"Morally' violent?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I agree more or less what XC says. Would it be morally wrong to kill Hitler to put a stop to the extermination of the Jews? Of course not.

"Of course not." Isn't that assuming an absolute morality?

Of course not! No, seriously, it isn't. It's saying that you can't definitely say it is "wrong". I.e. there is no objective morality. I'm a bit surprised that you and Hermit are getting confused on this topic.

I'm not confused. I am saying that it could easily be considered morally wrong given subsequent unpredictable side-effects of that action. If the killing of Hitler led to a different 20th century history in which the nazis got hold of nuclear weapons, for instance...

Do you know the full consequences of killing Hitler? Might not someone else have made an equally brutal but far less erratic job of leading Germany? One that took a lot more beating and cost far more lives? Wouldn't going back in time and giving the young Hitler CBT make more sense? Or switching him at birth with a Jewish family?

Unless you have an omniscient view of all consequences, there is no "Of course" when it comes to morality. Only lots of "What if?"s.

Philosophically that is true. But what I am saying is for argument's sake equivalent to a (social) scientific theory. I.e. scientific theories are considered "truth" (until something better possibly comes along). But it's probably as close to a truth as one could get in social science. That is, killing Hitler (and potentially killing any successors like him) would most likely result in less Jews and other minorities being killed.

"Would most likely"? Evidence please! Unless you are privy to some hitherto unknown subjunctive clairvoyance, you have no way of knowing what actions a time-traveller could take to minimise the Jewish death toll during WWII, hence no way of evaluating the relative moral merits of different actions.

[Seth]

It has been said that humans are not rational animals, but rather, rationalising animals.

The act of violence must be a case in point. If you perpetrate violence, is your stated reason a reason or a rationalisation?

The people who warble on about self defense are a case in point. Is their willingness to engage in violence and murder a result of the need for self defense, or is that simply an excuse for their desire to commit terrible acts?

The former. Only a psychopath views people defending themselves against criminal violence as psychopaths.

There's your shoe, put it on.

[Seth]

The violence on burglars should be the very last resort, as far as I'm concerned.
Why? For the same reason that I'm against the death penalty. Purely on the grounds that innocent people get hurt.
At least, when someone gets executed, they get a trial. Home justice doesn't even give you that.

But of course, it's a murky business. When does justifiable self-defence become citizen justice?
You shouldn't have the right to keep guns, purely because it's far too easy to claim self-defence, when you are really just dying to shoot someone.
Just like what happened when that innocent school kid got shot by the murdering asshole.

How can an innocent person be breaking into your house? It happens.
And in any case, lots of people get killed in the margins, knocking on the door, or walking into an open garage to ask for a light, or direction etc.

It's true, these morons think they have a right to kill, they think at the time they are "blowing away a punk" which they dream of after watching dirty harry.

You have to frame your laws to take account of these morons. We all pay a price for the fact that humans are less than perfect. In this case, the price should be to be denied guns.
Like I say in my signature.

Well, that's why the law specifies that you can't just "blow away a punk" for entering your garage and the law also specifies that criminal force, or the reasonable and imminent use of criminal force are required before deadly force is authorized.

You see, the legislators of all the states that have enacted Castle Doctrine laws are much, much smarter than you are and they have carefully considered and debated exactly the sort of thing you fret about and have constructed the law to make it unlawful to simply "blow away a punk" who is not offering any physical force against an occupant of the home.

You still refuse to acknowledge that Castle Doctrine laws are NOT about property or trespass, they are about defending against the use or threatened imminent use of criminal physical force against an occupant of a home by a criminal intruder who may happen to be there for the primary purpose of stealing stuff.

So long as a burglar offers no force against an occupant while in the house, the occupants are NOT entitled to use deadly force.

Try and get that through your thick head please.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

So long as a burglar offers no force against an occupant while in the house, the occupants are NOT entitled to use deadly force.

Unless you is a cop and they is black, obviously.

[pErvinalia]

On morality

Morality is a social construct. In that, it is the same as with human rights. There are no absolutes in human rights or morality. Both are created by society.

However, that does not make them irrelevant or unimportant. Quite the contrary, arbitrary though they may be, they are vitally important. I have the legal right to talk to who I wish, and to verbally abuse any politician I wish. These rights did not always exist, but they exist now, and I value them.

However, there is a big difference between the rights and morality that society has constructed, and the rights and morality that an individual may decide are appropriate for himself.

If a drug pusher murders another person because that other person is a competitor, the murderer may justify the killing as 'moral' because the other person needed to be punished. But society will not accept that as 'moral'.

There is no absolute morality. But the laws and customs of society as a whole are designed to exist above individual wishes and provide a standard that everyone must adhere to.

Of course, that which society dictates may also be wrong. When that happens, it is up to everyone to oppose. But not to oppose by violence.

You are still making an absolute moral pronouncement. Not only is that illogical, it's also factually incongruent with reality. The law does allow for justified violence. You are allowed to kill someone in self defence.

[pErvinalia]

Basically all you are saying that makes any sense is that it's illegal to break the law. Yes, it is illegal to break the law.

[Blind groper]

REvo

There are no absolute moral standards or judgements. However, there are group standards.

Morals began with tribalism. The members of a tribe designed tribal laws. Today the 'tribe' is rather larger, with populations of millions to over a billion per nation involved. But the principle is the same. Morals and laws change over time, and I would like to think, improve over time.

However, there are individuals who design their own 'moral' standards, which may be bloody awful.

[pErvinalia]

I agree more or less what XC says. Would it be morally wrong to kill Hitler to put a stop to the extermination of the Jews? Of course not.

"Of course not." Isn't that assuming an absolute morality?

Of course not! No, seriously, it isn't. It's saying that you can't definitely say it is "wrong". I.e. there is no objective morality. I'm a bit surprised that you and Hermit are getting confused on this topic.

I'm not confused. I am saying that it could easily be considered morally wrong given subsequent unpredictable side-effects of that action. If the killing of Hitler led to a different 20th century history in which the nazis got hold of nuclear weapons, for instance...

By saying that there can be a definite moral "wrong" and "right", you are arguing for objective absolute morality.

Do you know the full consequences of killing Hitler? Might not someone else have made an equally brutal but far less erratic job of leading Germany? One that took a lot more beating and cost far more lives? Wouldn't going back in time and giving the young Hitler CBT make more sense? Or switching him at birth with a Jewish family?

Unless you have an omniscient view of all consequences, there is no "Of course" when it comes to morality. Only lots of "What if?"s.

Philosophically that is true. But what I am saying is for argument's sake equivalent to a (social) scientific theory. I.e. scientific theories are considered "truth" (until something better possibly comes along). But it's probably as close to a truth as one could get in social science. That is, killing Hitler (and potentially killing any successors like him) would most likely result in less Jews and other minorities being killed.

"Would most likely"? Evidence please! Unless you are privy to some hitherto unknown subjunctive clairvoyance, you have no way of knowing what actions a time-traveller could take to minimise the Jewish death toll during WWII, hence no way of evaluating the relative moral merits of different actions.

Sure. But it still doesn't change the overall point I am making. That point is that it's incorrect to say that it is definitively morally "wrong" to kill Hitler.

[pErvinalia]

REvo

There are no absolute moral standards or judgements. However, there are group standards.

Morals began with tribalism. The members of a tribe designed tribal laws. Today the 'tribe' is rather larger, with populations of millions to over a billion per nation involved. But the principle is the same. Morals and laws change over time, and I would like to think, improve over time.

However, there are individuals who design their own 'moral' standards, which may be bloody awful.

There's still nothing interesting you are saying. Violence is morally acceptable by the moral standards of society. To say that some violence is moral and other violence isn't, isn't really a very illuminating statement.

[laklak]

If morals are not absolute (which I think we all agree), and current morality is defined by the "group" (whatever that group may be), then at least some violence is moral since the group defines it as such. My group has decided that killing an intruder is moral, therefore it IS moral, and that morality is enshrined as such in the law, which is the final arbiter.

Slavery was moral at one time and still is in some societies. Honor killings were moral, and still are in some societies. There's little point to this discussion unless we're arguing that some moral systems are superior to other moral systems, and then it's only a matter of degree since pretty much any moral code considers some form of violence acceptable, and in some cases required.

I may personally prefer the moral code my society has adopted but that means fuck all to the Saudi dude whacking heads off in the public square.

[pErvinalia]

Yep.

Additionally, society's moral code changes through the actions of individuals breaking the law. It's very rare I would imagine that major moral readjustments in society occur without individuals declaring a higher moral and acting out those morals.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I agree more or less what XC says. Would it be morally wrong to kill Hitler to put a stop to the extermination of the Jews? Of course not.

"Of course not." Isn't that assuming an absolute morality?

Of course not! No, seriously, it isn't. It's saying that you can't definitely say it is "wrong". I.e. there is no objective morality. I'm a bit surprised that you and Hermit are getting confused on this topic.

I'm not confused. I am saying that it could easily be considered morally wrong given subsequent unpredictable side-effects of that action. If the killing of Hitler led to a different 20th century history in which the nazis got hold of nuclear weapons, for instance...

By saying that there can be a definite moral "wrong" and "right", you are arguing for objective absolute morality.

Where did I say that? I said that it could be considered morally wrong. Big difference there.

Do you know the full consequences of killing Hitler? Might not someone else have made an equally brutal but far less erratic job of leading Germany? One that took a lot more beating and cost far more lives? Wouldn't going back in time and giving the young Hitler CBT make more sense? Or switching him at birth with a Jewish family?

Unless you have an omniscient view of all consequences, there is no "Of course" when it comes to morality. Only lots of "What if?"s.

Philosophically that is true. But what I am saying is for argument's sake equivalent to a (social) scientific theory. I.e. scientific theories are considered "truth" (until something better possibly comes along). But it's probably as close to a truth as one could get in social science. That is, killing Hitler (and potentially killing any successors like him) would most likely result in less Jews and other minorities being killed.

"Would most likely"? Evidence please! Unless you are privy to some hitherto unknown subjunctive clairvoyance, you have no way of knowing what actions a time-traveller could take to minimise the Jewish death toll during WWII, hence no way of evaluating the relative moral merits of different actions.

Sure. But it still doesn't change the overall point I am making. That point is that it's incorrect to say that it is definitively morally "wrong" to kill Hitler.

That wasn't what you said though. You said...

Would it be morally wrong to kill Hitler to put a stop to the extermination of the Jews? Of course not.

...which implies that it would not be morally wrong to kill Hitler. The point which you excluded to mention (and which is pretty key here) was whether that would make it morally right, or whether there was no such thing as moral wrongness. The most obvious assumption to take from your statement is the former, as the latter requires a branch into a meta-level which you have hitherto not mentioned!

So, if your meaning was that killing Hitler would have no moral right-or-wrongness, it would have been good to say so! Simply stating that something is not wrong, logically implies that it is right, NOT that there is no right or wrong.

Do you see now why it is you that is confused here?

[pErvinalia]

I'm not confused. I am saying that it could easily be considered morally wrong given subsequent unpredictable side-effects of that action. If the killing of Hitler led to a different 20th century history in which the nazis got hold of nuclear weapons, for instance...

By saying that there can be a definite moral "wrong" and "right", you are arguing for objective absolute morality.

Where did I say that? I said that it could be considered morally wrong. Big difference there.

To be considered morally wrong there needs to be objective morality. In the context of the discussion.

Do you know the full consequences of killing Hitler? Might not someone else have made an equally brutal but far less erratic job of leading Germany? One that took a lot more beating and cost far more lives? Wouldn't going back in time and giving the young Hitler CBT make more sense? Or switching him at birth with a Jewish family?

Unless you have an omniscient view of all consequences, there is no "Of course" when it comes to morality. Only lots of "What if?"s.

Philosophically that is true. But what I am saying is for argument's sake equivalent to a (social) scientific theory. I.e. scientific theories are considered "truth" (until something better possibly comes along). But it's probably as close to a truth as one could get in social science. That is, killing Hitler (and potentially killing any successors like him) would most likely result in less Jews and other minorities being killed.

"Would most likely"? Evidence please! Unless you are privy to some hitherto unknown subjunctive clairvoyance, you have no way of knowing what actions a time-traveller could take to minimise the Jewish death toll during WWII, hence no way of evaluating the relative moral merits of different actions.

Sure. But it still doesn't change the overall point I am making. That point is that it's incorrect to say that it is definitively morally "wrong" to kill Hitler.

That wasn't what you said though. You said...

Would it be morally wrong to kill Hitler to put a stop to the extermination of the Jews? Of course not.

...which implies that it would not be morally wrong to kill Hitler. The point which you excluded to mention (and which is pretty key here) was whether that would make it morally right, or whether there was no such thing as moral wrongness. The most obvious assumption to take from your statement is the former, as the latter requires a branch into a meta-level which you have hitherto not mentioned!

BG is claiming by implication that it is morally wrong to kill Hitler. That you take my pointing out the fallacy in that to be equivalent to me saying it is morally "right" to kill Hitler is silly and is your problem. Particularly when I have made it clear from the start that I don't believe in an objective absolute morality. Therefore, how the hell could I be considered to argue that it is morally "right" to kill someone when I clearly don't believe in moral rights and wrongs??

So, if your meaning was that killing Hitler would have no moral right-or-wrongness, it would have been good to say so! Simply stating that something is not wrong, logically implies that it is right, NOT that there is no right or wrong.

Do you see now why it is you that is confused here?

No. If you'd read what I wrote previous to that it is abundantly clear what my meaning is as I explained in the paragraph above.

[pErvinalia]

FFS, you even replied to one of my first posts concerning the fact that I don't believe there is such a things as objective absolute morality.

[Hermit]

To be considered morally wrong there needs to be objective morality. In the context of the discussion.

Not really. The fact that some people consider something to be morally wrong does not necessitate the existence of objective morality. It just means that at least some of them think that objective morality exists.

Meh. Now you made me think of that intellectual dwarf, Sam Harris. Damn you.