Moral philosophy and lethal force.

[frayluisfan]

Are you kidding?

Some of the statements above are really...ahem...interesting.

In no particular order.
1. "No act is inherently evil" (don't recall who said this). Are you joking? In what society or moral code would child molestation be morally acceptable? (Yes, I know there are people who defend this abomination, but do you think such beliefs are valid?).

2. "Violence is always evil." (Jeff). I disagree, for reasons some have noted above. Violence is NOT always evil, and pacifism is not always good. This is the error of reasoning that the liberal hippies make.

3. "The outcome determines whether an act is good or evil" (zen21tao). Huh? This sounds like it's taken straight from Machiavelli, or something similar. I couldn't disagree more. This sounds suspiciously like the moral reasoning of communists--any act which advances communism is good, and any act which slows the advance of communism is wrong. Dangerous.

4. "Muslims kill their raped sisters in order to cleanse the family honor. This just proves the point." (ugaarguy). What point are you trying to demonstrate here? That such people are morally screwed up? If so, your point is well taken. But it sounds like you're trying to say that there's just no way to know whether a raped woman is to blame or not. Is that really what you mean?

If I've misunderstood any of the above, I apologize in advance.

frayluisfan

 

[Zen21Tao]

3. "The outcome determines whether an act is good or evil" (zen21tao). Huh? This sounds like it's taken straight from Machiavelli, or something similar. I couldn't disagree more. This sounds suspiciously like the moral reasoning of communists--any act which advances communism is good, and any act which slows the advance of communism is wrong. Dangerous.

Its not my intention to hijack the thread so I'll be brief. Notice that in another post I made I outline two basic moral/ethical philosophies (1) Utilitarianism and (2) Deontology. The belief that (good and evil) the moral correctness is determined the consequence of an outcome (Consequentionalism) is represented by Utilitarianism. The belief that things are either good or bad independent of consequence is represented by Deontology. My posts were just playing devils advocate. If either theory was 100% accurate the other wouldn't exist.

Communism could be seen as a form of Ultilitarianism if the only utility considered is that of the collective state. On the other hand, Utiliarianism in which the only utility considered is that on the individual could appear very much like capitalism where maximization of individual gain (in the sense of Adam Smith) is the primary utility.

 

[rangerruck]

so i say , what do we say of the men who plotted to blow up Hitler? They , by most of the earth's def, were not moral. they believed in the war, they believed in the ayrian race stuff, killing jews, etc. but yet they thought to a man that either Hitler was a madman or he was terribly foolishm conducting the war wrong, and that they would lose , following his orders.
The truth here is that , they were all evil, they were all murderers, and all deserved to die, and chances are , we are better off they did not get him, for if they had , they may have conducted a much better war strategy without him.
Yet, down the road, they may have been looked upon as heroes, for doing something so bold and brave as going against their own party. you know, the way the drive by media loves to tout McCain, when he does something that hurts republicans. But i digress.
They would ALL still be evil and in the wrong, and if they were a part of most societies today, they would be jailed and some given the death penalty, AS determined by us, a jury, if they were found guilty of the crimes that they commited, regardless of a war going on, we don't understand them, it's their culture, etc. And they all would have deserved it.
Because as an individual, we know that they were in the wrong morally, and according to our societal ethics, they have been found to be breaking our agreed upon societal laws, and this is the punishment you get for your particular crimes, most of which, by the way , come straight out of Leviticus.
Remember the oldest court case cited as case law in this country , i believe occured in 1927. It was a woman claiming certain property rights, and her attorney actually used the law stated by moses as to whom the property should go , if all known sons are now dead. It was not anectdotally stated either, but was entered as a statement of settled law.

 

[jlbraun]

I am going to print this thread out. This is awesome.

griz
Quote:
She then said that in lieu of paralysis, one should step outside of one's own personal moral sphere and trust in God / the human spirit (because you as an individual cannot handle applying justified lethal force without being harmed psychologically and ethically).

Describing defence as "stepping outside of one's moral sphere", implies to me that you believe the action is immoral. I gather from the rest of your comments that you do not believe it is immoral, so there should be no need to leave your morality behind. I agree that your thoughts and actions will be clouded by adrenaline and the resistance to harming others. But the questions of morality should have been resolved before you are even armed, not just before the use of arms.

And I would like to see the painting too.

She said the most interesting thing - she said that, in a lethal force situation, there isn't morality any more. All moral questions should have been resolved beforehand. "God helps those who help themselves", she said, and followed with the idea that moral decisions are sercondary to a moral being's very survival in a life-or-death situation. It was almost as if she was saying, "I am a moral being. I believe that I must survive. This other being is threatening my survival. Therefore, if I want my expression of moral humanity to survive, I must step outside abstraction of morality and concentrate on the concrete here and now expediency of surviving, because that is all the morality that matters right now - survival or death."

Interesting conversation, to be sure.

 

[ugaarguy]

4. "Muslims kill their raped sisters in order to cleanse the family honor. This just proves the point." (ugaarguy). What point are you trying to demonstrate here? That such people are morally screwed up? If so, your point is well taken. But it sounds like you're trying to say that there's just no way to know whether a raped woman is to blame or not. Is that really what you mean?

No, No, No. You have to look at my original post where I quote Riplinger defining morals & ethics and expnading upon those definitions. That is the second half of an example where I compare what is considered ethical behavior in the traditionally Judeo-Christian West with what a Muslim society would consider ethical behavior. It's a sad but true example of why man must look to God to know what is good and what is evil. Most here will agree that the western way of treating such an incident is good and right; our ethics (societal customs) fall in line with what is right according to the Jewish and Christian Bibles (which I like my fellow Jews and Christians believe to be the word of God). Most here will further agree that the Muslim cultural reaction to such an icident is wrong and evil; again our morals fall in line with what is right according to Judeo-Christian Biblical teaching. In contrast in a Muslim society their actions are considered good and right; falling in line with their ethics. I am not an expert on the Quran so I cannot tell you if this an ethical behaviour in Islamic societies based upon their traditions or upon the teachings of the Quran. However, the Muslims I know in the US have told me that honor killings are wrong and evil according to the Quran. I'll take them at their word.

The point I was trying to make is that morals and ethics are defined by man and ever changing. We need a higher authority (God in my case) to teach us right from wrong, good from evil; indepenndent or what is moral or ethical.

I'm trying not to preach here, but here I don't know how to further clarify it otherwise. Frayluisfan, in the future please read all the posts in a thread carefully and I think things will make more sense in the context of members responding to one another as we debate the issue at hand.

 

[Wiley]

I believe there is a difference between 'ethics' and 'morals'.

Ethics are the same across all societal and cultural boundaries. Murder is viewed the same whether one is an Eskimo or Hotentot, homeless bum or billionaire. No one in Western society would have any trouble sitting on a jury in the Orient if the case was murder.

Morals govern actions within a specific society. The morals of the Indians of South America are completly different than those of the peoples of eastern europe. Canabalism is a moral issue not an ethical one.

 

[Zen21Tao]

No. This thread deals with morality, therefore the assumption of "violence" is human-related. Yes, we are animals; but we are thinking animals who utilize judgment, ethics, insight, and morality.

The ideal moral philosophy is one that is consistent in each way that it is used. This requires that definitions used with the philosophy also be consistent. You defined the term “violence” and I showed you that the definition you posed for the term in inconsistent when applied to non-human animals. It would be very convenient for you to be able to assert that this inconsistency is meaningless because 'you' are only concerned with human animals but that just camouflages the inconsistency in your definition and would flaw your use of a moral philosophy. We hear all the time of the violence of nature, such as the violence of weather. The best definition for violence used in the best moral model has to be consistent for all the ways it's used not just the ones relevant to your argument.

The lion does not use violence against a zebra anymore than a male dog and a female dog from the same litter perform incest during mating. They are inbreeding, but that is a biological term. Incest and violence are anthropological terms, and therefore deal with humanity.

A male and female dog of the same litter engages in the same behavior as a human brother and sister that have sex with each other. The difference is that society classifies the act as “incest” when it involves humans. Again, incest is a definition that society place on a specific behavior engaged in by a specific group. You say these terms are “biological” or “anthropological” and later that holy and unholy are “theological” terms. Well, "anthropological", "biological" and "theological" are nothing more that categories used to show how terms are used or applied within a field of study not how they are linguistically derived. Consider the word “family” this term is used in biology very differently than it is used in anthropology yet neither can claim they were the source of a single universal definition for the term. Areas of study like biology and anthropology are able to use different definitions for the same term because they keep their concentration of study within their field. However, philosophy deals with studying elements across various fields and thus has to be more conservative with the definitions it uses. This is the very reason why consistency is so important to philosophical theories.

Evil, as a definition, isn't created, it is only observed. Good and bad are also terms observed by man. The terms deal with the state of morality, Objective or otherwise, and require sentient creatures to identify them.

Ok, and there are many that say something doesn’t exist or at least can't be treated as if it exists if it can’t be observed. This is foundation of theories like Rationalism, Materialism and Empiricism and opens the door to a vastly complex epistemological and metaphysical argument.

 

[LanEvo`]

Let me start off by saying I'm pretty excited to see a thread such as this on THR! I have a PhD in ethics myself, and I'm surprised to see so many well-reasoned arguments on the subject.

It also seems that you imply that violence itself is inherently evil. I would argue that violence is amoral that it is the intended outcome or motive behind the violence that has a moral element ... In fact I would go as far to say that no action is inherently good or evil it is how the act is interpreted by society and the individual.

In fact, any ethicist or moral philosopher would tell you the same. Of course violence is amoral. All actions are amoral. What makes an action moral vs. immoral, right vs. wrong, ethical vs. unethical, etc. is the intention of the actor. By themselves, actions have no moral standing.

As you said, it's absurd to say "murder is wrong" or "violence is evil." If a guy is in the process of killing a baby and you brain him with a tire iron, that's an act of violence on your part (maybe even murder). But most people would find it morally justified. OTOH, if a guy takes your parking spot and you brain him with a tire iron, most people would not find it morally justifiable. In each case, the action (hitting someone with a tire iron) is the same.

 

[Jeff]

The ideal moral philosophy is one that is consistent in each way that it is used.

Agreed, and because we are talking about human animals the terms have been used consistently.

This requires that definitions used with the philosophy also be consistent.

Of course. As I've already pointed out, animals and storms can act violently, that is, with savage force. Only humans can act with violence. As soon as you remove the anthropological nature of "violence," you are reducing the word to one of mere adjectivity. It becomes poetic and nothing more. It is no longer a noun-based word, it is no longer a concept of philisophical or moral force, or a concept at all.

You defined the term “violence” and I showed you that the definition you posed for the term in inconsistent when applied to non-human animals.

The two meanings are not equal at all. No consistency or inconsistency is necessary. The lion does what the lion naturally does, and the storm does what the storm naturally does. It requires an outside, third party to observe what is happening and apply the term in a descriptive manner. It may seem violent to some, but it may seem beautiful or merely passive to others.

However, an act of violence by one intelligent creature on another, human to human, is objective. Whether the nature of the violence is morally justified or not is inconsequential. What matters is that it is intentional.

It would be very convenient for you to be able to assert that this inconsistency is meaningless because 'you' are only concerned with human animals but that just camouflages the inconsistency in your definition and would flaw your use of a moral philosophy.

It's not a matter of convenience but one of philosophical integrity. The topic is moral philosophy, and this topic has nothing to do with non-intelligent creatures.

Why you began your last response by correctly identifying the nature of this thread as moral in nature, then deciding a certain word with entirely different meanings is to be applied with consistency outside of moral concern confuses me.

We hear all the time of the violence of nature, such as the violence of weather. The best definition for violence used in the best moral model has to be consistent for all the ways it's used not just the ones relevant to your argument.

See above.

 

[Jeff]

It also seems that you imply that violence itself is inherently evil. I would argue that violence is amoral

Of course violence is amoral.

Violence is NOT always evil,

Violence is not always immoral. I never said that it always is. My belief is this: the act of violence indicates that evil has been allowed to exist.

No violence (the true concept, not the one of adjectivity) can exist in a good or harmonious act. It is a very abstract position I take. Hitler's war machine is an example of true moral evil-- personified evil acting in a human agent.

If humans must result to further violence to eliminate this evil, then situational evil has already occurred. If Germany and Japan had surrendered because they had superior intelligence and possessed the foresight to know they would lose the war, prior to our military involvement, then the outocme would be one of no further violence, at least on our part. This outcome is certainly more harmonious and good than the outcome with further violence.

Does that mean the US involvement in WWII is immoral? No, it was morally justified. But the fact that it happened meant a form of evil-- disharmony-- occurred and many, many more innocent lives were ruined and annihilated.

It's very simple, but it is abstract. Personified evil is the evil you guys are talking about, but situational evil is another form altogether. And it exists as we know there is harmony/good, and disharmony/bad.

 

[Harold Mayo]

I said that the problem with applying violence as a moral person is that you can be paralyzed by your own moral sense in a crucial moment when you must respond with violence to stop someone from killing or maiming (ie an enemy without morals).

I don't agree. You are presupposing that killing or maiming someone is an inherently "bad" action even if you are defending yourself. It is not. It is an inherently good act, as far as I'm concerned or, at worst, a neutral one.

After some thought, she replied that paralysis is in fact not a bad thing, because it indicates that you're reacting as a rational, moral being in an extreme situation, and not as an animal. "Animals react blindly, humans don't."

Sounds more than "semi-hippy" to me. Humans do react blindly. Humans are animals. A hesitation when you are in danger is not rational at all. Paralysis in the presence of danger is an animal reaction. It's like a deer in headlights.

Morality is a non-issue when danger looms. Why? Because morality is an artificial construct and flies in the face of self-preservation. If you are genuinely hesitating when in danger and considering moral consequences then you have been so conditioned as to be a danger to yourself and others.

She then said that in lieu of paralysis, one should step outside of one's own personal moral sphere and trust in God / the human spirit (because you as an individual cannot handle applying justified lethal force without being harmed psychologically and ethically).

Umm...ok. While I'm "stepping outside" of my own "moral sphere", I'm likely getting my ass kicked. God has never intervened for me in extremis.

As for the parenthetical argument, that an individual cannot handle applying justified lethal force without being harmed psychologically and ethically, I say "hogwash" (since it's THR...otherwise my response would be a little stronger). God or "the human spirit" must guide me in killing someone trying to kill me or my family because I can't "handle it"...?

In such a position, you are in effect giving yourself over to your training and instinct and letting them run free, rather than questioning and rationalizing each step.

Nope. You're just doing what is instinctive in most people...at least those who haven't been conditioned out of it.

After the violence is over, God / the human spirit will be there to help you deal with it later.

God/the human spirit can help, I suppose, but I haven't had any luck with divine intervention thus far in my life. Perhaps I'm just too much of an animal at heart and not a rational, moral being. :banghead:

 

[Harold Mayo]

There are a certain set of basic things that God / the human spirit recognizes as inherently evil - murder, torture, and rape. Those things don't change. Social mores may ebb and flow, but we as human beings know in the pit of our stomachs that these things are wrong.

Not sure what to make of the God/human spirit thing but, although not to upset anyone, many people might argue that God cannot be proven to exist so cannot recognize anything one way or another. Even with a provable "God", the definition is definitely a cultural one as there are many other places where the aforementioned "inherently" evil acts aren't considered all that bad at all as long as they're not happening to YOU.

As for the human spirit...? Do you have much experience with other cultures? Primitive ones, especially, but even different cultures and subcultures...? "The human spirit" doesn't recognize anything as inherently evil. In our own culture we recognize those things cited as evil but much of the rest of the world lives in a different reality.

 

[Grey54956]

Violence is not necessarily evil. Violence is the physical realization of intent and motivation. The intent or motivation can be evil, or good, or neutral.

Typically, an act of premeditated murder would be violence conducted with evil intent or malice.

Braining a deer that has been hit by a car and is lying mangled in a ditch might be characterized as good or merciful.

A cat pouncing on a mouse would be an act of survival (hunting for food) and would really fall outside of good or evil, more of a neutral act of nature.

Self-preservation in the face of an attacker with hostile intent, would probably fall into this category as well: self-preservation. The attacker could be a hoodlum with a knife or a 14ft salt water croc, but if you are acting in a mode of self-preservation, then your actions and intent are neither good nor evil.

Putting the hurt on someone who is attacking an innocent might be defined as good, as you are acting for the good of society and protecting it from evil intent, but I am not certain.

Strange discussion.

 

[mnrivrat]

.....Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defense ... legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.
-Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter from 1995, EVANGELIUM VITAE

Just a perspective to consider .

 

[earthworm]

A person who attempts to rob or kill you is saying he has a right to take your goods or life by force.Is it moral or ethical to assume a right then deny that right to others? I say no:when a person initiates force against me he has automatically granted me the right to resist with force.

 

[sugar2xs]

I am never without my gun. I have become so angry at someone at one time or another I've wanted to beat the crap out of them. Never once have I ever even thought of shooting that person...

Now, I don't ever want to take anyone's life..but, I have children and if someone puts myself or my children in immediate danger and I can't see any other way out. I will stand and fight and I will use whatever amount of force I have available to me to protect myself and my children.


Nicely put earthworm!

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Ahh so if your sister is raped how do you react? In most Western, i.e. traditionally Judeo-Christian, countries our customs teach us to act in anger toward the rapist and in compassion toward our sister. In contrast, in most Muslim countries your customs teach you to act in anger toward the rapist, and toward your sister; to kill her to cleanse your family name and honor. Which reaction is correct? It depends upon the society you live in. This may be an extreme example, but I think it illustrates the point.

I don't know whether you were trying to prove or disprove my statement, but you did the former. Both agree that a transgression has been made that is worthy of punishment. Rape, then, is still viewed as evil, or at least wrong. Religion clouds things up. It is like the crutch that helped humanity to its feet. Now it keeps us from growing. Our muscles atrophy because we have been unwilling to drop the crutch and walk. We may stumble, and fall, but in the end, it is worth it. Our evolution, and thus our survival, depends on it. We can acknowledge that murder is wrong. This belief is pretty universal. We can agree that theft is wrong. Specific definitions of what constitutes theft varies, but generally we acknowledge that you shouldn't take something that doesn't belong to you. If you do and the rightful owner finds out, you should be prepared for a fight. Like a pack of hyenas stealing a kill from a pride of lions, they expect a fight, and acknowledging the risks, usually don't participate unless they are willing to be greaviously injured, maimed, or killed for it. Rape, instead of being a forced act of sexual reproduction and a way to ensure the spread of one genes, is viewed as the theft of another's body. Regardless of intent, whether pleasure or survival, it is the worst type of theft. All these things could be agreed upon by the vast majority of people. Without different religions and faiths, it becomes much easier to outline a system of justice, and of punishment for those convicted.
Nature is good, IMO. It is simply how things should work, and do work if left to their own devices. Without society or religion or government, nature decides what is good and bad. Self preservation is natural, and good. As with theft, indeed, moreso, when an animal attempts to kill or injure another animal, it expects resistance. When a lion attacks a Cape Buffalo, it expects to be kicked, stomped, and gouged. Here we see that killing for food is no more morally reprehensible than killing to keep from being food. It might be easier to claim that acts of seemingly opposing, yet equal morality are amoral, but I still view them as natural and good.

Not sure what to make of the God/human spirit thing but, although not to upset anyone, many people might argue that God cannot be proven to exist so cannot recognize anything one way or another.

In fact, I would maintain that the existance, or at least divinity of "God" can be disproven within the first book of the Bible. But again, I don't think that is the topic at hand.

 

[LanEvo`]

I try to rely on nature as my guide. If lethal force would be justified in nature, then I tend to view it as morally defensible.

Nature is good, IMO. It is simply how things should work, and do work if left to their own devices. Without society or religion or government, nature decides what is good and bad. Self preservation is natural, and good.

In philosophy and logic, this is what's known as Moore's "naturalistic fallacy" or Hume's "is-ought problem." Just because something is "natural" (or normal or socially acceptable), that does not automatically make it morally right, ethical, or even legal. In other words, we should not equate what is with what ought to be.

To use your own example, rape might be perfectly natural behavior for men. But that doesn't make it morally right.

 

[strambo]

she said that, in a lethal force situation, there isn't morality any more. All moral questions should have been resolved beforehand.

-Yes, I aggree.

Violence is simply one person injuring another. Violence is a tool, nothing more. Not good or bad, right or wrong. Moral and societal conventions do not apply in a violent situation...they apply before (in the decision making process) and after.

There are two actors in a violent act. The person being injured and the one doing the injury. I ALWAYS!!! want to be the one doing the injury in any violent act I find myself involved in. The confusion comes when people try to apply social conventions to asocial acts of violence. Violence is not social. There is no communication occurring (how can you communicate with someone you just hit in the head with a hammer?). A bar-fight (typically) is not violence. It is anti-social communication. People are posturing and insulting, then hitting each other to build up their social status at the expense of the other. Same as happens in the animal kingdom with apes. True violence is the sociopath whose response to an insult isn't to insult back or push etc...but to shrug it off and later come up offering a handshake and an apology and simultaneaously shank the other person to death.

If someone kicks in my door with a shotgun...I'm not gonna ask him "what are you doing here?" I'm gonna shoot him if armed or if not, close the distance and start breaking anatomical things on his body until he is non-functional. Who committed the violence in the above example? Not the intruder, he just kicked in my door (vandalism), came in with a shotgun (criminal trespassing/menacing/unlawfull use of a firearm). I committed the only violent act by taking him out. If I did nothing it would have given him the chance to commit violence against me...so I won't give him that chance.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

In philosophy and logic, this is what's known as Moore's "naturalistic fallacy" or Hume's "is-ought problem." Just because something is "natural" (or normal or socially acceptable), that does not automatically make it morally right, ethical, or even legal. In other words, we should not equate what is with what ought to be.

If nature's laws were wrong, or bad, then they wouldn't work so well. It is simpler and less complicated to deal with what is than to try and get everyone's utopian fantasies to agree with what ought to be.

 

[MyRoad]

This is fascinating to me. I am an artist, my beliefs are basically mainline New Age/Hippie Crap, and yet I own a substantial number of handguns, "evil" black rifles, and tons of ammo. I think that "the moral philosophy behind the application of lethal force" comes down to whether or not you think the potential or probability for doing "acts of evil" is inherently human. If as a species we have the potential to overcome or perhaps evolve past the inclination to do random acts of violence, then the approach to morality is completely different than if we have to take evil for granted as part of our existence.

 

[Jeff]

MyRoad,

The problem is, so often immoral acts of violence have little or nothing to do with randomness. They may seem random to the victim, but they are NOT random to the aggressor. They have all too much meaning and impetus to the aggressor, and that is all that is necessary for moral-- or personified-- evil to occur.

To eliminate the randomness of these acts-- the randomness as seen by victim or by society in general-- the impetus of immoral choices has to be eliminated for the would-be aggressors. How this can be done without eliminating or controlling free-will is uncertain to me.

 

[Diamondback6]

I'd argue, with regard to use of force and morality, the question is "Offensive versus Defensive?". If you're engaging for defensive/protective reasons, i.e. to stop a threat or imminent threat to yourself or an innocent third party around you, you are still morally in the right--the threat desecrated his own life in choosing to be an aggressor.

All the reason anyone should need to NOT be an aggressor.

 

[Chrontius]

On the other hand a Deontologist would say that you have to let the three die rather than actually cause a single death. Deontology is a moral philosophy that asserts that some actions are just wrong regardless of consequences or circumstances. To a Deontologist killing someone is, murder and murder is wrong. However, allowing someone to die isn’t murder so it is more moral to allow three to die that to kill one.

And I'd have to fall back on Asimov's thoughts on the idea. No way to walk away from that situation without feeling wholly ... dirty.

May as well start with damage control and then work on the ultimately futile stopping the train anyway, even with no reallistic hope of succeeding - more improbable things have happened.

 

[LanEvo`]

If nature's laws were wrong, or bad, then they wouldn't work so well. It is simpler and less complicated to deal with what is than to try and get everyone's utopian fantasies to agree with what ought to be.

No one is saying "nature's laws are wrong or bad." All the naturallistic fallacy and is-ought problem say is that just because something is natural, that does not automatically make it right.

Again, rape is a perfectly "normal" animal instinct; it's seen in many animal species. So is kicking the old and/or sick out of the herd and leaving them behind to die alone. But that does not mean we should consider such actions morally acceptable in our society.