Ends justifying the means

[Robin Hoodlum]

It is bad to hurt people at all, but it is worse for a man to strike a woman.

Why?
What makes it worse for a man to hit a woman than a woman to hit a man?

Like ZB said, equal means "equal", not "equal except when...".

I am a firm believer in everybody is created equal, but that is the last time they are. Choices made and situations experienced make people unequal pretty quick, IMO.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Why?
What makes it worse for a man to hit a woman than a woman to hit a man?

Like ZB said, equal means "equal", not "equal except when...".

I am a firm believer in everybody is created equal, but that is the last time they are. Choices made and situations experienced make people unequal pretty quick, IMO.

Because of the differences I mentioned in my previous post. But like I said, I am not going to get into a deeper discussion on this subject here, simply because it comes up so much on these kinds of forums. I see a man striking a woman and a woman striking a man as acts with different moral values. Both are bad, but one is worse.

 

[Robin Hoodlum]

Well, if there are differences, then that means inequality, does it not?
If you treat women a different way than men, that is treating them unequally.
Right?

Do you believe equality is a good thing?
If so, then why do you advise treating women differently from men?

I seriously do not understand you.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, if there are differences, then that means inequality, does it not?
If you treat women a different way than men, that is treating them unequally.
Right?

Do you believe equality is a good thing?
If so, then why do you advise treating women differently from men?

I seriously do not understand you.

Like I said, I am not going to debate this issue. I see a difference between a woman striking a man and a man striking a woman but believe in equality. There are power dynamics and differences that, in my mind, make it much worse for a man to strike a woman. But that is all I will say on the subject. If you wish to discuss the topic, feel free, but I am not going to participate.

 

[Robin Hoodlum]

How can you believe in equality, then turn around and say it is worse for a man to hit a woman than a woman to hit a man?
How do you reconcile that?

Feel free to PM me.
We can continue the discussion that way.
Right now you are making zero sense to me.

 

[Bedrockgames]

How can you believe in equality, then turn around and say it is worse for a man to hit a woman than a woman to hit a man?
How do you reconcile that?

Feel free to PM me.
We can continue the discussion that way.
Right now you are making zero sense to me.

I PM'd you with my explanation. Hopefully we can come to the conclusion that we just disagree on some core assumptions and concepts, rather than find one another incomprehensible.

 

[Robin Hoodlum]

Fair enough.

 

[Janx]

Heh, you and I will have to hook up someday. I know plenty of women that'll be able to set you straight pretty quick.

That said, all she has to do is wait until you go to sleep and shoot you in the face, right? Anyone can do that - man, woman, whatever.

Anyhoo, that rule was written during a time when women were considered to be lesser beings and, ironically enough, very often beaten. Women shouldn't be seen as lesser beings in any regard. They're not. In five minutes I could train your wife to ruin your day (and maybe a lot longer) if you ever decided to raise a hand to her (not that you would - I'd never presume something like that). But I meant what I said. Equality isn't a per instance thing, it's all or nothing. That means that even when it comes to things we may not like it still applies. That's why itreally is no worse to hit a woman - presuming, of course, that it's wrong to hit anyone.

Good, bad, whatever - equal is equal. If it's wrong to say you can't pay a woman as much as a man it's also wrong to say it's worse to strike a woman. It's not.

Bear in mind, you can train her all you want, but I am already trained and thus have the strength + training advantage. I have no doubt you can find women who can beat me. But conversely, I know who I can beat and why. Plus, the kind of guys who beat their wife get the kind of wives they can beat.

Additionally, me striking you in a bar is a simple fight. We might even go back to being friends the next night.

Me striking my wife over a period of years includes a lot more emotional baggage. Especially if she put up with it for years. This is the difference between Battered Wife Syndrome and a simple fight. those women get stuck in a mindset that makes them think they can't leave and they have to take it. Heck, cops hate showing up to domestic dispute calls because half the time they cuff the husband, the wife is on their back trying to kill them because they go freaking nuts.

NOTE: I do NOT beat my wife. Or hit her. EVER. That was just an example put in the context of myself.

 

[MJS]

Legal equality is one thing. An assault is an assault, and that is good.

but, equality does not mean we are the same. (I wish modern game designers understood this) Males protect females. It is a fact we are animals. Evolution is a fact. So the fact is, we have a visceral reaction to protecting females that predates even the existence of homo sapien, much less modern concepts of equality.

It is completely possible, and normal, for a modern man, who loves women and supports gender equality, to have this deep feeling, even while culturally we are only just beginning to peel away thousands of years of oppression. I don't think the animal reaction is at odds with equality. This is far more complex than an all/nothing statement.

And indeed I think men's denial of their animal self was/is an unfortunate byproduct of the beginnings of the equality movement. And, to bring it around to topic, those means are not justified, because they did more damage, and caused more confusion.

Generally, I think the problem with means/ends is that evil means are used to justify evil ends which are whitewashed as good.
Neutral means to justify good ends tend not to bother me.

 

[airwalkrr]

Long thread so perhaps it has been mentioned so far, but the first successful smallpox vaccine developed by Edward Jenner was done in stark violation of modern medical efforts. He inoculated a child with cowpox to test his theory that cowpox exposure would immunize someone to smallpox. Smallpox was one of the more virulent diseases of its day and Jenner using an unwitting child as his test subject is a prospect most physicians nowadays would consider horrific. In some cases the cowpox inoculation did kill its patients, though due to shoddy medical records of the time other circumstances might have also been at work. Yet Jenner's work likely saved hundreds of thousands of lives, if not millions, with his vaccine. The cowpox-smallpox vaccine is in fact where we get the word vaccine. If it hadn't been for Jenner, not only might it have taken many more years for humans to discover how to vaccinate (germ theory wouldn't be developed for decades), but smallpox would have killed many people who survived smallpox outbreaks because they had been inoculated with cowpox. It was extremely controversial in its day, but (at the time) General George Washington ordered his troops on some occasions to receive cowpox inoculations, as even before Jenner, it had been observed (mostly by farmers) that those who had contracted cowpox were immune to smallpox. During the 18th century, war caused death more through disease than by death on the battlefield and smallpox was a major culprit. Numerous American Revolutionaries survived smallpox outbreaks that killed French, British, German, and Native American combatants during the American Revolutionary War.

That is the best example I can think of for ends justifying means. Of course medical science has advanced significantly since then to the point where we don't need to use humans as test subjects for these things to the same degree, and modern medical ethics requires permission from the patient. Nevertheless, at the time, with limited scientific medical knowledge, Jenner gambled on his patients' lives and humanity was the real winner. It is still important to remember however that Jenner was experimenting a hypothesis on human subjects, usually without their knowledge. And there were a great many medical practitioners in the day who acted the same on such hypotheses which turned out to be quite wrong. So are the means only justified when the ends are favorable?