"Is it better to suffer evil or to do it?"

[thedoc]

I need five bucks...I have a gun...I have the willingness and capability to use the gun...at gun point, I take five buck from a hapless fellow...my chain of behavior has "all the properties needed to fulfill its (my) purpose"...my choice to mug the hapless fellow (and the mugging itself), then was utterly ethical (for me), utterly 'good' (for me).

I understand why the hapless fellow might disagree (not my problem).

Again: 'good' and 'evil' are in the eye of the beholder.

I encountered a young man who stabbed and killed another man over $30. The policeman who was escorting him for trial didn't think he would live to see his 18th birthday. If he had been just a bit smarter about it he could have gotten away with it, He was very personable and pleasant to talk to, just not very smart. The police even said "We don't usually catch the smart ones".

[henry quirk]

"Give a *good statistician the raw data, and they can prove anything you want".

HA!

Yeah, that's my thinkin'.









*in this case 'clever', 'inventive'

[prof]

"axiological 'good'"

http://www.thecouchforum.com/comments.php?id=1313

http://www.thecouchforum.com/comments.php?id=1545

"moral 'good'?"

Poop.

#

"x, is good if it has all the properties needed to fulfill its purpose"

I need five bucks...I have a gun...I have the willingness and capability to use the gun...at gun point, I take five buck from a hapless fellow...my chain of behavior has "all the properties needed to fulfill its (my) purpose"...my choice to mug the hapless fellow (and the mugging itself), then was utterly ethical (for me), utterly 'good' (for me).

I understand why the hapless fellow might disagree (not my problem).

Again: 'good' and 'evil' are in the eye of the beholder.

That one binds him- or her-self up in ethical constructs (and logically justifies each link of the chain) obligates another to nuthin'.

Axiological Ethics explains the reasons why one ought not get himself into emergency situations -- a foxhole; a situation involving violence; a fire; etc. -- since they are amoral, not a moral way to live. They do not add value.

Alluding to the hypothetical scene you construct in the Couch blog to which you offer links -- sharing a locked room with one inclined to cannibalism would be such an emergency situation. I recommend, Henry, that you avoid getting into that room. Don't get into it in the first place. Really!

You still seem to be confusing axiological goodness with moral goodness. Why continue doing so? You are bright enough to differentiate one from the other. A good criminal is bad as a person. S/he is morally bad. And every criminal is a living contradiction - which subtracts value (from the universe), which diminishes the quality of life for both you and I ...for we are all bound together in (world) society. What affects you directly affects me indirectly. Scientific Ethics (ethics combined with brain neurology) aims to further human cooperation. This requires a certain type of individual - one who has empathy, compassion, human sensitivity, one who cares enough to want to maximize value creation. This implies education early in life that awakens the conscience of the little children.

If you intimidate and mug others you have a criminal mind; wouldn't you agree?d For you are then willing to hurt a fellow member of your species. This violates Ethics. It constitutes immoral behavior. It is not a "matter of opinion" nor may the excuse of "cultural conditioning" be used. No excuses !!!

Ethics teaches both Accountability (admitting to past mistakes) and Responsibility (being able to respond, assuming some adult share of any mutual burdens the community faces.) Violence solves no problems; it only transfers them or disguises them. There are numerous incidents where an intruder was invited in and treated as part of the family, fed, and counseled - to a point where he no longer wants to harm the folks living in that isolated farmhouse. If you cared, if you had the moral skill, you could have done the same, instead of waving your gun to show what a big threat you are. The former would be a gain/gain situation rather than a win/loss situation - which is the gun display.

How do the rest of you feel about these choices, or this analysis?

[thedoc]

Again: 'good' and 'evil' are in the eye of the beholder.

That one binds him- or her-self up in ethical constructs (and logically justifies each link of the chain) obligates another to nuthin'.

Axiological Ethics explains the reasons why one ought not get himself into emergency situations -- a foxhole; a situation involving violence; a fire; etc. -- since they are amoral, not a moral way to live. They do not add value.

Alluding to the hypothetical scene you construct in the Couch blog to which you offer links -- sharing a locked room with one inclined to cannibalism would be such an emergency situation. I recommend, Henry, that you avoid getting into that room. Don't get into it in the first place. Really!

You still seem to be confusing axiological goodness with moral goodness. Why continue doing so? You are bright enough to differentiate one from the other. A good criminal is bad as a person. S/he is morally bad. And every criminal is a living contradiction - which subtracts value (from the universe), which diminishes the quality of life for both you and I ...for we are all bound together in (world) society. What affects you directly affects me indirectly. Scientific Ethics (ethics combined with brain neurology) aims to further human cooperation. This requires a certain type of individual - one who has empathy, compassion, human sensitivity, one who cares enough to want to maximize value creation. This implies education early in life that awakens the conscience of the little children.

If you intimidate and mug others you have a criminal mind; wouldn't you agree?d For you are then willing to hurt a fellow member of your species. This violates Ethics. It constitutes immoral behavior. It is not a "matter of opinion" nor may the excuse of "cultural conditioning" be used. No excuses !!!

Ethics teaches both Accountability (admitting to past mistakes) and Responsibility (being able to respond, assuming some adult share of any mutual burdens the community faces.) Violence solves no problems; it only transfers them or disguises them. There are numerous incidents where an intruder was invited in and treated as part of the family, fed, and counseled - to a point where he no longer wants to harm the folks living in that isolated farmhouse. If you cared, if you had the moral skill, you could have done the same, instead of waving your gun to show what a big threat you are. The former would be a gain/gain situation rather than a win/loss situation - which is the gun display.

How do the rest of you feel about these choices, or this analysis?

Violence can definitely solve a problem, it can eliminate the criminal from society, therefore eliminating the evil that that criminal might do in the future.

I'm sure there are cases where the one with criminal intentions was taken in and decided to not do a criminal act. But I would also suspect that there were numerous more cases where the criminal went ahead with the criminal act in spite of the kindness shown by the victims. Incomplete statistics are meaningless.

[prof]

Violence can definitely solve a problem, it can eliminate the criminal from society, therefore eliminating the evil that that criminal might do in the future.

Hello, doc

Sigh....

Yes, you are right: eliminating the criminal does eliminate the "evil that the criminal might do in the future." However....

Eliminating an individual by means of violence only presents us with new problems. You aren't tracing out the cause-and-effect chains generated by that misguided act. There are reverberations! There is a ripple effect both when something morally-questionable is done, as well as when something positively valuable is done. Some day people will see this, and understand the relationships entailed. [In Economics the concept is called "the multiplier."]

Cops can use nonviolent techniques to apprehend and arrest criminals. The best police departments train their officers to do this.

Visit a Federal Detention Center some day and I wonder if you would want everyone detained there as "a criminal" (say, the juvenile who stole a car once to go on a joy-ride; or, say, one who is there because he is a political prisoner who didn't have the right papers with him) to be killed, or, to quote you, somehow 'eliminated' violently. I know you didn't say that, and I might be exaggerating, so please forgive me.

I also ask: Don't we need to give the criminal a trial first? You didn't seem to allow for that in what you wrote. Is capital punishment always the best policy? Would a society be better off if it eliminated it - such as they do in Norway? Something to consider.

[henry quirk]

Prof,

You talk about moral goodness: I say there's no such animal.

Sure: when Joe Schmuck tries to steal from me, I say 'that sonuvabitch!' 'cause he's taking from 'me' (I see him as bad).

Joe, however, may believe himself wholly justified in taking from me.

Joe's good is my evil.

Only way 'morality' works is if Manny's 'perfect arbiter' (god) exists.

In the absence of this 'perfect arbiter', morality and all fine notions of good and evil are just opinions.

Any 'ought to', any 'ought not to', is just preference.

A challenge: Offer up any moral good you care to name and I'll dismantle it, show it as mere preference.

#

"Scientific Ethics (ethics combined with brain neurology) aims to further human cooperation"

Being 'criminally minded' I find the idea of furthering human cooperation repugnant.

Such furtherance serves an agenda I want no part of, that being the denigration and ultimate negation of the individual.

#

"For you are then willing to hurt a fellow member of your species. This violates Ethics. It constitutes immoral behavior. It is not a "matter of opinion" nor may the excuse of "cultural conditioning" be used. No excuses !!!"

Sez who?

And why should I give a rat's ass what that 'who' sez?

#

"Violence solves no problems"

Violence can't solve all problems, but it certainly can solve some.

#

"if you had the moral skill, you could have done the same, instead of waving your gun to show what a big threat you are"

HA!

I see...I should 'hug' the three schmucks who broke into my house, not threaten them and send them packing.

I'm guessin' my criminal mind prevents me from seeing the value of 'hugging'.

[thedoc]

Violence can definitely solve a problem, it can eliminate the criminal from society, therefore eliminating the evil that that criminal might do in the future.

Hello, doc

Sigh....

Yes, you are right: eliminating the criminal does eliminate the "evil that the criminal might do in the future." However....

Eliminating an individual by means of violence only presents us with new problems. You aren't tracing out the cause-and-effect chains generated by that misguided act. There are reverberations! There is a ripple effect both when something morally-questionable is done, as well as when something positively valuable is done. Some day people will see this, and understand the relationships entailed. [In Economics the concept is called "the multiplier."]

Cops can use nonviolent techniques to apprehend and arrest criminals. The best police departments train their officers to do this.

Visit a Federal Detention Center some day and I wonder if you would want everyone detained there as "a criminal" (say, the juvenile who stole a car once to go on a joy-ride; or, say, one who is there because he is a political prisoner who didn't have the right papers with him) to be killed, or, to quote you, somehow 'eliminated' violently. I know you didn't say that, and I might be exaggerating, so please forgive me.

I also ask: Don't we need to give the criminal a trial first? You didn't seem to allow for that in what you wrote. Is capital punishment always the best policy? Would a society be better off if it eliminated it - such as they do in Norway? Something to consider.

Violence toward another can take many forms, My preference? remove the offender from society, if they can't conform to the rules of a particular society, they need to be separated from that society. I agree that prisons are not a good solution, perhaps a separate territory where the criminals can live as they wish, safe from society and society safe from them.

BTY, I was assuming a trial or some legal process, not just an automatic assumption of guilt.

[thedoc]

Prof,
Only way 'morality' works is if Manny's 'perfect arbiter' (god) exists.
In the absence of this 'perfect arbiter', morality and all fine notions of good and evil are just opinions.

Perhaps this will explain why the 'Perfect Arbiter' doesn't have complete effect.

The Barber
A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many things and various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said: "I don't believe that God exists."
"Why do you say that?" asked the customer.
"Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can't imagine loving a God who would allow all of these things."
The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop. Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and un-kept. The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber: "You know what? Barbers do not exist."
"How can you say that?" asked the surprised barber. "I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!"
"No!" the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside."
"Ah, but barbers DO exist! What happens is, people do not come to me."
"Exactly!" affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens is, people don't go to Him."

[prof]

Well said, doc !

We agree on many points.

I like and admire your ability to tell a story.

And yes, isolation from society is my preference too.

I believe that is how Westerners first settled in Australia. Now the place impresses me as more advanced in many ways than the United States - though I consider myself a U.S.A. patriot - while at the same time a citizen of the world.

[Blaggard]

"Only one who has done great evil can understand evil."

Rasputin, the so called mad monk.

I believe that is how Westerners first settled in Australia. Now the place impresses me as more advanced in many ways than the United States - though I consider myself a U.S.A. patriot - while at the same time a citizen of the world.

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it."

George Bernard Shaw

If I may, you should hear what George Washington said about patriotism, it would make your toes curl.

A citizen of the world, I laud you, if only more were so inclined...

"I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth, and I am a citizen of the world."

Eugene V. Debs

"Here's how I see obesity: as a symptom. The larger problem is over-consumption. In a society that identifies consumption with patriotism, valorizes 'growth' above all else and assigns status according to how much you consume, we compete with each other to see who can consume the most."

Emily Levine

[henry quirk]

"Barbers don't exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards"

The Perfect Barber (everywhere, all the time, with the perfect shears and the perfect eye for a cut) could, if he wanted, rid the world of "dirty long hair and untrimmed beards".

That he would condemn folks to the Ghetto for not coming to him (when – as the Perfect Barber – he could just go to them) tells one all one needs to know about the Perfect Barber (mainly, that his last name is Hobson).

[HexHammer]

"Only one who has done great evil can understand evil."

Rasputin, the so called mad monk.

Pure nonsense!
Sometimes utterly psychotic doesn't understand their own actions, and are therefore not fit for prison and goes to the mental institution.

A judge sometimes understands the nature of the evil deed, thus an appeal can move the case to a higher judge who should be a bit wiser.

Also a shrink do very well know the nature of evil, without having to do evil, by reading about it, it's a basic human feature, only if one lacks cognitive abilities one may not comprehend it or only partially understand it.

[Blaggard]

"Only one who has done great evil can understand evil."

Rasputin, the so called mad monk.

Pure nonsense!
Sometimes utterly psychotic doesn't understand their own actions, and are therefore not fit for prison and goes to the mental institution.

A judge sometimes understands the nature of the evil deed, thus an appeal can move the case to a higher judge who should be a bit wiser.

Also a shrink do very well know the nature of evil, without having to do evil, by reading about it, it's a basic human feature, only if one lacks cognitive abilities one may not comprehend it or only partially understand it.

I didn't say it, Rasputin believed that, he was called the mad monk though and I did put a smilie in to show I was being ironic. He believed by partaking of sin one could get a better understanding of sin. I don't think it's a very sound argument for what it's worth either.

[HexHammer]

I didn't say it, Rasputin believed that, he was called the mad monk though and I did put a smilie in to show I was being ironic. He believed by partaking of sin one could get a better understanding of sin. I don't think it's a very sound argument for what it's worth either.

Very well!

[prof]

Is it better to suffer evil (wrong) or to do evil (wrong)?

Hi, tbieter

Are those the only alternatives??!

You say, in the poll: Select only 1 option. Yet in life there are several options, at least. Is it possible that you have framed this incorrectly? Ethics instructs me not to do evil. Why should I suffer evil, though? Why can't I leave the scene? If I have volunteered to be there why can't I interpret the situation as: transforming the "evil-doer" by nonviolent direct action (satyagraha).
Actually I can.

If I "suffer wrong" am I not just playing "the victim"? I do not define myself as a victim. If I see a wrong I actively want to do something about it, if I possibly can. I see that people in Chad are being raped. I judge it to be beyond my control. Am I then "suffering evil"? It depends how the terms are defined. [I figure if I had the money of, say, George Clooney, or Bono, as well as their Ethical sensitivity, their social consciousness, I would go over to Africa and be helpful in some way.]


So please, tbieter, reply. Let me know where you stand. Do you agree with anything I said? Help me to understand your thinking in this case. Okay?