"Morally' violent?

[Blind groper]

http://www.cambridge.org/hk/academic/su ... ?format=HB

The above reference is to a book on this topic. I have gleaned the material I am posting from the article in New Scientist, 29 November 2014, page 30. This article is written by the book's authors.

The thesis is that most violence is done for "moral" reasons, with "moral" being entirely from the viewpoint of the perpetrator. That form of "morality" is twisted, dangerous, often insane, and never rational. But nevertheless, the person doing the violence believes he/she is doing it for the right reasons.

The first such violence a person experiences is when his/her parents spank them, for the 'moral' reason that it is to correct the kid, and make him/her into a decent human. The lesson sinks home. Violence for 'moral' reasons is OK.

In adults, very little violence comes from pure anger, lack or empathy, or sadism. If a man hits his wife, it is to 'teach her a lesson'. That is, from his twisted view point, it is a 'moral' thing to do.

Muslim extremist violence is done in the name of Allah, and is therefore 'moral'. If a person is executed, whether by the state of by a vigilante, it is 'moral'.

Some of the people on this forum believe that it is 'moral' to shoot someone dead if they are burglars invading their home, even though there are always numerous alternative methods of dealing with that situation.

Most violence is done for 'moral' reasons, according to the warped reasoning of the person or people committing that violence.

So what can be done? It seems to me that we must teach everyone that there is no 'moral' justification for any kind of violence. It is always wrong, except for a very, very small number of cases where there is absolutely no alternative.

[pcCoder]

I tend to agree with the premise, but have my own opinions about certain situations.

When it comes to the home especially, I don't think a person should have to run away just to protect the intruders. You shouldn't have to flee a place that you are legally allowed to be on behalf of some others who are either intruding at your home or taking actions to prevent you being at the place. A system like that just gives in to the intruders and leaves the victims in a state of helplessness. I do think the "stand your ground" concept can be abused, but a person should reasonably be able to "stand their ground" in their own home.

I do think when it comes to at-home confrontations, people should attempt to not kill an intruder. What are the numerous alternative methods that you mention? Do any of them not involve essentially fleeing from your own home?

[Seth]

Of course resort to violence can be moral. There's no point in even questioning that fact.

What you're posing here is simplistic moral relativism that claims that the beheading of an innocent person by a Muslim terrorist is morally equivalent to spanking your kid for playing with matches.

The two acts are not morally equivalent.

Yes, bad people try to use morally relativistic excuses to justify their bad acts, but that just makes them evil, it doesn't justify their acts.

[Seth]

Some of the people on this forum believe that it is 'moral' to shoot someone dead if they are burglars invading their home, even though there are always numerous alternative methods of dealing with that situation.

You are a liar. We all know you're talking about me, and I'm going to make it clear once again: The justification for using deadly force on an intruder is not simply because they are burglars, nor is deadly force usually authorized by law in that situation. It's not about property, except in Texas. The Castle Doctrine states that a person has a right to be absolutely safe against criminal attack in their own home. The key is "criminal attack." All Castle Doctrine laws require, at a minimum, that the occupant reasonably believe that the intruder is about to instigate criminal force against an occupant of the home. It is that belief, which must be based in a reasonable interpretation of the instant facts, that justifies the use of deadly force, not merely that the intruder is stealing something. All Castle Doctrine laws I'm aware of disallow the use of deadly force absent such a threat.

Therefore, your statement is a baldfaced lie, and you know it, because I've carefully explained this to you half a hundred times or more.

[laklak]

Break into my house and somebody dies. I'm betting it's the burglar, but if I screw up it might be me. In any case, I'm shooting first and asking questions later. There may well be alternative ways to deal with the situation, but I'm going with 9mm hollow points. Perfectly moral in my book, and my morality has just as much basis as anyone else's.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

As I see it, any use of violence can be justified by it preventing similar or greater violence to oneself or to another. If an adult is hitting your child with a baseball bat, you are quite justified in using pretty much any means necessary to stop him doing it. Once he has been stopped though, and is unable or unwilling to continue, any further violence on your part becomes excessive and ceases to be morally justifiable. If, on the other hand, they merely slap your kid for being cheeky, then attacking them with a crowbar would be going a tad too far - especially if the perpetrator was a 90 year-old woman.

The grey areas come where the violence being prevented is not physical - ie. no like-for-like comparison can be made to decide if the force used is excessive. For example: How much violence is reasonable to offset the pain caused by losing your property? Is it justifiable to use more violence if that property is not insured? Is it ok to break a limb of someone trying to steal your car but only to bruise someone trying to steal your roller skates? Or is property property? Can any means be used to prevent any theft? The answers are a lot less obvious.

Less obvious still, are cases where the hurt being prevented is purely psychological. How much violence can be justified if someone calls your pint a poofter? Or defiles the temple of the Great White Elk (Blessed be her Antlers.) Or fails to correctly use an apostrophe!

Sure, almost everyone that uses violence thinks they are justified at the time - except for psychopaths - they know it's not justified but hey-ho! What I don't agree with is that there is any absolute morality or absolutely justifiable course of action in any circumstance. We either buy in to society and take a consensus view on what goes and what doesn't, or we plough our own furrow and risk censure if we overstep the line (or regular beatings if we understep it!) Most of us fall somewhere between the two, in my experience.

[pErvinalia]

There is no objective nor universal morality. So the 'moral' message you are trying to reach from the article is bogus.

[Blind groper]

When it comes to the home especially, I don't think a person should have to run away just to protect the intruders. You shouldn't have to flee a place that you are legally allowed to be on behalf of some others who are either intruding at your home or taking actions to prevent you being at the place.

There are many alternatives. My own home is well protected with locks, heavy glass on windows, and other methods of making it almost impossible for someone to break in. I also have a burglar alarm with a panic button. If someone breaks in while I am at home, I can hit the panic button on my remote, which will have the alarm screaming at the intruder at 120 decibels. Very few intruders will hang around when that is happening.

Perpetrating physical violence should always be an absolute last resort, after every other practical alternative is tried.

[pErvinalia]

Sure, but there's no absolute morality, as you'd like there to be, to say that shooting someone who breaks into your home is absolutely wrong.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Sure, but there's no absolute morality, as you'd like there to be, to say that shooting someone who breaks into your home is absolutely wrong.

There are very few things that are absolutely wrong. Justin Bieber and Aubergines are the only two that spring to mind...

[pErvinalia]

True.

[Seth]

As I see it, any use of violence can be justified by it preventing similar or greater violence to oneself or to another. If an adult is hitting your child with a baseball bat, you are quite justified in using pretty much any means necessary to stop him doing it. Once he has been stopped though, and is unable or unwilling to continue, any further violence on your part becomes excessive and ceases to be morally justifiable. If, on the other hand, they merely slap your kid for being cheeky, then attacking them with a crowbar would be going a tad too far - especially if the perpetrator was a 90 year-old woman.

The grey areas come where the violence being prevented is not physical - ie. no like-for-like comparison can be made to decide if the force used is excessive. For example: How much violence is reasonable to offset the pain caused by losing your property? Is it justifiable to use more violence if that property is not insured? Is it ok to break a limb of someone trying to steal your car but only to bruise someone trying to steal your roller skates? Or is property property? Can any means be used to prevent any theft? The answers are a lot less obvious.

Less obvious still, are cases where the hurt being prevented is purely psychological. How much violence can be justified if someone calls your pint a poofter? Or defiles the temple of the Great White Elk (Blessed be her Antlers.) Or fails to correctly use an apostrophe!

Sure, almost everyone that uses violence thinks they are justified at the time - except for psychopaths - they know it's not justified but hey-ho! What I don't agree with is that there is any absolute morality or absolutely justifiable course of action in any circumstance. We either buy in to society and take a consensus view on what goes and what doesn't, or we plough our own furrow and risk censure if we overstep the line (or regular beatings if we understep it!) Most of us fall somewhere between the two, in my experience.

To me the limit is clearly a threat of physical violence. Under no circumstances do I consider verbal (or written) provocation to be justification for the use of any force whatsoever. When it comes to insults and name-calling, it's the duty of every person to simply ignore such provocations and/or walk away. Anger generated by an insult that results in violence is not a justification for a use of force because adults are expected to control their anger and not initiate physical violence because of something said to them or written about them.

Insult is never justification for violence, only physical attack provides moral justification for retaliation in self-defense or the defense of others.

[Seth]

Sure, but there's no absolute morality, as you'd like there to be, to say that shooting someone who breaks into your home is absolutely wrong.

There are very few things that are absolutely wrong. Justin Bieber and Aubergines are the only two that spring to mind...

Karl Marx, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot spring to my mind.

[pErvinalia]

Murray Rothbard and von Mises.

[cronus]

Make me the nicest person on the boards. Guessed as much. I wouldn't hurt a fly.