Helm of Opposite Alignment ... Think "A Clockwork Orange"

[sirwmholder]

I read a good point about why lawful societies would not do such a thing... but what about a very zealous church who wishes to "redeem" all of the evil in the world. Anyone who detects as evil weather they have committed a crime or not is hunted down and forcibly changed... possibly dominated and joins the zealots. I could see governments intially turning a blind eye to this problem since they are "cleaning up" the trash... I think I've just found my next hook.

Good gaming,
William Holder

 

[Felix]

They're only red because you don't accept the first premise.

Premise 1--\
Premise 2---> Conclusion
Premise 3--/

There's no point in debating the conclusion of your argument, or that there needs be a comprimise, if one of your premises is in question.

"Firstly, the use of violence against another is evil."

You used this earlier as your premise. And while it was incorrect that I was playing word games by substituting violence and force, shall we not return to the original argument? After all, violence is only force + speed, and we shouldn't allow speed to take the fall for force in what's Evil and what isn't.

So:

The use of force against another is Evil.

Categorically?

What actions are Good that the addition of force makes them Evil?

Is there a difference between action and force?

Is there a moral difference between physical force and emotional force?

Do it and I'll hit you.
vs.
Do it and I'm leaving.​

Is there a difference between intensional and unintentional force?

I close the door in your face and you break your nose.
vs.
I close the door. Two hours later you trip and break your nose on the door.​

Is eschewing force against another Good? Categorically?

Is there any action, psychological, physical, emotional, that influences another in a way you want that is not Evil?

 

[Celebrim]

Motive and intent can change the moral value of the actual individual action at hand.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement, and if we continued to argue on different topics we'd probably find this one behind most of our disagreements.

I think motive and intent can change the moral value of the actual individual action at hand only if that action is morally nuetral. If the action isn't morally nuetral, then all the good intentions you may have don't make it good. Actions with inherent moral qualities aren't transformed by what we think about them or what we were trying to do when we did them.

That is not to say that some thing which are morally neutral might not more easily slip one way or the other. We might want to excercise more caution with regard to some things as to others because of thier capacity for harm when done waywardly, carelessly, or whatever. But being dangerous isn't the same as being evil.

"And you to are dangerous in your own way Gimli Gloin's son. You are beset by dangers." - LotR (from memory)

But when the status quo is good, where is the good in violence upon another? If everyone were happy, what good would committing an act of violence upon another bring to the world?

I think that this is the strongest argument you've advanced so far, and I'll have to think about it before preparing a full response. To begin with, it seems to me that there might be many things absent from a world where there was no evil, which in the context of a world with evil we would want to say are morally good. For example, in a world without fatigue, what is the need for rest? In a world without pain, there would be no healing either for no reason but that we would lack the need. You argued that healing taken by itself is inherently good, but its missing from our completely good world. We would also no know grief, and being grieved is bad but surely grief is good. There would be no repentence, for needing to repent is bad, but surely repentence is good. Likewise, we would not need to oppose evil, for surely evil wouldn't be in a world of perfect good, but isn't opposing evil good?

 

[green slime]

The premise is in question.

The premise cannot be proven nor disproven. Short of actual divine intervention. I don't think we are going to see that here.

Celebrim accepted the premise as "easier but not neccesarily right". So still not necessarily wrong, either. Occam's razor?

And lastly, a theory is only a theory until proven false. The onerous burden is not one of proof that it works in all cases (impractical at best), but of finding a case were it doesn't work, and then discarding the theory for a better one. However, I haven't seen a better one presented either. There was nothing gained by regarding violence as morally neutral; each act still needed to be regarded in context, and it instead releashes loop holes to justify violence, as we are then unable to condem violence in and of itself. It becomes more difficult to protect the individual against violent acts.

Do as you wish.

 

[green slime]

I think this is the crux of our disagreement, and if we continued to argue on different topics we'd probably find this one behind most of our disagreements.

I agree. I also consider our disagreement to be one of minor, almost "flavour" text level, and of very little practical consequence.

I think that this is the strongest argument you've advanced so far, and I'll have to think about it before preparing a full response. To begin with, it seems to me that there might be many things absent from a world where there was no evil, which in the context of a world with evil we would want to say are morally good. For example, in a world without fatigue, what is the need for rest? In a world without pain, there would be no healing either for no reason but that we would lack the need. You argued that healing taken by itself is inherently good, but its missing from our completely good world. We would also no know grief, and being grieved is bad but surely grief is good. There would be no repentence, for needing to repent is bad, but surely repentence is good. Likewise, we would not need to oppose evil, for surely evil wouldn't be in a world of perfect good, but isn't opposing evil good?

Very interesting questions indeed. I look forward to your full response.

 

[Celebrim]

The premise cannot be proven nor disproven.

I didn't say it could. I said the premise could not be used as proof of itself.

Celebrim accepted the premise as "easier but not neccesarily right". So still not necessarily wrong, either. Occam's razor?

Not applicable. Occam's razor asserts only that the simplier of two explanations for the available evidence is probably correct. But we don't agree that the two explanations are equally explanatory given the available evidence. The problem is that I disagree over whether your simplier assertion sufficiently accounts for the complexities of the evidence. And there are plenty of counterexamples where additional evidence rendered the initial theory insufficient to acount for the complexity. Hense my assertion that you couldn't use the greater simplicity of your theory as evidence.

There was nothing gained by regarding violence as morally neutral; each act still needed to be regarded in context, and it instead releashes loop holes to justify violence, as we are then unable to condem violence in and of itself. It becomes more difficult to protect the individual against violent acts.

On the contrary, it becomes more difficult. If you begin with the premise that violence is inherently evil, the you end up repressing the right of the innocent to defend themselves and be defended from those that would do them harm. You abbrogate with the right to self-protection, the right to life, and with that the right to liberty. People must live in fear, and you in your condemnation of violence do nothing to prevent it. You protect bullies and condemn those that would stop them. When you condem violence in and of itself, you end up condemning the wrong people - not the violent, not the treacherous, not those that threaten, but those that would openly defend against fear and threats. The only people that escape condemnation in such a system are the victims, and you make a cult of sainthood out of victimhood regardless of its causes and you make evil out of strength regardless of its purpose.

Like you said, we'll see who falls apart first. I'm still not taking any bets.

Do as you wish.

No, do as you would wish them to do.

 

[green slime]

On the contrary, it becomes more difficult. If you begin with the premise that violence is inherently evil, the you end up repressing the right of the innocent to defend themselves and be defended from those that would do them harm. You abbrogate with the right to self-protection, the right to life, and with that the right to liberty. People must live in fear, and you in your condemnation of violence do nothing to prevent it. You protect bullies and condemn those that would stop them. When you condem violence in and of itself, you end up condemning the wrong people - not the violent, not the treacherous, not those that threaten, but those that would openly defend against fear and threats. The only people that escape condemnation in such a system are the victims, and you make a cult of sainthood out of victimhood regardless of its causes and you make evil out of strength regardless of its purpose.

This is starting once again to tread into metaphysical quasireligion, and risk closure.

Bullies are not protected, they are condemned. They initiate the violence. If it is wrong to commit violence upon another, how can the bully then be protected? In metaphysical terms, they are truly doomed.

Martyrdom as an outcome is seen as a desirable consequence of many religions. Why? We living in a modern society, free from the "shackles" of "irrelevant" dogma may logically scorn and dismiss this aspect of moral and ethical living, yet it is obvious that it plays a large part in the consciousness of millions of people.

In the end, I've found that all human experiences cannot be understood by logic alone. Instead, I reach a point at which I must conclude, emotions, not logic, rule here.

I have repeatedly said, violence against others, in and of itself is evil, but must be viewed in context. If violence against others were basically a neutral act, it could be regarded as a solution to any problem or difficulty with little regard for consequences. Whereas, I would prefer it be regarded as a last solution. Resorting to violence while other possibilities/solutions remain untested suggests immaturity, lack of empathy, and an unwillingness to negotiate.

 

[Felix]

violence against others ... must be viewed in context.

If violence against others were basically a neutral act, it could be regarded as a solution to any problem or difficulty with little regard for consequences.

You insist upon viewing the context of a categorically Evil act to determine the morality. You seem not to allow the inspection of the context of a neutral act to determine morality.

Yes, force could be regarded as a solution to a problem; the choice to not do so would depend upon the context, not that it employs force. Why rely on context when force is Evil but not rely upon it when force is Neutral?

 

[green slime]

If you begin with the premise that violence is inherently evil, the you end up repressing the right of the innocent to defend themselves and be defended from those that would do them harm. You abbrogate with the right to self-protection, the right to life, and with that the right to liberty. People must live in fear, and you in your condemnation of violence do nothing to prevent it.

I did no such thing as oppress the innocent.

The basic premise still rings true: violence upon another is evil. This violence needs to viewed in context. It may be acceptable to defend yourself. To a limit. If a 3 year old kid kicks me in the shins, it may not be apprioprate for me to punch him in the head. I can easily state "War is Evil" and still allow the possibility of fighting a War against an aggressor. Why? Because there are other evils, even greater evils within the context of evil. The vileness of the act lies squarely in the arms of the initiator. The level of response may or may not be acceptable. They can't be regarded as neutral acts, devoid of moral quality.

 

[green slime]

You insist upon viewing the context of a categorically Evil act to determine the morality. You seem not to allow the inspection of the context of a neutral act to determine morality.

Yes, force could be regarded as a solution to a problem; the choice to not do so would depend upon the context, not that it employs force. Why rely on context when force is Evil but not rely upon it when force is Neutral?

Because resorting to force when not in extremis is wrong. All examples presented so far, rely on the presence of extreme conditions (rape victims, impending traffic doom, alienation of all liberties), and have very little to do with an ordinary day. Or a least, the kind of days I have deciding whether Choco-latte is more evil than cocoacreme while standing at the coffee dispenser.

It is only the extreme condition (rape, etc, etc,) which can actually justify the use of this "neutral" act? Does that act then seem so neutral in and of itself? How can it be a neutral act, to punch my coworker in the head as I walk by? What act of violence can I commit against a co-worker in the office during an ordinary day, that could be regarded as "neutral"? I step on their toes, and I apologise, or risk social exclusion.