Moral Quandry

[Seldon2639]

I was reading the responses to the thread regarding what people would do if there were no punishments for 24 hours, and was intrigued. Thomas Hobbes argues (essentially) that the main reason polities and societies exist is to prevent that very situation, mainly because the expectation is that in absence of punishment, people would behave exactly as the respondents described, but I'm curious about something:

Am I the only one here who would do the opposite?

I don't mean that I wouldn't go rape and murder and steal, I mean that I would actively attempt to prevent those things from happening. I would gather any weapons I have, and try to stop people from harming others. Am I alone in this, or would other people be trying to kneecap people on their way to rape, steal, and murder?

On a related note: I wonder whether the people who said they'd do things which were otherwise illegal actually mean it. It seems to me that either they're expressing more violent and destructive tendencies than they would actually exhibit because they think it makes them "cool", or whether they anonymity of this forum actually allows them to express what they legitimately want to do.

Either way, I'm a mite concerned

 

[Trivun]

That is the definition of a true anarchistic society. Anarchy is usually referred to as chaos, where everybody does what they want, with no rules and no-one to stop them. This is kind of like the 'Punk Anarchy'. However, anarchy was originally proposed as a type of society where conscience prevailed, and people would choose not to do such crazy things. There would be nothing to stop people from going out and running riot, but for the most part (and I agree with this), people would most likely choose to obey their conscience and act no differently to the way they act with a society bound by law and convention. What does everyone else think?

 

[Monkfish Acc.]

I probably would. I mean, I wouldn't actively search for people commiting crimes, but if I saw people killing and plundering in the street, I'd probably try to stop them.

EDIT:

That is the definition of a true anarchistic society. Anarchy is usually referred to as chaos, where everybody does what they want, with no rules and no-one to stop them. This is kind of like the 'Punk Anarchy'. However, anarchy was originally proposed as a type of society where conscience prevailed, and people would choose not to do such crazy things. There would be nothing to stop people from going out and running riot, but for the most part (and I agree with this), people would most likely choose to obey their conscience and act no differently to the way they act with a society bound by law and convention. What does everyone else think?

I suppose. The people who would do those kinds of things already do them anyway.

 

[Maet]

This is the whole "invisibility ring" question, correct? I would hoard material and monetary goods for my own personal benefit. I would never rape or murder, though I can't say I might not get a bit voyeuristic (I'm a teenager, after all). I've come to understand that looking out for self interest does not include infringing on the liberties of others, and that most people in the same situation would feel the same way (outside revenge/vendetta motives).

 

[imperialwar]

I think these comments are a strong reflection of youth, with no respect for authority.
"shiite, i'd blow that shit up" (bad gangster accent) is a strong indication that these people are trying to prove how tough they think they are. In groups, that they are. Singularly they would perish rather quickly.

I would be of the kind to actively shoot these people if they were let of the leash for 24 hours. With the freedom of no reprocussions a Cull of the species is highly in order.

 

[Seldon2639]

This is the whole "invisibility ring" question, correct? I would hoard material and monetary goods for my own personal benefit. I would never rape or murder, though I can't say I might not get a bit voyeuristic (I'm a teenager, after all). I've come to understand that looking out for self interest does not include infringing on the liberties of others, and that most people in the same situation would feel the same way (outside revenge/vendetta motives).

I am curious, though. You said that your looking out for yourself does not include infringing on other people's liberties, but that you would hoard material and monetary goods. Assuming that means you'd *take* those goods, that would mean you're infringing. You might not have run into any of Locke or Rousseau's writings, but I urge you to at least scan the wikipedia articles about them.

Basically, one of the major liberties (natural rights) we have (if Locke is right) is to accumulate property for ourselves, without fear of someone taking it. So, you wouldn't rape or murder, but aren't you still harming someone else to take their stuff?

 

[Bongo Bill]

Punishment is not the only reason to fear committing a crime. There is also the matter of social stigma. Sure, nobody can send you to jail for robbing that store, but everybody knows you did it without a second thought. You'll never face punishment for killing that guy, but for the rest of your life you'll be known as a murderer.

A crime cannot exist without a society for it to take place in. Even without laws (or at least law enforcement), humans in groups have powerful psychological mechanisms to discourage behavior that violates the group's norms. This is psych 101, here. There are always consequences.

Now, if you're talking about a Ring of Gyges scenario, where there are no consequences... well, that would really depend on whether the person with the ring is in possession of any kind of moral courage.

 

[Maet]

You might not have run into any of Locke or Rousseau's writings, but I urge you to at least scan the wikipedia articles about them.

That's presumptuous of you. I've studied philosophy to the point of physical sickness, so I'm more than acquainted with the jargon and innate superiority endowed in any one who has read half a discourse. Sorry to get defensive, but I was a bit taken aback.

I am curious, though. You said that your looking out for yourself does not include infringing on other people's liberties, but that you would hoard material and monetary goods. Assuming that means you'd *take* those goods, that would mean you're infringing.

I'm referring to infringing on the liberties of the physical self. That's why I have no qualms regarding theft, but I draw the line at murder and violence; I'll take your stuff, but I'm not going to fight/kill you for it.

 

[Seldon2639]

You might not have run into any of Locke or Rousseau's writings, but I urge you to at least scan the wikipedia articles about them.

That's presumptuous of you. I've studied philosophy to the point of physical sickness, so I'm more than acquainted with the jargon and innate superiority endowed in any one who has read half a discourse. Sorry to get defensive, but I was a bit taken aback.

I apologize. I didn't mean to assume that you would be uniformed on this subject. You mentioned you were a teenager, and my leap from there was to the idea that you were lacking the prerequisite knowledge. My mistake, and mea culpa.

I am curious, though. You said that your looking out for yourself does not include infringing on other people's liberties, but that you would hoard material and monetary goods. Assuming that means you'd *take* those goods, that would mean you're infringing.

I'm referring to infringing on the liberties of the physical self. That's why I have no qualms regarding theft, but I draw the line at murder and violence; I'll take your stuff, but I'm not going to fight/kill you for it.

That's interesting. It's sort of a half-step between Hobbes' "take whatever you can/want", and Locke's "don't take other people's stuff". I would only pose a hypothetical for you: say that by taking my stuff, I can't pay for food, and thus my child starves for want of it. You've (by your action) been the proximate cause of my child's death. Would you thus not steal from me, or would you?

 

[Trace2010]

I don't consider "Anarchy" a form of government because it never stays in place for long.

 

[Trivun]

I don't consider "Anarchy" a form of government because it never stays in place for long.

Absolutely correct. I refer anyone to my previous post (post #2) to the definition of anarchy. If we have an anarchic system in place then someone will attempt to restore the balance, since in a real world situation anarchy is unsustainable. Although the system is dependant on self-imposed order, we will end up reverting due to human nature into a self serving system of chaos. This will inexorably undermine the whole system to the point where it can no longer be defined as anarchy, since no order will exist whatsoever. Two choices will then be available. One is a cycle whereby we continue to decline, and the other is one where someone takes control, leading to a form of imposed government. Anarchy therefore cannot exist truly as anything more than an idea, since it will always lead to its own decline.

 

[Maet]

I apologize. I didn't mean to assume that you would be uniformed on this subject. You mentioned you were a teenager, and my leap from there was to the idea that you were lacking the prerequisite knowledge. My mistake, and mea culpa.

Nineteen going on twenty still technically makes you a teenager, though rest assured I'm not very fond of my generation either.

That's interesting. It's sort of a half-step between Hobbes' "take whatever you can/want", and Locke's "don't take other people's stuff". I would only pose a hypothetical for you: say that by taking my stuff, I can't pay for food, and thus my child starves for want of it. You've (by your action) been the proximate cause of my child's death. Would you thus not steal from me, or would you?

If you're so poor that you can barely afford the clothes on your back, then there's a fine chance you possess nothing of value for me and I would move right along. The decision to steal/not steal from someone isn't a question of playing favourites or being empathetic so much as it is weighing odds. Why steal from the beggar on the curb of the mansion?

 

[YouGetWhatsGiven]

I would love to try and see someone stop a crowd of people from plundering a store. If your part of a crowd, you will do much more than you would do if you where alone. I would try to stop people from harming others, but if I am caught up in crowd Psychology, I don't know what I would do.

 

[Trivun]

Interestingly enough, this question leads directly to another. That is, what about the effect of peer pressure? As an example, I give myself. I don't normally give in to peer pressure, although I have on occasion (often when drink is involved, I hasten to add). I was recently offered a drag on a spliff shared by some of my flatmates and there was much pressure on me to accept, but I refused (mainly because of my personal views against drugs, although I decided that if they wanted to do it then it was their choice). However, in other circumstances I have, like most other people, succumbed to peer pressure. What do others, then, think of the effect of peer pressure in the situation given by Seldon? More interestingly still, can peer pressure be linked to the theory put forward by Hobbes, or indeed Locke or Roussaeu?

 

[Lord_Panzer]

Sure, there's people who's heads I'd just love to see explode, but that doesn't mean that, if presented with this opportunity, I'd grab my warhammer and begin making brain omelets. Just because there aren't rules doesn't mean I'm no longer human.

Heh, come to think of it, I actually wrote a paper on anarchy for English a couple years ago...

I'd say that the vast majority of people would continue to live as the did. Some of the 'normals' in the lawful society would, of course, turn to the dark side as it were, simply because there would be no legal ramifications. The people who were criminals would remain criminals, of course, as they'd be free to do what they did but without fear.

 

[Maet]

He need not be a beggar.Presumably in a purely anarchistic society monetary systems would be of very limited use, so bartering would be the only real way of procuring food. By taking anything from him, you would be stripping him of his ability to provide for himself and his family. He could be very rich in terms of things, but by taking those things he no longer has any way to support himself in the short term. Not acknowledging that is self-delusion. It does not make you wrong for stealing, but it ought to be considered.

Good point, wrong context. I'm speaking from the point of having an invisibility ring (See my first post in this thread) that gives me the opportunity to do whatever I want without repercussion in the world as it is, not society has crumbled and it's every man for himself.

(And if there's any further ambiguity regarding the context I was speaking in, I hope this post cleared that up too.)

 

[Maet]

Nevertheless, my point need not be altered by one iota. Mostly because that no matter what you believe when robbing that mansion, your beliefs might not reflect the reality of that person's situation. So the original poster's question has validity, and should be answered.

The decision to steal/not steal from someone isn't a question of playing favourites or being empathetic so much as it is weighing odds.

My decision to rob/not rob from a person is not based on the target's reality but my impression of it. My point is to diminish my own predilections in order to come out with a bigger haul. Not a very philosophical/moral minded way to proceed, but by and large it isolates personal feelings from the scenario at hand in order to proceed with a clear conscience (I guess that somewhat reflects my outlook on life too for that matter, but we hardly need discuss it).

I suppose my point would be that I'm putting the ring to good use on terms I'm comfortable with.

 

[likalaruku]

I'd like to think I'd be a very bad girl; set a few fires, steal shit, beat cars with a baseball bat. But in reality, I'd probably sit by my computer playing games with the window open for hearing anyone foolish enough to aproach my house while I'm armed. I don't trust those teen boys in my neighborhood to not break windows & start garbage fires.