damn" species....the later died out. These are descendant of the damn givers who have gone astray, or better put yet, didn't keep up with the demands of life.
Guess what? These will die out to!
Flaser, that's exactly what I'm saying. Those who 'give a damn' and thought surviving was good, well, survived.
But that doesn't make surviving 'good'. It's still an utterly arbitrary assignment of moral value.
Trashman -- I think dictators are probably more likely to be people with a strict idea of what morality is. Same with a lot of murderers. Now, granted, there are definitely psychopaths, but I'd call that a separate category.
-
He does have a clear idea of morality, and it's completely twisted.
Heck, he doesn't condem Hitler, Stalin and similar ilk (he sent me a lengthy PM) - he claims they are good if their motivations for all those killings were good (example - a better world), and that that's the only thing that matters - Ones motivation and how one feels about it.
-
He does have a clear idea of morality, and it's completely twisted.
Heck, he doesn't condem Hitler, Stalin and similar ilk (he sent me a lengthy PM) - he claims they are good if their motivations for all those killings were good (example - a better world), and that that's the only thing that matters - Ones motivation and how one feels about it.
Well, in that case he's probably wrong -- motivation is subject to cognitive bias, which we are all full of.
It's hard to agree on what 'good' means, granted, but if you deviate too far from the societal consensus, you're probably going to get hammered down.
-
Perhaps not in that extreme case, but ordinarily, yes.
by what logic? I can't fanthom how you came to that conclusion....
You've made a strawman out of the argument. No one thinks in such extremes such as that. That was what I meant.
You are sacrificing something that belongs to them, either their privacy or their free time (and free will and patience). Hence you are sacrificing something for "the greater good".
So you are suggesting contradicting yourself. You may proceed to bury yourself more at that point, but as soon as you make the argument that the end doesn't justify the means, you are better off letting them be.
No, I'm not contradicting myself. You're stretching the meaning of the word sacrifice.
By your logic we should abolish jails and all mental institutions - after all, we have no right to put anyone in there.
I'd never hurt anyone or kill - that's what I mean by sacrifice.
Privacy? Don't make me laugh.
If anything I'd have to sacrificing MY time to watch over those people.
But you are trying to force people who have done nothing wrong to sacrifice something of theirs so YOU somehow feel better about it. Innocent until proven guilty, no?
Jails are for people that *gasp* have commited some sort of crime. Yeah, puzzling isn't it? Again, these people have done nothing wrong. Anything done before they commit some sort of crime or without evidence they would commit it, is pure prejudice.
You seem to be confused. Either you think the ends justify the means or you don't. Any sort of compromise involves some sort of slippery slope.
I'm not confused. I'm perfectly aware of everything I said and everything I believe.
Herra got what I was saying.
Yet you want others to sacrifice their freedom when they have done nothing wrong. It's contradictory with what you profess.
He does have a clear idea of morality, and it's completely twisted.
Heck, he doesn't condem Hitler, Stalin and similar ilk (he sent me a lengthy PM) - he claims they are good if their motivations for all those killings were good (example - a better world), and that that's the only thing that matters - Ones motivation and how one feels about it.
I think I know who you are talking about, but please refer to whom you mean when you say he. :P I wouldn't want to be confused with him.
-
You've made a strawman out of the argument. No one thinks in such extremes such as that. That was what I meant.
.
No strawman. Extreeme situations do happen. He gave quite a few examples of rather "ordinary" situations himself
But you are trying to force people who have done nothing wrong to sacrifice something of theirs so YOU somehow feel better about it. Innocent until proven guilty, no?
Jails are for people that *gasp* have commited some sort of crime. Yeah, puzzling isn't it? Again, these people have done nothing wrong. Anything done before they commit some sort of crime or without evidence they would commit it, is pure prejudice.
If you're so self-righteous I'll dare you to spend a few days living in the same house with patients from a mental institutions. Them being completely free.
We'll see how well you'll sleep.
I think I know who you are talking about, but please refer to whom you mean when you say he. :P I wouldn't want to be confused with him.
the guy on the other forum. The one who's posts are what this thread is about.
-
But you are trying to force people who have done nothing wrong to sacrifice something of theirs so YOU somehow feel better about it. Innocent until proven guilty, no?
Jails are for people that *gasp* have commited some sort of crime. Yeah, puzzling isn't it? Again, these people have done nothing wrong. Anything done before they commit some sort of crime or without evidence they would commit it, is pure prejudice.
If you're so self-righteous I'll dare you to spend a few days living in the same house with patients from a mental institutions. Them being completely free.
We'll see how well you'll sleep.
And what mental illness do these people have that stop them from being free in society? People don't go to mental institutions just because someone doesn't like them.
You are comparing absolutely different things. First you point out the jail example when they've done no crime at all, then you point out the mental institution when they haven't got a mental illness. What's next?
P.S.
And about self-righteousness, I'm not the one who started an entire thread about something that I thought was clearly wrong.
-
You are (again) barking up the wrong tree.
I used the prison and mental institutions purely as an example of society intervening when it feels necessary. That doesn't mean I want people locked up or put in a straight jacket (his hospitalization is not for me to determine anyway).
However, I would want things like counceling.
Or do you feel that's horrible too? Maybe we should abolish anger managment sessions or Alchohol/drugs/smoke rehab meetings? Truly, we are a horrible society for having instruments of torture like that! :rolleyes:
EDIT:
B.t.w. - the guy posted something interesting again. I quote:
What if I said I didn't believe in empathy? Would that make sense?
So yeah...since we're on this subject, answer me this Einstein - what is, in your oppinnion, the difference between a good person and a evil person?
-
Your point of view.
-
You are (again) barking up the wrong tree.
I used the prison and mental institutions purely as an example of society intervening when it feels necessary. That doesn't mean I want people locked up or put in a straight jacket (his hospitalization is not for me to determine anyway).
However, I would want things like counceling.
Or do you feel that's horrible too? Maybe we should abolish anger managment sessions or Alchohol/drugs/smoke rehab meetings? Truly, we are a horrible society for having instruments of torture like that! :rolleyes:
EDIT:
B.t.w. - the guy posted something interesting again. I quote:
What if I said I didn't believe in empathy? Would that make sense?
So yeah...since we're on this subject, answer me this Einstein - what is, in your oppinnion, the difference between a good person and a evil person?
And yet again you seem to be the one confused.
Any of those examples you just gave are either voluntary or a result of a crime. Neither of which apply here. You are suggesting forcefully putting those people who have done nothing wrong to be put into a situation they possibly don't want (if they did, it would be voluntary).
The difference between a good person and an evil person is dependent upon the eyes of the beholder. One is evil if one does evil actions in the eyes of the beholder. Absolute evil and absolute good are fantasies.
-
And yet again you seem to be the one confused.
Any of those examples you just gave are either voluntary or a result of a crime. Neither of which apply here. You are suggesting forcefully putting those people who have done nothing wrong to be put into a situation they possibly don't want (if they did, it would be voluntary).
Wants have nothing to do with it. People don't want to do a whole lot of things yet they have to. I don't want to pay taxes. I don't want to work. I don't want to get up early. What I want is pretty much irrelevant.
And you're wrong about that. Someone doesn't have to be a menace of society to be forced to go to AA meeting or counseling. Kids these day go to counseling in schools for far more laughable reasons.
If lack of empathy or remorse is shown at a person he should get some kind of counseling. It should help him to fit in the society.
The difference between a good person and an evil person is dependent upon the eyes of the beholder. One is evil if one does evil actions in the eyes of the beholder. Absolute evil and absolute good are fantasies.
I thought you would say that. Since all morals are absolutely subjective, I guess you can't claim Hitler was evil for the Holocaust then? I mean, you could, but you're comdemnation of him would be totally worthless, without any weight or deeper meaning. Shallow.
After all, who are you to put you definitions of good and evil over his? Who is anyone?
-
And yet again you seem to be the one confused.
Any of those examples you just gave are either voluntary or a result of a crime. Neither of which apply here. You are suggesting forcefully putting those people who have done nothing wrong to be put into a situation they possibly don't want (if they did, it would be voluntary).
Wants have nothing to do with it. People don't want to do a whole lot of things yet they have to. I don't want to pay taxes. I don't want to work. I don't want to get up early. What I want is pretty much irrelevant.
And you're wrong about that. Someone doesn't have to be a menace of society to be forced to go to AA meeting or counseling. Kids these day go to counseling in schools for far more laughable reasons.
If lack of empathy or remorse is shown at a person he should get some kind of counseling. It should help him to fit in the society.
All right, what would you do if someone tomorrow got next to you and said "You like video games, therefore you are a liability for society since games obviously increase violent tendencies. You are to go to a rehab/mental institution until you are cured". Not so pleasant now is it?
People to be forced to go to a meeting must have done something wrong. They don't just force people to do so on a flimsy reason. Kids are a different matter, as they're dependent on other people for legal reasons.
Yet, you continue to follow up with replies that are borderline pointless. Not wanting to pay taxes? Not wanting to go to work? What does that have to do with the situation being discussed? Absolutely nothing.
The difference between a good person and an evil person is dependent upon the eyes of the beholder. One is evil if one does evil actions in the eyes of the beholder. Absolute evil and absolute good are fantasies.
I thought you would say that. Since all morals are absolutely subjective, I guess you can't claim Hitler was evil for the Holocaust then? I mean, you could, but you're comdemnation of him would be totally worthless, without any weight or deeper meaning. Shallow.
After all, who are you to put you definitions of good and evil over his? Who is anyone?
I can claim he was evil in our societies' eyes and in ours. It's not shallow, it's the way it is.
As for the rest, can you claim there is some sort of absolute morality without attributing it to something as controversial as god? As I said, it's in the eyes of the beholder.
-
That's the thing -- good and evil are up to us. We have to decide when to go out there, condemn something, and try to stop it.
We can't put responsibility in the hands of an invisible God or an intangible idea of objective morality.
Hitler is evil because we've agreed he's evil. That's all.
-
What is so difficult here? I think its simple:
Cause harm unto others => u suck! period!
The more you do it, the more you suck. If you do it a hell of a load, you suck too much to be tolerated. There is your evil defined.
(harm == pain & suffering. Anyone knows what that is)
-
so where does the military fall then?
-
All right, what would you do if someone tomorrow got next to you and said "You like video games, therefore you are a liability for society since games obviously increase violent tendencies. You are to go to a rehab/mental institution until you are cured". Not so pleasant now is it?
given that I am fully capable of empathy, and have feeling of remorse and guilt, and that I strongly believe that killing innocent people is injustifiable (unlike that guy) I don't really think anyone would see anything dangerous about me.
-
All right, what would you do if someone tomorrow got next to you and said "You like video games, therefore you are a liability for society since games obviously increase violent tendencies. You are to go to a rehab/mental institution until you are cured". Not so pleasant now is it?
given that I am fully capable of empathy, and have feeling of remorse and guilt, and that I strongly believe that killing innocent people is injustifiable (unlike that guy) I don't really think anyone would see anything dangerous about me.
That's not the point. The point was that given that you've done nothing wrong nor have you given any indication that you will, is it right for people to force you to do something just because you have a certain atribute?
Isn't that what segregation was about?
-
Isn't that what segregation was about?
Segregation was a bad thing. The idea was based off of a purely superficial trait, and is morally wrong anyway (someone challenge me on that, I dare you).
If a person displays the attribute we are speaking about, that is indications that he will do something wrong by the mores of society. Yes, it is right. It would be wrong to allow him to harm someone else before he is (looking for a better word here) incarcerated.
Ghostavo, on a completely unrelated note, video games have no proven link to increased violent tendencies. I have research to back that up if I need too. :)
-
If a person displays the attribute we are speaking about, that is indications that he will do something wrong by the mores of society. Yes, it is right. It would be wrong to allow him to harm someone else before he is (looking for a better word here) incarcerated.
How so? Speaking of hypothetical situations is not a crime, nor is thinking about it. There's a difference between thinking it and doing it.
Ghostavo, on a completely unrelated note, video games have no proven link to increased violent tendencies. I have research to back that up if I need too.
I have nothing against video games, quite the opposite. I was just using it since this is a forum dedicated to... well... a video game.
Hence the italics. :P
-
All right, what would you do if someone tomorrow got next to you and said "You like video games, therefore you are a liability for society since games obviously increase violent tendencies. You are to go to a rehab/mental institution until you are cured". Not so pleasant now is it?
given that I am fully capable of empathy, and have feeling of remorse and guilt, and that I strongly believe that killing innocent people is injustifiable (unlike that guy) I don't really think anyone would see anything dangerous about me.
That's not the point. The point was that given that you've done nothing wrong nor have you given any indication that you will, is it right for people to force you to do something just because you have a certain atribute?
Isn't that what segregation was about?
So people shouldn't be divided based on any possible attribute? Like let's say intelligence? Violence? Political beliefs? Religion?
ANY attribute at all? Yeah...dream on.
Man, I can't believe you're trying to play the racism card. That is insta-fail.
So I ask you - do you think a person that doesn't show empathy or remorse can function normally in our society? Maybe he can, but he wouldn't understand guilt or empathy - he would mimic only. Would you trust that person?
Oh, and I would think that advaocatin mass murder and genocide IS a indication that something ain't right.
-
All right, what would you do if someone tomorrow got next to you and said "You like video games, therefore you are a liability for society since games obviously increase violent tendencies. You are to go to a rehab/mental institution until you are cured". Not so pleasant now is it?
given that I am fully capable of empathy, and have feeling of remorse and guilt, and that I strongly believe that killing innocent people is injustifiable (unlike that guy) I don't really think anyone would see anything dangerous about me.
That's not the point. The point was that given that you've done nothing wrong nor have you given any indication that you will, is it right for people to force you to do something just because you have a certain atribute?
Isn't that what segregation was about?
So people shouldn't be divided based on any possible attribute? Like let's say intelligence? Violence? Political beliefs? Religion?
ANY attribute at all? Yeah...dream on.
Man, I can't believe you're trying to play the racism card. That is insta-fail.
So I ask you - do you think a person that doesn't show empathy or remorse can function normally in our society? Maybe he can, but he wouldn't understand guilt or empathy - he would mimic only. Would you trust that person?
Oh, and I would think that advaocatin mass murder and genocide IS a indication that something ain't right.
No, people shouldn't be divided into different classes of citizens because of how they think. You on the other hand seem to want to create second classes of citizens based on that. How is that any better than segregation based on religion, political beliefs or race?
Also segregation and racial segregation are different things.
Finally, he isn't advocating mass murder and genocide, he's saying that the ends justify the means and that you shouldn't feel empathy or guilt because of an action took on those principles, even if later it proves to be the wrong decision. While controversial, it's not something something that he should be discriminated for.
-
Discrimination? Dear God, do you even know what that word means?
Second class of citizens? What nonsense are you sprouting here?
First of all, I have EVERY right to divide people into any category I see fit ESPECIALLY depending on their behavior.
Second, I'm not discriminating him - I'm actually reviled by any person who thinks like that.
Thirdly, counseling it there to help him.
-
You just said you would force people like that to attend some sort of counseling/rehab/mental institution.
I'm fine with giving the option of attending counseling on their own will, but anything further than that IS discrimination. You are giving up part of their liberty because of how they think.
Yes, you have the right to divide people into any category you see fit. But not a society based on equal opportunity.
You are going to complain about my following argument, but since you've already used part of it in this thread I don't think it will be as bad. :P
"Hitler didn't discriminate jews, he was just reviled by them."
See how much sense that makes? It makes about as much sense as what you just made in light of trying to force them to do things, although I'll admit, at least you are not trying to murder them.
-
You just said you would force people like that to attend some sort of counseling/rehab/mental institution.
I'm fine with giving the option of attending counseling on their own will, but anything further than that IS discrimination. You are giving up part of their liberty because of how they think.
Yes, you have the right to divide people into any category you see fit. But not a society based on equal opportunity.
Yes. Just like I would force anyone who's Schizo or has some mental disorder. For in order to think like that, something can't be right with your brain in the first place. Bat that's hardly for you to decide. He would have to be examined by a pro first.
Liberty schliberty. Total liberty is an illusion, a myth. Just like total equality and total equal opportunity. People are not equal - neither in physical skill nor in mental faculty. But that's beside the point.
You are going to complain about my following argument, but since you've already used part of it in this thread I don't think it will be as bad. :P
"Hitler didn't discriminate jews, he was just reviled by them."
See how much sense that makes? It makes about as much sense as what you just made in light of trying to force them to do things, although I'll admit, at least you are not trying to murder them.
No, he did discriminate them, because he took away their most basic rights and treated them like dirt.
I don't have to like someone or his behaviour - but that doesn't mean I want that someone dead or treated like an inferior.
If you don't' fit into the society, then it's the duty of the society to try and help you fit in.
And let's go one step further here, shall we?
"You don't discriminate criminals, you're reviled by them". You support them being thrown in jail. Ergo, you're descriminating based on their behavior.
After all, what is commiting a crime otherthan behavior/way of thought. In the end, it's just as arbitary a divisor as is race or mental faculty, put in place by hte society.
-
Yes. Just like I would force anyone who's Schizo or has some mental disorder. For in order to think like that, something can't be right with your brain in the first place. Bat that's hardly for you to decide. He would have to be examined by a pro first.
Liberty schliberty. Total liberty is an illusion, a myth. Just like total equality and total equal opportunity. People are not equal - neither in physical skill nor in mental faculty. But that's beside the point.
But where do you draw the line then? Is gaming something you should root out too? Religion? Political parties? Here it's not clear it's a mental illness. And even then, depending on the illness, they may have the right NOT to be cured.
You are going to complain about my following argument, but since you've already used part of it in this thread I don't think it will be as bad. :P
"Hitler didn't discriminate jews, he was just reviled by them."
See how much sense that makes? It makes about as much sense as what you just made in light of trying to force them to do things, although I'll admit, at least you are not trying to murder them.
No, he did discriminate them, because he took away their most basic rights and treated them like dirt.
I don't have to like someone or his behaviour - but that doesn't mean I want that someone dead or treated like an inferior.
If you don't' fit into the society, then it's the duty of the society to try and help you fit in.
And let's go one step further here, shall we?
"You don't discriminate criminals, you're reviled by them". You support them being thrown in jail. Ergo, you're descriminating based on their behavior.
After all, what is commiting a crime otherthan behavior/way of thought. In the end, it's just as arbitary a divisor as is race or mental faculty, put in place by hte society.
Yeah, that was the point, he discriminated but so are you trying to discriminate. You may not want someone dead, but you are trying to taking away their choices on the matter.
And again you cock it up with the jail thing for the nth time. Committing a crime not a way of thought. We have a police in society, not a thought police. Although, I agree with you that the crimes themselves are arbitrary, put in place by that society's morals.
Tell you what, tell me what crime did the guy break by saying he defended "ends justify the means" and whatnot and maybe, just maybe, I'll agree with you.
-
so where does the military fall then?
You have the right to defend yourself. You do that based on the information you have. Attack someone without a good enough reason and you suck.
At the end, everyone makes the decisions to act/not to act alone, that is your birthright and responsibility - even when wearing an uniform. Transfer that responsibility to anywhere else and a hell breaks loose. If not now, tomorrow.
-
It's terrible. Such people give the police a bad name.
But don't forget these are isolated incidents. The media love bad news.
The more you restrict the police, the less effective it becomes.
-
I think you posted in the wrong thread, Trash.
-
The ends DO NOT justify the means. To say so is to say that anything is okay to do if it gets your particular job or desire.
for example: You are out of money. You decide to kill someone and take their money. Problem solved, you now have money. The ends justify the means.
he's saying that the ends justify the means and that you shouldn't feel empathy or guilt because of an action took on those principles, even if later it proves to be the wrong decision.
That is EXACTLY why people should fell empathy and guilt. That is our internal check to see if something is morally right or wrong. If it later turns out to be the wrong decision, the person who made it should be guilty. That is the way the conscience and the 'moral compass' work. Society universally recognizes these attributes (go ahead, show me one today that doesn't).
to wrap this argument up: I agree with you that the crimes themselves are arbitrary, put in place by that society's morals.
The society's morals abhor this type of individual
But where do you draw the line then?
I draw the line when the attribute in question could lead to the careless expenditure, waste if you will, of lives that should not have been lost, at which point the perpetrator feels no remorse and shrugs off the whole thing.
-
First off, let me tell this. I don't follow the same moral guide as the guy this thread is about. I'm just defending his ideas and his right to live without someone forcing him to do things others are not forced to in the same situations.
The ends DO NOT justify the means. To say so is to say that anything is okay to do if it gets your particular job or desire.
for example: You are out of money. You decide to kill someone and take their money. Problem solved, you now have money. The ends justify the means.
I hardly think that kind of strawman argument is what the guy intended. Even ignoring that, the ends justifying the means would mean that after that, he would forsee that the consequences of his actions would lead him going to jail and all, where his money wouldn't have value. Hence he wouldn't do it, because the end he wants is not going to jail. If you don't follow this precisely, yes you can get strange conclusions like the one you just reached. Following your example, the ends do not justify the means, therefore if you are out of money, there is no way to make money, since there are no means that are justified by that end! See? Just as strange and just as strawman-like.
he's saying that the ends justify the means and that you shouldn't feel empathy or guilt because of an action took on those principles, even if later it proves to be the wrong decision.
That is EXACTLY why people should fell empathy and guilt. That is our internal check to see if something is morally right or wrong. If it later turns out to be the wrong decision, the person who made it should be guilty. That is the way the conscience and the 'moral compass' work. Society universally recognizes these attributes (go ahead, show me one today that doesn't).
to wrap this argument up: I agree with you that the crimes themselves are arbitrary, put in place by that society's morals.
The society's morals abhor this type of individual
But if the decision was only later proved to be wrong, will it do any good to feel empathy or guilt? In other words, will it change anything? From a functional perspective, either he feels empathy or guild will not change the pratical outcome, hence he is just as guilty of the action he took as someone with empathy or guilt. In the end, only actions matter. So society can only judge actions, perhaps intentions but not thoughts. The guy will function in society just as well as any other person.
But where do you draw the line then?
I draw the line when the attribute in question could lead to the careless expenditure, waste if you will, of lives that should not have been lost, at which point the perpetrator feels no remorse and shrugs off the whole thing.
Again, just as above, society will only judge actions. If someone murders another, they'll be judge either they have empathy and/or guilty or not. Thoughts are irrelevant on this matter.
-
I think you posted in the wrong thread, Trash.
*grumble, grumble* ... danm distraction. Had multiple windows open and my sisters kids paraded trough my room bugging me to pass a Super Mario level on their Nintendo DS fpor them..every 5 minutes!
-
But if the decision was only later proved to be wrong, will it do any good to feel empathy or guilt? In other words, will it change anything? From a functional perspective, either he feels empathy or guild will not change the pratical outcome, hence he is just as guilty of the action he took as someone with empathy or guilt. In the end, only actions matter. So society can only judge actions, perhaps intentions but not thoughts. The guy will function in society just as well as any other person.
Because empathy and or guilt is a normal reaction in such a situations. It's a warning from one's moral compass. It pushes individuals to re-evaluate the situation, to try harder not to make the same mistake.
Because that is what makes us really human. someone without empathy or remorse is a sick, sick person. Probably brain-damaged. No sane person would want an insane person running around unchecked.
Again, just as above, society will only judge actions. If someone murders another, they'll be judge either they have empathy and/or guilty or not. Thoughts are irrelevant on this matter.
Thought are very much relevant. Thoughts define us as humans, as persons.
We talking about type of "people" that could kill your son tomorrow if he thought it was for the greater good, and feel no guilt, no remorse.
-
But if the decision was only later proved to be wrong, will it do any good to feel empathy or guilt? In other words, will it change anything? From a functional perspective, either he feels empathy or guild will not change the pratical outcome, hence he is just as guilty of the action he took as someone with empathy or guilt. In the end, only actions matter. So society can only judge actions, perhaps intentions but not thoughts. The guy will function in society just as well as any other person.
Because empathy and or guilt is a normal reaction in such a situations. It's a warning from one's moral compass. It pushes individuals to re-evaluate the situation, to try harder not to make the same mistake.
Because that is what makes us really human. someone without empathy or remorse is a sick, sick person. Probably brain-damaged. No sane person would want an insane person running around unchecked.
But learning from one's mistakes is not a consequence of empathy or guilt, it's a consequence of intelect. Someone will do that regardless of their morals or lack therefore. You are arguing against a person without morals or with different ones, not against someone evil.
Even assuming he's insane, if he acts with restraint and reason (the antithesis of insane), what separates him from others in society (which can only analyse actions)?
Again, just as above, society will only judge actions. If someone murders another, they'll be judge either they have empathy and/or guilty or not. Thoughts are irrelevant on this matter.
Thought are very much relevant. Thoughts define us as humans, as persons.
We talking about type of "people" that could kill your son tomorrow if he thought it was for the greater good, and feel no guilt, no remorse.
Then he would be judged accordingly, either or not he had morals.
Most people like that follow a very strict game theory kind of situation. He would see that it would be in his best interests to not murder someone (going to jail, possible risks while doing it, etc...), unless something really really weird is about.
Now we are going closer and closer to the extremes of the argument. Either or not someone has "morals", I think it's perfectly fine if they are allowed in society, just as long as they follow it's rules, hence being bound by that society's morals. In a bizarre situation, you might say they have the same morals as everybody who follows society's rules :P. I'm sure you and I have something we disagree with society, but nethertheless follow it's rules. I think it's the same here.
-
Anything is justifiable, morally and personally, if you win the battle/war/confrontation said action is committed in.
And as for institutionalising people for being assholes... TrashMan makes me lulz.
-
But learning from one's mistakes is not a consequence of empathy or guilt, it's a consequence of intelect. Someone will do that regardless of their morals or lack therefore. You are arguing against a person without morals or with different ones, not against someone evil.
Even assuming he's insane, if he acts with restraint and reason (the antithesis of insane), what separates him from others in society (which can only analyse actions)?
Empathy and guilt DRIVE one to re-evaluate ones positions and actions - they serve both s motivators and breaks.
Can you learn from your mistakes without them? Probably. Are you as likely to do that? no.
Also, we're talking about someone who thinks in a completey different way, who's brain works in a completely different way. What makes you think he will act predicatably? What makes you think he will show restraint?
Then he would be judged accordingly, either or not he had morals.
Except by that time the damage has already been done.
Most people like that follow a very strict game theory kind of situation. He would see that it would be in his best interests to not murder someone (going to jail, possible risks while doing it, etc...), unless something really really weird is about.
So you know a lot of people like that?
Now we are going closer and closer to the extremes of the argument. Either or not someone has "morals", I think it's perfectly fine if they are allowed in society, just as long as they follow it's rules, hence being bound by that society's morals. In a bizarre situation, you might say they have the same morals as everybody who follows society's rules :P. I'm sure you and I have something we disagree with society, but nethertheless follow it's rules. I think it's the same here.
Nobody is denying them the right to live in the society.
And while you and me might disagree on a number of things, at least both of our brains work normally (at least I assume your does).
Anything is justifiable, morally and personally, if you win the battle/war/confrontation said action is committed in.
No, no it's not. And I can pretty much prove it to you, altough you wouldn't WANT me to do that. It would be very painful and embarrasing for you and would leave you scarred for life.
-
But learning from one's mistakes is not a consequence of empathy or guilt, it's a consequence of intelect. Someone will do that regardless of their morals or lack therefore. You are arguing against a person without morals or with different ones, not against someone evil.
Even assuming he's insane, if he acts with restraint and reason (the antithesis of insane), what separates him from others in society (which can only analyse actions)?
Empathy and guilt DRIVE one to re-evaluate ones positions and actions - they serve both s motivators and breaks.
Can you learn from your mistakes without them? Probably. Are you as likely to do that? no.
Also, we're talking about someone who thinks in a completey different way, who's brain works in a completely different way. What makes you think he will act predicatably? What makes you think he will show restraint?
Now you are just making this up. Empathy and guilt may serve as motivators, but they are not the only motives a person has to learn, otherwise we'd all be door knobs.
Then, if you talk about predictability, you might as well throw your argument away, since I'd wager empathy and guilt would actually lower the ability to predict that person's actions. Also, he'll show restraint because that's in he's best interests. He's supposedly without empathy and guilty, he's not stupid.
Then he would be judged accordingly, either or not he had morals.
Except by that time the damage has already been done.
So are you insinuating we arrest everyone on the basis that they may commit murder?
Most people like that follow a very strict game theory kind of situation. He would see that it would be in his best interests to not murder someone (going to jail, possible risks while doing it, etc...), unless something really really weird is about.
So you know a lot of people like that?
Not really, but again I assume people not to be idiots and follow their best interests in mind, either they have morals or not. What would be his motive to murder someone and go to jail, etc? If they are idiots, then does it really matter if they have morals or not?
Now we are going closer and closer to the extremes of the argument. Either or not someone has "morals", I think it's perfectly fine if they are allowed in society, just as long as they follow it's rules, hence being bound by that society's morals. In a bizarre situation, you might say they have the same morals as everybody who follows society's rules :P. I'm sure you and I have something we disagree with society, but nethertheless follow it's rules. I think it's the same here.
Nobody is denying them the right to live in the society.
And while you and me might disagree on a number of things, at least both of our brains work normally (at least I assume your does).
But again, you are trying to force them to do something we'd have no obligation to do so too.
-
Anything is justifiable, morally and personally, if you win the battle/war/confrontation said action is committed in.
No, no it's not. And I can pretty much prove it to you, altough you wouldn't WANT me to do that. It would be very painful and embarrasing for you and would leave you scarred for life.
If that was supposed to be a troll, I suggest you try harder.
If it was supposed to be serious, please expand. Because right now it sounds a little pathetic.
-
Considering we don't know exactly how the brain works, it's difficult to decide who is "broken." We know a lot, but we don't know enough to say who is going to be dangerous most of the time. The vast majority of the mentally ill are dangerous only to themselves.
And you can't lock people up just because they don't care about other people. A lack of empathy may have plenty logical thinking behind it.
And I can pretty much prove it to you, altough you wouldn't WANT me to do that. It would be very painful and embarrasing for you and would leave you scarred for life.
Please, bestow upon us a sample of your impressively massive intelligence, O Great One, even though we petty little folks have done nothing to deserve even your presence.
</sarcasm>
-
Now you are just making this up. Empathy and guilt may serve as motivators, but they are not the only motives a person has to learn, otherwise we'd all be door knobs.
No, not the only ones...but important ones.
Then, if you talk about predictability, you might as well throw your argument away, since I'd wager empathy and guilt would actually lower the ability to predict that person's actions. Also, he'll show restraint because that's in he's best interests. He's supposedly without empathy and guilty, he's not stupid.
You're assuming he'll do what's best for him instead what's best for "the world"..or humanity. If he decides that it's best for humanity to remove you and your family...or some group or another from the gene pool.....
Lack of guilt/remorse, a strong belief that the end justifies ANY means and that when someone does something for the greater good, that action is always good - and you're wondering how I'm NOT worried?
But again, you are trying to force them to do something we'd have no obligation to do so too.
Society frequently forces pople to do stuff. Nothing new under the sun.
As long as it doesn't hurt anyone I can live with it.
Seeing a councelor a few times - OH! What terrible torture! :rolleyes:
Considering we don't know exactly how the brain works, it's difficult to decide who is "broken." We know a lot, but we don't know enough to say who is going to be dangerous most of the time. The vast majority of the mentally ill are dangerous only to themselves.
Oh, but lacking some pretty basic emotional response does mean the brain doesn't work right.
I don't have to be a mechanic to know that a car is broken if it's breaks don't work.
Now, let me get back to this statement:
"Anything is justifiable, morally and personally, if you win the battle/war/confrontation said action is committed in."
So let's say I kidnap you, turn you into personal slave, do all kinds of unspeakable things to you and then kill you. Now, no one discovers your body. That means I got away with it. That would also mean that everything I did to you is justifiable, because I won.
Heck I can think of some reason to kill you probably - it doesn't have to be the truth, nor does it have to be good. It can range from "removing idiots from the gene pool", "you've killed JFK" to "you're an evil alien ghost that wants to destroy mankind".
Does that make my action personally and moraly justifiable?
-
Yes, because there are no common morals shared between all the people. You can't expect anything from any one person, you can just hope..
This world isn't reasonable or just, per sē (never gonna be). If you're after those things, DIYs - that's the only deal you can count on.
-
Does that make my action personally and moraly justifiable?
Assuming you acted of your own free will, then yes it makes it justifiable to YOU and anyone who supported you.