Except he's picking fights with people and using "mutual combat" laws to justify it, so self-defense is irrelevant. Why this dishonesty? You know better because I've been over this before.chikusho said:
Okay...Hitting in General
- Thread starter Nathaniel Grey
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah, and one fringe case where one guy is using one exception of one law that covers one aspect of fighting which exists in one state in one country, that is still written with huge and specific limitations on implementation post altercation, and also is unknown by the overwhelming majority of civilization, is just too insignificant and abstract to be relevant, or even considered a valid argument, or hardly even a philosophical consideration, in the subject for this discussion.Zachary Amaranth said:
My favourite bit of your post is where you say you would (well would not but that translates as such) take a violent action if you believed the person in question deserved it but later say that you wouldn't start a fight if you thought you might be seriously (severely) injured.sumanoskae said:
So at that point it's less a question of morality and more a question of who can I punch who is weaker than I am so I feel better about myself?
That's kind of a leap, isn't it? Did I not make it clear that both of these issues would have to be accounted for? I didn't ever say that I would hit someone just because I could get away with it, how did you manage to infer that?Tentacular Timelord said:
The only reason I would ever feel the need to hit somebody is if I thought they deserved it, and I never said otherwise. I wouldn't, however, get into a fight I knew I couldn't win just to put somebody in their place; that doesn't accomplish anything, it's just stupid.
Can you seriously not think of ANY action to which violence would be suitable punishment? Do I really have to pull one of those fucking obvious "They hit/hurt/sexually assaulted someone" examples? People have done things that make them deserving of death, a black eye isn't so unthinkable.chikusho said:
In case you still want a specific example: One time, when I was about 12, another kid threw a brick at me. I was quite livid and she could clearly tell; she likely wouldn't have done it again, but I hit her anyways because she shouldn't have thrown a brick at me in the first place.
And "We" are entirely capable of cruelty and barbarism ourselves. The fact that the justice system deems any action as right or wrong doesn't mean shit.
I'm sorry, but this flummoxes me; what planet do you live on where nobody is ever convicted of a crime they didn't commit and nobody ever gets away with murder? The justice system fails and behaves unjustly all the time.
This comment suggests that I'm just going to give into every urge of violence that crosses my mind. Again, I outlined a very specific situation regarding the use of violence before, why do you continue to assume that I am unwilling or unable to use judgement? I'm obviously not going to just fly off the handle and attack somebody without examining the situation and my own emotional state. The fact that I am being thoughtful enough to deem someone deserving of violent action requires me to exorcise a certain degree of thought.chikusho said:
And yes, all morality is subjective; it is a system of value judgments and an entirely mental activity. Ethics exist only within your mind, they have no physical or unchanging incarnations or repercussions, they begin and end with thoughts an feelings; they are the very essence of subjective.
Some impulses should be controlled and some do not need to be, I have merely outlined a situation in which my impulse is justified and not problematic.chikusho said:
No, I can't. And since you haven't been able to explain it to me so far, or provide any examples, despite being repeatedly asked, I guess you can't either. If you can, please do so.sumanoskae said:
Also, no, I don't think any such situations exist. Mainly because it's inefficient down to being outright counter productive, and also because it's impossible to control the outcome, it's immoral and it's inhumane.
If you can, please feel free to tell me some, as I have asked you to do a number of times now.
Finally, feel free to answer the questions I posed to you in the post you quoted.
Yes, kids sometimes do unreasonable things. Kids, however, are not the subject of this discussion.
First of all, the fact that "we" are capable of cruelty and barbarism is all the more reason to prevent it. By, for instance, not being cruel and/or barbaric.
Secondly, On the contrary. The fact that the justice system deems any action as right or wrong means that we collectively distance ourselves from certain behavior. Also that when cooler head prevail we find alternate, more reasonable and more humane solutions to problems rather than acting on impulse and heated emotion.
A mistake in practice does not invalidate a principle.
Which situation are you referring to? I assume you are unwilling or unable to use judgement due to the fact that you have been unable to explain any such logic or reason behind that process so far. And, for that matter, any kind of logic or reason that in itself is not a cause for concern.
Exactly, so to personally decide to fight someone over a moral issue/disagreement is automatically a lost cause without purpose.
If the situation you are referring to is the time you were 12; even though it's outside the scope of this discussion, it's still highly problematic.
You explained that she threw a brick at you, and that you understood she wouldn't do it again. First of all, was it an accident? What if she merely carelessly lobbed the brick in your direction without looking, or she was trying to throw it TO you and you simply didn't notice, or she was trying to hit something else and you strolled in the bricks path, or she dropped the brick while playing or pretending to throw it. At this point how can you honestly say that you were able to consider all of these variables after just being hit by a brick (assuming you were), were in pain and feeling wronged by another person? If there was no intent and you hit her, you just physically hurt a kid for possibly being careless. And not only are you bringing more pain to a girl who just understood her mistake, you are possibly undoing all of that understanding by making yourself into a villain. A violent, unreasonable kid who hurts people without being able to understand, listen or forgive the cause of that situation.
But let's assume there was intent. She was out to hurt you and threw the brick with malice. Let's even assume that she would totally do it again as soon as she got an opportunity. If you punch her you are taking the focus of the wrong she did by doing something wrong yourself. A kid that possibly needs to be closely watched, counseled and reprimanded for doing something wrong is now just two kids fighting. Even if you were thinking "I'm going to show her she can't just throw a brick at me", you're just as likely to show her that you are just a mean kid that deserves having a brick thrown at you. No one learns anything, issues remain buried; you were wronged, so now you must wrong, and everything turns to shit.
Correct. And impulses where you risk hurting someone or yourself all belong in the former category.
Fine.chikusho said:
There's the obvious Adolf Hitler.
Charles Manson is another famous figure who orchestrated the deaths of about 7 people.
John Wayne Gacy sexually abused and murdered over 30 teenage boys.
Countless slave masters during the age of slavery in the US not only owned other human beings as property, but physically, emotionally and sexually abused many of them.
Since morality is subjective, I can only assume you find something inherently reprehensible in any act of physical violence, which is a sentiment I simply do not share.
I would remind you, however, that violence is not always physical. You can inflict serious emotional damage to someone without ever hitting them, and sometimes without even touching them.
Violence is associated with violation; is it not a violation of some sort to imprison someone against their will? But if we are never to imprison or hurt anybody, what punishment IS just? I don't think public service and fines are a suitable punishment for murder.
Do you simply denounce the concept of punishment? Assert that no human being should ever be subject to suffering for their crimes?
Obviously, I was pointing out the fact that what a culture believes to be ethical does not determine what IS ethical
I have a friend who faced molestation charges because he gave a kid a bath who was, in effect, his daughter. The lawyer even made it openly clear that had he and the child's mother been married, or had he been her biological father, there would be no case against him.
He'd been taking care of that child for almost her entire life, he'd been living with her mother for more than 2 years; there was nothing even remotely sexual going on. The people prosecuting him KNEW this.
The justice system uphold the law, to the letter. It doesn't matter what anybody's conscience says. Being lawful does not make you moral.
You did not call upon a principal, you referred to an action to support the validity of violent punishment. You asked why we as a society looked down upon violent punishment as barbaric and cruel and did not administer it, and as you've already agreed with, that very society is capable of being barbaric and cruel.
I've met lawyers in my time, and many people within the justice system will freely admit that their jobs do not concern ethics. Established systems of rules are not always reliable sources for ethical advice, in fact I would say that they rarely are; "God is dead"
If you recall, this whole debate began when I, essentially, said that I don't take ethical issue with a violent response, but that I agreed that it was not often pragmatic. I think plenty of people are deserving of violence, but violence is only very seldom a viable option. I outlined a situation in which I would act violently; if I thought they really deserved it, and I knew I could get away with it, I would hit someone.
You've already outlined your support for cooler heads; just because I'm not a pacifist does not make me irrational.
By that logic, nothing you do is ever right or has a purpose. There is not mystical list of commandments that have the final say on what's right and what's wrong, and everyone else is just as subject to mortal flaws as you are
If all morality is subjective, what objective source do you purpose we call upon in matters of morality? Simply because lots of people agree on something does not make it objective; it is entirely possible for a large number of people to agree upon a faulty decision, or make a decision that is devoid of logic.
Large groups of people started witch hunts and lynch mobs; humanity as a whole is just as susceptible to impulse as a single person, if not more so.
I suppose an alternative is to never stand up for what you believe is right based on the knowledge that you could be wrong, but I don't think you're gonna get much done.
Yes, I am absolutely sure she was trying to hit me; I was standing still and she was looking right at me. She was not remorseful whatsoever, the only reason she wouldn't do it again is because as soon as she threw the brick it was clear I would hurt her if she threw another one.
And the brick didn't hit me, I ducked.
This is false equivalence. The action she took and the action I took were not the same. She threw a brick at me unprovoked and seemingly out of malice, I hit her out of anger because she acted unkindly towards me. Saying the two things are the same divorces them from motivation and context.
It seems like your assuming the situation was complex or ambiguous simply because it involved violence. There was no ambiguity whatsoever; I made a decision to hit her, I didn't feel out of control at all, everyone knew what she did, nobody really blamed me for what I did. The action I took was not wrong; she made it very clear that she didn't value my well being, I was under no obligation to value hers.
Further more, I wasn't trying to teach her shit, that's not my responsibility. I didn't plan on learning anything from the situation, it was simple and clear cut. If I DID have something to learn from a situation that black and white, it would only illustrate a lack of prior knowledge.
If she was fucked up enough to consider me a mean kid because I punched her after she threw a brick at me, she wasn't going to learn anything no matter what I did, nor am I somehow morally obligated to go out of my way to instruct her in the basic concept of kindness.
Besides, I don't see why someone else reprimanding her is preferable to me doing it; she probably would have been expelled from school and put on medication, (She might HAVE been, I didn't see much of her after about a year) her parents might have even hit her themselves. Why is it bad for me to punish her but okay for other people to?
That category is far to broad, LOTS of things hurt people and lots of things are risky.
And nothing is gained by hurting either of them. Aside from a sense of satisfaction for the person who hurts them. And getting satisfaction from hurting people is the exact thing they are being punished for, if that's what you decide to do.sumanoskae said:
[quote ] Violence is associated with violation; is it not a violation of some sort to imprison someone against their will? But if we are never to imprison or hurt anybody, what punishment IS just? I don't think public service and fines are a suitable punishment for murder. [/quote]
Imprisonment is in many ways intended to remove the possibility from a person to hurt someone else. The isolation and limitation of that persons freedom is also about always reminding him or her of the actions that lead to their current situation. Punching someone, is not.
Of course it does. As you say, morality is subjective, so what is or is not ethical is entirely decided by consensus. And consensus is found within what a culture believes, naturally considering the fact that power comes with responsibility.
Well, of course I know nothing about the specifics of this case. But considering that molestation, sexual harassment and rape most often occur within the family and is done by someone who is very close to the victim, the description you're giving to me is not exactly mitigating. However, since you didn't mention a conviction, I'll have to assume that he was cleared of all charges, which is how it's supposed to work.
Not following here. People within society is capable of being barbaric and cruel, and barbaric and cruel actions are punished by society as a whole through law. What am I missing here exactly?
A lawyers job is to protect their client, and it's the prosecutors job to prove that a person is guilty. Established systems of rules are not always reliable sources of ethical advice, but they most often created as a reflection of what is considered right and wrong.
And hitting someone is deserving of punishment or rehabilitation (which society reflects).
And with the advancement of civilization, lynch mobs have been increasingly condemned.
Standing up for what you believe does not grant you the right to act violently.
I'm assuming that you were actively disregarding the fact that it might have been complex or ambigous, which you just proved.
[quote ]Further more, I wasn't trying to teach her shit, that's not my responsibility. [/quote]
Which further emphasizes the pointlessnes of your action.
Because you were both kids, and being continousky reprimanded from one or more people in a position of power holds more weight than being reactively punished by what might be considered an equal or inferior.
Also, I'm not sure why you brought it up, but I'm going to assume that you did not just promote adults hitting kids.
Sure, but deliberately hurting someone is a category that's very narrow, and you can't call it "risky" when the act is inherently guaranteed to hurt someone.
Sure something is gained; revenge. Some of the people they injured might feel better. Lots of people talk about revenge like it's a dirty word, like it doesn't solve anything and helps no one. I have never understood this; many people, myself included, gain some degree of peace of mind if the guilty do not go unpunished.chikusho said:
Further more, they should punished because they got satisfaction out of hurting someone, they should be be punished because they murdered innocent people. You continue to dismiss the idea that different people deserve different things based on their actions. If this was not the case, no one could ever be held accountable for anything and all actions would be meaningless; if no one is ever judged for their actions, then not only will no one ever be condemned, no one will ever be rewarded
If nobody could deserve anything different from anybody else, everyone (Children included) would deserve life in prison or they wouldn't. Passing judgment is a two way street, if you acknowledge that some people should be commended for kindness and courage, you must also acknowledge that some deserve to be punished for their crimes.
How is it moral to treat murderers and innocent people the same way?
Everyone should be born with equal rights, but should be held accountable for their choices and treated as such. Acting violently towards someone who has perpetrated terrible crimes against the innocent is not the same thing as hurting those same innocents. Innocence, after all, can only exist and be recognized by it's absence in certain people and it's presence in others. If everybody was innocent, the word would mean nothing; if everyone was innocent, no one would be.
So psychological torture is perfectly fine but punching the school bully is wrong? People lose their shit in prison; even when they aren't subject to violence from other inmates (Or corrupt guards), they sometimes commit suicide, often after they get out.
You don't have to hit somebody to hurt them; attributing all this negativity towards physical violence and endorsing emotional violence is arbitrary and hypocritical.
Where did you get the idea that consensus creates objective truth.
You should look up the term subjective; just because lots of people agree on something does not make it objective. Morality is subjective because one person can vehemently disagree as many people as they want, and neither side will ever be more or less right than the other.
No one "Decides" what "Is" ethical for everybody, that would suggest that ethics are a tangible thing that can be adjusted or defined; nothing prevents someone else from disagreeing with the majority.
I should also point out that A: 2 different people may have 12 different opinions on 1 thing. It's pretty rare that people truly agree on anything; there's always some critical difference, no matter how small.
And B: By that logic, if enough people decided that it was morally imperative that everyone be drawn and quartered at birth, your argument would state that such a thing is ethical. But I doubt you would ever consider such thing ethical yourself, unless you're completely insane.
I do not know if he was cleared of all charges; this was not long ago and I haven't heard from him yet, so it could still be going on. I know for a fact, however, that he would almost certainly have to lie in order to be cleared of all charges.
According to the law, he's guilty, according to everyone involved in the case, including the prosecution, he's only guilty on PAPER; even the people making the case against him think he has done nothing wrong, but they don't care, getting him declared guilty by any means necessary is their job.
And yes, I'm quite sure he's innocent. As I said, it is well known that if he and the child's mother were married or if he and the child were related by blood, there would be no case. Neither of these things would change what actually happened, (I.E: Nothing) and I'm pretty sure that child molestation is still illegal, regardless of whose kid it is. So I would gather from that information that he didn't treat the kid any differently than a parent should treat their child, which does not involve sexual abuse, I would gather. Oh, unless we had consensus on the subject, I suppose.
That the above statement is not true; the society (Which IS the sum of the people within it) is itself barbaric and cruel, and frequently allows people to get away with being barbaric and cruel if they have enough influence or cash to grease the right palms.
I don't know how many more ways I can say this, but the point is that the justice system is corrupt where I come from, and I would very much like to know which magical kingdom you have relocated to where this is not the case.
Legal systems are most often created to maintain order; that's what the government, the courts and the law enforcement do, maintain the status quo; if the status quo is corrupt they will defend it just the same. The systems of law we live under were not created by virtuous saints, they were created by men of power who are just as fallible and and flawed as everybody else, and it's safe to assume that at least most of them were in it for themselves first and everyone else second, if at all. This is evidenced by how much of an advantage the rich and powerful have in a court of law. The lawyer provided for you by the state will almost never be as capable as the top dollar ones you can hire yourself, if you have the means.
A lawyers job is always to argue their side of a case, no matter who is guilty or innocent. In other words, if you're lawyer is deceitful, crafty and manipulative enough, you can get away with murder.
That statement was in a vacuum without an argument to support it. If you consider morality to be created by society, and thus whatever society decides is moral is moral, this debate is going nowhere; you ascribe to a strange and frightening set of robotic values and seemingly would do anything if it was agreed upon in a court of law.
It only took them a few thousand years; the last lynch mob I've heard of was in the late 90's. And just because we don't call the vile shit we do to each other lynching anymore doesn't mean shit isn't still fucked. Granted, I would rather live now then back then, but we still do awful things. The fact that society EVENTUALLY stopped doing this one terrible thing doesn't mean it's worth trusting.
And you could not have missed the point more. What I mean is that just because objective morality doesn't exist does not, in turn, mean that you should never take a stand without it.
By the by, the death penalty still exists, you know. So according to the law it's totally okay to kill someone for committing a crime.
So, because of the sanctimonious manner in which it was stated, I was able to infer what argument you were trying to make, but I should point out that you still didn't make one. How does what I said prove I did not consider if the situation was complex? This is a conclusion, not an argument.
And I was quite sure of the simplicity of the situation; there was no evidence to the contrary. She was just an angry, bratty kid with a violent streak. I barely knew her and the attack was unprovoked; she never even suggested a reason she was upset with me.
What is it about someone acting like a prick that makes you think there was a great philosophical lesson to be learned?
To which you have suggested no helpful alternative. The point of punching her was making me feel better, retribution I feel I was owed.
A: As I said, the action was not constructive; I am not under obligation to correct the behavior of everyone who does me wrong.
B: Whatever the fuck her parents were doing wasn't working. All punishment without context does is encourage kids to out think their parents. If the kid doesn't feel bad about what they did anyway, they aren't going to start because they got punished for it. If you behave better because you think you can't get away with behaving badly, you're not a better person, you're just better at looking out for yourself.
C: I was not endorsing it, I was merely pointing out, again, that authority does not equal righteousness. The fact that her parents might have hit her themselves illustrates that they were no more likely to be helpful than I was. She might have been such a little shit because she was experiencing abuse, I don't know, but I'm not going to assume that the parents of the kid who throws bricks at people are doing a bang up job of parenting.
Deliberately hurting someone is a very broad category; self defense; punishment; revenge; malice; these are all reasons people have for hurting each other, and they do not have much in common.