Necessary Evils: Poll and essay thread

[Makalakumu]

fair enough, if that's your prerogative, but in response to wiki definition of moral courage

"Moral courage is the courage to take action for moral reasons despite the risk of adverse consequences"

I'd say that moral reason is moot, if a person convinces them self a harmful act is morally just and acts upon it, would we still call it a courage? and example would be any form of revenge homicide

That would depend on someone's moral "reasoning" which, believe it or not, can be wrong. Moral courage can only be claimed if your reasoning is sound.

 

[Makalakumu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_courage

As to how I'd know if a person had it, I don't. I do not know the motivations other people have. What appears to be one thing, might well be another. I'm not inside their heads.

I don't believe this. I think you do have a sense of right and wrong. You aren't a moral relativist, Bill. Real moral relatvists are psychopaths. Look at the thread I started about politics and psychopathic behavior. Moral relativism is a cornerstone for psychopathic behavior.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That would depend on someone's moral "reasoning" which, believe it or not, can be wrong. Moral courage can only be claimed if your reasoning is sound.

All constructs.

Let me give you an example.

You are on a lifeboat, having fled a sinking ship. You are an officer of said ship and have been ordered to convey these passengers to safety.

The lifeboat is crowded to the gunnels. It's shipping water as it is. You've taken on board all the people it can hold.

Towards you swims a survivor. He is desperate, and wants to come aboard your lifeboat.

But if you haul him out of the water, your lifeboat will capsize. All aboard will most likely die, including yourself.

You attempt to tell the man he can't board. He ignores you. You use an oar to attempt to keep him away. He fights you. As he wrestles with the oar, you come dangerously close to tipping the lifeboat.

You, the moral and good man, will take your oar and club that innocent victim to death.

Now tell me who is moral, who is right, who is wrong, who is evil, and who is good.

All of your constructs - evil, morality, and even 'correct thinking', require a universal frame of reference, and there isn't one.

That's an unsettling thought. But it's a fact.

 

[Sensei_Dez]

I get what you're saying but still, "sound reasoning" is relative, suicide bombers probably think they have sound reasoning, but to us they don't, unless you can link morals to basic math you can't put it in a context that is universal to everyone

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't believe this. I think you do have a sense of right and wrong. You aren't a moral relativist, Bill. Real moral relatvists are psychopaths. Look at the thread I started about politics and psychopathic behavior. Moral relativism is a cornerstone for psychopathic behavior.

I recognize that my morality is not yours, my good and evil are not yours. Our definitions overlap to a large extent, which is why we can live in relative peace with each other. My definitions may be absolute (and they may not), but they are not universal.

 

[elder999]

I don't believe this. I think you do have a sense of right and wrong. You aren't a moral relativist, Bill. Real moral relatvists are psychopaths. Look at the thread I started about politics and psychopathic behavior. Moral relativism is a cornerstone for psychopathic behavior.

No, no, no.

Psychopathic behvior rests on a bedrock of narcissism. Believe me; I know. Real moral relatavists are often very moral people themselves, within the constructed moral framework from which they operate. These constructs are often societally imposed, but can be a matter of individual choice-determined from reason, if you like.

I had an interesting discussion with one of my "born again" in-laws, who would not allow his children t read "Harry Potter" books because he called himself a "moral absolutist," and would not permit his children to be exposed to the notion that something "good" could come from something "evil," the evil in this instance being "magic/witchcraft." ( :lfao: )

Moral relatavism is the product of sound moral reasoning. Psycopathic behavior isn't at all based on any sort of "relatavism." The psycopath, by definition, knows what he does is wrong-he really just doesn't give a ****. He hasn't redefined what is "moral" or "immoral." He is amoral-and absolutely thinks of himself as above such distinctions-they have no meaning for him, save whatever he chooses to impose upon himself, for whatever reason.

Psycopathy is based on "moral reasoning," though not necessarily reasoning that would agree with the societal construct that is "morality."

 

[Sensei_Dez]

here's a thought, would someone who enacts a necessary evil have moral courage? because they do what is deemed immoral by societal constructs for what is empirically beneficial to a greater number?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

here's a thought, would someone who enacts a necessary evil have moral courage? because they do what is deemed immoral by societal constructs for what is empirically beneficial to a greater number?

What difference does it make? And how does one tell?

The one to whom the 'necessary evil' is done may be a scientist who was on the verge of curing cancer. The many on whose behalf the 'necessary evil' was done may be layabouts and criminals who contribute nothing to society.

Numbers don't mean anything, and worth is once again an abstract value.

There are no external and objective frameworks for good and evil.

 

[Sensei_Dez]

true, but to the curing cancer thing I'd say you can't factor in unknown possibilities they're too numerous and one cannot make a decision based on that type of abstract thinking, and according to causality if you made the decision to kill the scientist there was never going to be a cure, but I agree still all relative, so what else is there to talk about? lol

 

[Bill Mattocks]

true, but to the curing cancer thing I'd say you can't factor in unknown possibilities they're too numerous and one cannot make a decision based on that type of abstract thinking, and according to causality if you made the decision to kill the scientist there was never going to be a cure, but I agree still all relative, so what else is there to talk about? lol

That's the point. There is nothing to talk about. Society is a construct which requires people to subject themselves to external control. Some of that control they will see as evil, some not. But submit they will, nonetheless. Oh well.

 

[Sensei_Dez]

well I agree, so this thread either needs someone to outright disagree or we can be done with it. thanks to all for the great conversation though

 

[Makalakumu]

All constructs.

Let me give you an example.

You are on a lifeboat, having fled a sinking ship. You are an officer of said ship and have been ordered to convey these passengers to safety.

The lifeboat is crowded to the gunnels. It's shipping water as it is. You've taken on board all the people it can hold.

Towards you swims a survivor. He is desperate, and wants to come aboard your lifeboat.

But if you haul him out of the water, your lifeboat will capsize. All aboard will most likely die, including yourself.

You attempt to tell the man he can't board. He ignores you. You use an oar to attempt to keep him away. He fights you. As he wrestles with the oar, you come dangerously close to tipping the lifeboat.

You, the moral and good man, will take your oar and club that innocent victim to death.

Now tell me who is moral, who is right, who is wrong, who is evil, and who is good.

All of your constructs - evil, morality, and even 'correct thinking', require a universal frame of reference, and there isn't one.

That's an unsettling thought. But it's a fact.

Lifeboat scenarios are strawmen arguments. There are lots of options that appear in real life that allow a person to choose a moral action. The lifeboat scenario is so extreme and so artificial that it can't actually exist. Further, many times people who create lifeboat scenarios do so in such a way that leaves out peices of relavent information that might make a difference in the reasoning process. The whole thing is a fallacy based on the creators personal bias. Therefore, I think we can safely reject all "lifeboat" scenarios in favor of actual events that happen in a normal person's life.

As to the absence of a universal, imagine two people alone on the beach. Can those people agree to murder each other? How about rape? How about theft? As soon as those two agree, it isn't murder, rape, or theft. The moral principle revealed here is the non-aggression of force principle. This is a universally preferred behavior because two people can always live next to each other and uphold it without conflict. From this principle we can derive most basic moral rules. Don't hit. Don't steal. Don't kill. Don't rape. We can also defend ourselves and our actions and uphold this principle, because if someone else initiates force against us, we can ward off that force with responsive aggressive action.

 

[Makalakumu]

I get what you're saying but still, "sound reasoning" is relative, suicide bombers probably think they have sound reasoning, but to us they don't, unless you can link morals to basic math you can't put it in a context that is universal to everyone

I wish more philosophy was available to people. Moral reasoning can be linked to math. It's called logic.

 

[Sensei_Dez]

funny that murder, rape and theft are also the most likely things to happen if two people were separated from the society which makes them illegal

 

[Makalakumu]

No, no, no.

Psychopathic behvior rests on a bedrock of narcissism. Believe me; I know. Real moral relatavists are often very moral people themselves, within the constructed moral framework from which they operate. These constructs are often societally imposed, but can be a matter of individual choice-determined from reason, if you like.

I had an interesting discussion with one of my "born again" in-laws, who would not allow his children t read "Harry Potter" books because he called himself a "moral absolutist," and would not permit his children to be exposed to the notion that something "good" could come from something "evil," the evil in this instance being "magic/witchcraft." ( :lfao: )

Moral relatavism is the product of sound moral reasoning. Psycopathic behavior isn't at all based on any sort of "relatavism." The psycopath, by definition, knows what he does is wrong-he really just doesn't give a ****. He hasn't redefined what is "moral" or "immoral." He is amoral-and absolutely thinks of himself as above such distinctions-they have no meaning for him, save whatever he chooses to impose upon himself, for whatever reason.

Psycopathy is based on "moral reasoning," though not necessarily reasoning that would agree with the societal construct that is "morality."

So, let me summarize. Are you saying that a psychopath absolutely beleives in there incorrect moral reasoning and that this is narcissistic as you have pointed out?

Therefore, wouldn't moral relativism serve the psychopath by protecting his delusions? Couldn't a true psychopath latch on to real "moral relatvism" to justify any moral delusion?

Also, perhaps the "moral relativist" are simply skeptical of their own reasoning and always willing to learn? Despite that open mindedness, I'm sure there are lines that none of us will cross.

That said, is it still fair to label people as moral relativists?

 

[Sensei_Dez]

I have my own set of morals and truly believe they are right, but I also know not everyone shares them and that I'm not infallible. so: morals are relative, my morals are relative, but they are finite to me, and they are all I can use to make decisions, it's just nice to be aware that my opinion of right and wrong isn't the end all

 

[elder999]

So, let me summarize. Are you saying that a psychopath absolutely beleives in there incorrect moral reasoning and that this is narcissistic as you have pointed out?

FOr a psycopath, their moral reasoning isn't incorrect. That in itself is no more narcissistic than a the behavior of a headhunter in Borneo, or South America.

Therefore, wouldn't moral relativism serve the psychopath by protecting his delusions? Couldn't a true psychopath latch on to real "moral relatvism" to justify any moral delusion?

A true psychopath has no need to latch onto "moral relativism," and has no need of justification. He's under no "moral delusion." He is, quite simply, outside of "morals," in terms of his behavior. He does the things he does because they give him satisfaction, whether they are "wrong" or not. Example: if you were to cheat on your wife, you would probably enjoy it, AND you'd experience feelings of regret that we call "guilt." A psycopath wouldn't feel any of that regret-he's outside of such moral judgements upon himself-he'd simply enjoy it and move on, and likely beat a polygraph if questioned about his cheating.......

Also, perhaps the "moral relativist" are simply skeptical of their own reasoning and always willing to learn?

No, they might simply be academics whose "moral reasoning" allows them to recognize the morality of something like headhhunting or infanticide within a given society, since morals are arbitrary societal or individual constructs. THey might not engage in such behavior themselve, nor be capable of engaging in such behavior, nor have any desire to do so, but they refrain from condemning others or decrying their lack of morality for such behavior.

Unlike, say, Christian missionaries.....:lfao:

Despite that open mindedness, I'm sure there are lines that none of us will cross.

In spite of your education, John, statements like these lead me to believe that you've led a rather sheltered life.

It's been my experience that there is no line someone won't cross.

That said, is it still fair to label people as moral relativists?

Like morals themselves, it's completely dependent upon context. For some, "moral relativist" is a perjorative term. For others, it's the product of sound moral reasoning.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Lifeboat scenarios are strawmen arguments. There are lots of options that appear in real life that allow a person to choose a moral action. The lifeboat scenario is so extreme and so artificial that it can't actually exist. Further, many times people who create lifeboat scenarios do so in such a way that leaves out peices of relavent information that might make a difference in the reasoning process. The whole thing is a fallacy based on the creators personal bias. Therefore, I think we can safely reject all "lifeboat" scenarios in favor of actual events that happen in a normal person's life.

We live in a lifeboat. When you look at managed health care, you may see a parallel.

That's just one example. There are many more.

As to the absence of a universal, imagine two people alone on the beach. Can those people agree to murder each other? How about rape? How about theft? As soon as those two agree, it isn't murder, rape, or theft. The moral principle revealed here is the non-aggression of force principle. This is a universally preferred behavior because two people can always live next to each other and uphold it without conflict. From this principle we can derive most basic moral rules. Don't hit. Don't steal. Don't kill. Don't rape. We can also defend ourselves and our actions and uphold this principle, because if someone else initiates force against us, we can ward off that force with responsive aggressive action.

All well and good. But that's not the society we live in. Is it?

 

[Makalakumu]

I have my own set of morals and truly believe they are right, but I also know not everyone shares them and that I'm not infallible. so: morals are relative, my morals are relative, but they are finite to me, and they are all I can use to make decisions, it's just nice to be aware that my opinion of right and wrong isn't the end all

Or maybe you acknowledge that your own moral reasoning could be faulty? If so, I would say that this does not mean you are a moral relativist.

 

[elder999]

Lifeboat scenarios are strawmen arguments. There are lots of options that appear in real life that allow a person to choose a moral action. The lifeboat scenario is so extreme and so artificial that it can't actually exist.

Actually, a real lifeboat scenario helped make my family's fortune, back in the 1800's.

There's nothing more real.