posted
Can someone still serve a higher cause if, through no fault of their own, within their larger effort a specific service is not in service of that higher cause?
quote:Over 3000 US soldiers died on the final day of WW I. General Pershing knew the terms of the armistice had already been set and that his actions would have no impact on the terms of the armistice, but he launched a bloody assault anyway to further his own career. The men who died that day didn't die defending America. They died to advance the career of a General who was willing to kill thousands of his own men for personal gain. When good men die in poorly conceived fights, we don't do them any favors by calling them heroes. We just ensure that it will keep happening over and over again.
I've started this thread in response to the above quote by Rabbit. Now, as was expressed in that thread, I think Rabbit's insertion of that bit of politics was highly inappropriate, but I'd rather not that complaint turn into a large argument here. I mention it now to get it out of the way. I'm more interested in the idea she's expressing.
I disagree with it. To me, what happened in that described situation wasn't that the soldiers died for nothing. It's that their service was stolen, rather like if someone gives money to the offering bowl at church and a corrupt clergyman steals it. The person making the offering has still served the good cause-it's not their fault someone else intervened and stole that service/offering.
So everyone who serves a higher cause, if their offering of service is genuine, can still be said to be truly serving it no matter what specific actions they take-so long as negligence doesn't crop up, and their sincerity is still there. I think that's just the way service and sacrifice works, rather like CS Lewis had Aslan say of service to him and to Tash.
It's a shaky comparison, but I think it fits. No one doing and intending to do good can be said to be serving evil, even if through error they serve evil in name. No one doing and intending* to do evil can be said to be serving good, even if they mistakenly believe they serve good.
So those soldiers of Pershing's, the thing to do isn't to deny their heroism. It's to acknowledge their heroism while casting out the selfishness of those who abused it. I see no reason why both can't be done at once.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:To me, what happened in that described situation wasn't that the soldiers died for nothing.
That historical event actually makes for a pretty perfect example of troops' lives being wasted.
That's what happened. It's not dying for nothing only in the sense that actually dying for no reason at all is likely better than dying to serve another person's corrupt or indolent desire. Practically, it's throwing lives away.
quote: No one doing and intending to do good can be said to be serving evil
I think I disagree wholly!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That historical event actually makes for a pretty perfect example of troops' lives being wasted.
That's the question I'm asking: the difference between specific 'use' and ultimate 'use'. Pershing should have been put up on charges, IMO, for spending the lives of his men so uselessly. The men themselves, though, serving in good faith a higher cause, still served that higher cause even though the specific action did not-because they stood ready to serve it just as well as if someone other than Pershing had given the orders.
quote:I think I disagree wholly!
Sorry, I forgot to include my qualifier there with the asterisk. 'Intending' is where things get tricky. That's where the judgments we human beings are so often troubled at making come in.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think anyone's blaming the soldiers. I think mainly you're uncomfortable with something that is essentially an uncomfortable fact: that their lives were wasted. They did not die serving a higher cause. They died serving Pershing's interests. It's not sensible, ultimately, to try to avoid terming it that way in order to avoid 'discounting' their moral integrity or the assumed nobility of their service, but that's what happened. They were wasted lives.
Stuff like this should be uncomfortable, but it's important that we call it like it is and not shy away from noting the essence of that kind of tragedy.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No one doing and intending to do good can be said to be serving evil...
Were those soldiers doing good when they were killing and being killed to serve Pershing's career? Clearly they intended to do good, but can anything they did in that last push be said to have been good?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think anyone's blaming the soldiers. I think mainly you're uncomfortable with something that is essentially an uncomfortable fact: that their lives were wasted. They did not die serving a higher cause. They died serving Pershing's interests. It's not sensible, ultimately, to try to avoid terming it that way in order to avoid 'discounting' their moral integrity or the assumed nobility of their service, but that's what happened. They were wasted lives.
I'm afraid you're misinterpreting my feelings on the matter. That sort of thing doesn't make me uncomfortable, it makes me furious. Rather like when, recently, PFC Green got life imprisonment, whereas I strongly think he should've been put up in front a firing squad.
It's not a trick of semantics to me, the distinction I'm trying to draw. I think someone's service and death can serve more than one thing at a time. It's a complicated, enormous thing, after all. Pershing's soldier's died in service to a higher cause; they also died in service to Pershing's bad (to put it lightly) orders. I don't find the two mutually exclusive, and I don't see why it isn't sensible to 'avoid terming it' otherwise.
I think I am calling it what it is, and I also don't think my particular description in any way shies away from noting the depth of the crime.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Were those soldiers doing good when they were killing and being killed to serve Pershing's career? Clearly they intended to do good, but can anything they did in that last push be said to have been good?
I think so, yes. Putting their lives on the line in service to their country, laying their lives down on the line in some 3500 cases. They did a good thing, that sacrifice. It was Pershing who took that sacrifice and twisted it. Just like if I offered money to the collection plate in a church, but a corrupt priest (or other member of the church) stole it and financed, I dunno, drug-running or murder or something.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that that would be a waste too though. In fact, thats why many people try to pick specific charities that are transparent in various ways precisely to make sure that their donation is not wasted.
I can understand that in some karmic way that good intentions are laudable but ultimately, results matter. There's even that saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"* and history is loaded with cautionary figures that indeed did a great deal of harm while intending to do good.
* interestingly, there's also a corollary saying that says that it is often possible to accidentally do good while having bad intentions, but I can't remember it for now (something about fruit growing?)
I'm not familiar with this specific case, but from context it seems that it may have even been more than just a simple waste. Beyond simply sacrificing their lives for nothing, they may very well have killed soldiers that without their attack would have simply have retired from the field peacefully (and possibly inspiring more hatred from their families in years to come) while depriving their own families of their support in years to come.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:That historical event actually makes for a pretty perfect example of troops' lives being wasted.
That's the question I'm asking: the difference between specific 'use' and ultimate 'use'. Pershing should have been put up on charges, IMO, for spending the lives of his men so uselessly. The men themselves, though, serving in good faith a higher cause, still served that higher cause even though the specific action did not-because they stood ready to serve it just as well as if someone other than Pershing had given the orders.
But the orders were stupid. They served no useful purpose. Whoever had given the orders would have been guilty of the same crime. That's why we call it a "crime," it works against the basic functioning of our society.
Did the 3,000 people at the World Trade Center die for a higher purpose as well, because they were going to work like normal, in good faith? It makes no sense- there is such a thing as senseless violence, and meaningless death. It happens every day. Does that terrify you so much? Does it feel like an insult to people who have had their lives wasted in this way?
quote: They did a good thing, that sacrifice.
Seems to me they did a bad thing, by carrying out Pershing's orders to attack for no good reason. They also killed many German soldiers who did not need to die.
Honestly Rakeesh, this thread makes you sound about as close to a fundamentalist Muslim as you could get without actually arguing against western society. This logic makes the young men who hijacked four airplanes on 9/11 heroes as well- they were only following the orders, however flawed and evil, of their commanders. After all, they were ultimately only fighting for the spread of Islam to the rest of the world, which in Muslim culture is a good and noble end- so they were fighting for what they believed to be a good thing, and for what they believed would eventually bring the world into the light of their religion. Does it not matter how stupid and backward and useless their actions actually were? How alarmingly counter-productive they proved to be? We should still encourage this kind of thing? It has a track record you find encouraging?
posted
Holy straw-men, Batman! Only about 5% of that post was actually necessary.
Rakeesh, I think it's admirable that you want to find value in the lives of Pershing's men, but it's not coming off very convincing to me. Perhaps if you made a case for how their deaths served a higher cause?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems to me that that would be a waste too though. In fact, thats why many people try to pick specific charities that are transparent in various ways precisely to make sure that their donation is not wasted.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying it's a waste to donate money to a church?
If so, that's a fault of efficiency, not of intent or actual outcome, isn't it? I'm really not sure how what I quoted addresses the point I'm trying to make, so bear with me if I'm not responding to you appropriately.
First off, charities can always be robbed or misused or mismanaged. I can happen if you donate to Habitat for Humanity just as much as if a child plunks a shiny new quarter into the collection at church. Second, shall we quibble and say that if that giver's charity is stolen, they haven't in fact done any good? I tend to think all such actions are good in and of themselves-but then sometimes I believe in an objection notion of good and evil, which may put us hopelessly at odds on this issue.
quote:I can understand that in some karmic way that good intentions are laudable but ultimately, results matter. There's even that saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"* and history is loaded with cautionary figures that indeed did a great deal of harm while intending to do good.
It seems we might be, then. I think results are more important - that's why I included negligence earlier, because good intentions don't excuse evil results - but I don't think we should just excuse the good intentions entirely. Surely they matter, at least a little. They matter to the person who acts on them, and to the people who know there are those who offer them. If no actual, tangible help arrives, it's cold comfort to be sure, but even then sometimes it's something.
Haven't you ever expressed sympathy for someone even when there was nothing you could, tangibly, do? Doesn't that mean intentions matter?
quote: I'm not familiar with this specific case, but from context it seems that it may have even been more than just a simple waste. Beyond simply sacrificing their lives for nothing, they may very well have killed soldiers that without their attack would have simply have retired from the field peacefully (and possibly inspiring more hatred from their families in years to come) while depriving their own families of their support in years to come.
Oh, I agree it was more than a waste. I called it a crime, in fact. Monstrous even, to add qualifiers.
----
Juxtapose,
quote:Rakeesh, I think it's admirable that you want to find value in the lives of Pershing's men, but it's not coming off very convincing to me. Perhaps if you made a case for how their deaths served a higher cause?
Well, a lot of it depends on whether or not you think intentions matter, as I discussed with Mucus above. Do intentions, or only results, have relevance?
I think they do. I don't know what the proportion is, I don't think it's a precise and permanent splits across the board, say 90-10 straight down the line on everything, but I do think intentions matter. I think they matter for religious reasons, but obviously that's not going to be compelling for agnostics or atheists or even necessarily for people who don't share my precise definition of 'religious reasons', but have different religious reasons of their own.
So here's my case for why the deaths (criminal, horrible) of Pershing's men served a higher cause: I think the world is a better place every time people are willing to make that sort of sacrifice for the sake of others. Even if that sacrifice is stolen and perverted into something more selfish. For the record, I think that applies across the board, not just to American or even Western soldiers. I think it applies to German (though not Nazi) soldiers...it's just that the theft and perversion of their sacrifice was so much greater and more perverse than Pershing's. I think it applies to Japanese soldiers who honestly believed they were serving their country in a just cause during WWII.
Where I acknowledge my helplessness in this discussion is in knowledge of intent. I can't say what someone else's intentions are. I just don't grant that because the outcome is bad, that must mean the intent must've been equally bad, or bad at all, or even (necessarily) negligent somehow.
Does that make any sense?
-------
Orincoro,
quote:But the orders were stupid. They served no useful purpose. Whoever had given the orders would have been guilty of the same crime. That's why we call it a "crime," it works against the basic functioning of our society.
I'm not sure why you're saying this to me. I specifically stated it was a crime.
quote:Did the 3,000 people at the World Trade Center die for a higher purpose as well, because they were going to work like normal, in good faith? It makes no sense- there is such a thing as senseless violence, and meaningless death. It happens every day. Does that terrify you so much? Does it feel like an insult to people who have had their lives wasted in this way?
The situations aren't comparable at all, really. Because the people who died in the Towers, they were victims. Pershing's men weren't just victims, they actively courted and acted on an impulse to offer service through sacrifice-either through time, sweat, effort, and sometimes through life itself. Those who died in the Towers* sought out no such service. Those who died in Pershing's command, however, had placed themselves in that position, had gone along with it willingly.
*Some of those in the Towers, to be sure, were more than victims. Those who tried to save the lives of others once the thing happened.
As for the idea of meaningless death, senseless violence, of course it frightens me. It would frighten anyone with the wit to understand it. But terrify? No, I don't think so. Just because I dispute the adjective 'meaningless' doesn't mean I'm terrified into lack of thought, Orincoro.
quote:Honestly Rakeesh, this thread makes you sound about as close to a fundamentalist Muslim as you could get without actually arguing against western society.
Well, I think you're pretty out there here. I'll just confine myself to saying I disagree strongly with this statement, and leave my more personal objection to it to be inferred.
quote:This logic makes the young men who hijacked four airplanes on 9/11 heroes as well- they were only following the orders, however flawed and evil, of their commanders.
No. Remember, please, that for one thing I included the qualifier 'negligence' above. I don't think someone who believes God wants them to massacre civilian infidels is actually doing a good thing, even if they're sincerely convinced it is what God wants-I think a charitable term for that sort of thinking is 'negligence'. They're cherry-picking their faith, for one thing, and not making a very large sacrifice at all, really, since they believed they'd ascend instantly to an infinitely-pleasurable Paradise upon their deaths.
That's not sacrifice, which is another way the two situations aren't comparable.
quote:Does it not matter how stupid and backward and useless their actions actually were? How alarmingly counter-productive they proved to be? We should still encourage this kind of thing? It has a track record you find encouraging?
Of course it matters. I already said so above, before you even posted. It seems to me you're more interested, here, in reaching for a 'Gotcha!' spot in my post than in actually discussing the ideas I'm talking about. You're free not to liken me as some sort of terrorist-apologist at your leisure, then, now that I've replied.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the world is a better place every time people are willing to make that sort of sacrifice for the sake of others.
I think this is the link in the chain I'm not seeing. Do you think the world is bettered in purely spiritual way, or in a practical one?
Personally, I agree that the world is a generally better place because of people who are willing to sacrifice for others. I don't think I agree that that means that each and every instance of sacrifice improves the world. Does that distinction make sense?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think this is the link in the chain I'm not seeing. Do you think the world is bettered in purely spiritual way, or in a practical one?
I certainly believe it in a spiritual sense (which for me is, in some things, necessarily also 'practical' ), but I do believe it in a practical sense as well.
Stories of that sort of sacrifice inspire others. Stories of that sort of abuse of sacrifice also inspire outrage, which is also quite useful.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying it's a waste to donate money to a church?
No. My point is much more narrow than that. You offered the example of a collection plate and a corrupt priest stealing from it. I'm just saying that if you were the one contributing to it, then that is a waste and you didn't do any good (assuming he stole all of it, in retrospect I'm not sure if you meant that). In fact, you may very well have done harm depending on how the priest spends it.
quote: If so, that's a fault of efficiency, not of intent or actual outcome, isn't it?
I'm not sure I understand the difference between the first and the last. If you contribute to a charity that spends 80% of what it receives on good works than you do (very roughly) twice as much good as one that spends 40%. The efficiency determines the outcome.
quote: Second, shall we quibble and say that if that giver's charity is stolen, they haven't in fact done any good?
From my POV, this is not so much a quibble as key to my post.
quote: Surely they matter, at least a little. They matter to the person who acts on them, and to the people who know there are those who offer them.
Maybe they matter in determining whether a person is good or not?
quote:Haven't you ever expressed sympathy for someone even when there was nothing you could, tangibly, do? Doesn't that mean intentions matter?
Well, thats an interesting point. I agree that if expressing sympathy makes someone else feel better, then that could very well be doing a good thing. But in the case of the corrupt priest (and especially the Pershing example), I'm not sure who you would make feel better and the, well, net harm for lack of a better phrase seems to dominate.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You offered the example of a collection plate and a corrupt priest stealing from it. I'm just saying that if you were the one contributing to it, then that is a waste and you didn't do any good (assuming he stole all of it, in retrospect I'm not sure if you meant that).
No, I did mean stealing the charity in this example. It may seem like an artificial distinction, but I think in that case the money was wasted-the charity was not.
quote:In fact, you may very well have done harm depending on how the priest spends it.
Well, I don't see how this follows at all. If I am robbed by a mugger who then uses that money to buy a gun and kill someone, have I done harm? The intent and voluntary component of both actions is exactly identical.
quote: quote: If so, that's a fault of efficiency, not of intent or actual outcome, isn't it?
I'm not sure I understand the difference between the first and the last. If you contribute to a charity that spends 80% of what it receives on good works than you do (very roughly) twice as much good as one that spends 40%. The efficiency determines the outcome.
Granted, but the person who gives to a charity that spends as low as 20% on good works still hasn't done no good at all. The problem becomes one of quantity, not quality, if that makes sense.
quote:From my POV, this is not so much a quibble as key to my post.
Gotcha.
quote:Maybe they matter in determining whether a person is good or not?
Ahh, that's definitely not a question I mean to examine here, whether a person is good or not. The questions I'm asking are about whether one is doing good in specific cases, and even with that much narrower question, it's still quite tricky, wouldn't you say?
quote:But in the case of the corrupt priest (and especially the Pershing example), I'm not sure who you would make feel better and the, well, net harm for lack of a better phrase seems to dominate.
Well, don't you feel better - even if it's just a tiny bit - knowing that there are people who will give to charity? Note that I'm not asking whether or not there are better ways, or if the 'net outcome' was overall good. I will agree that even though I think the soldiers under Pershing were doing good, obviously it would have been better overall had they not.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: No, I did mean stealing the charity in this example. It may seem like an artificial distinction, but I think in that case the money was wasted-the charity was not.
This might be part of the problem. I'm not sure I see the distinction, although I can appreciate that you do see something separate which might be frustrating.
quote:Well, I don't see how this follows at all. If I am robbed by a mugger who then uses that money to buy a gun and kill someone, have I done harm?
Well, overall no. You haven't actually "done" anything. Being robbed is involuntary. Donating to a charity with a certain level (or lack of) oversight is voluntary.
quote:Well, don't you feel better - even if it's just a tiny bit - knowing that there are people who will give to charity?
Overall, a little. But very very little.
In specific cases of charity, I think that fractional value is simply overwhelmed by the specific details of how that money is applied and how effective (or perhaps counterproductive) it is. As an example, in the case of that corrupt priest, the money wouldn't even make it into any form of official tally that I'm likely to see, so effectively it has no good effect on me period.
quote: Note that I'm not asking whether or not there are better ways, or if the 'net outcome' was overall good. I will agree that even though I think the soldiers under Pershing were doing good, obviously it would have been better overall had they not.
Perhaps thats part of the problem in the first paragraph. I'm not sure I normally draw a distinction between doing "good" and doing "net good." Interesting thought though.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:This might be part of the problem. I'm not sure I see the distinction, although I can appreciate that you do see something separate which might be frustrating.
Yes, the distinction seems to be at the heart of the disagreement. Personally I don't think a good deed is ever truly wasted, even if it's totally unknown to everyone except the doer, and accomplishes no known results.
However, I will say that such a good deed isn't worth much. Really, just far enough past neutrality to be registered as 'good', but not an iota less-does that make sense?
quote:Well, overall no. You haven't actually "done" anything. Being robbed is involuntary. Donating to a charity with a certain level (or lack of) oversight is voluntary.
Except there is robbery in the theft-of-charity example, too. It's like in a mugging, walking down the street with a hefty wallet, that's voluntary. Getting robbed is not. Donating a sum to a charity is voluntary. Someone lying to you and stealing that charity for themselves certainly isn't. I have to admit, I really don't understand this distinction you're drawing.
Except for violence, how are the two any different?
quote:Overall, a little. But very very little.
Well, I'm not suggesting it's a major impact. But you appear to be agreeing with my point: intentions matter, just not necessarily very much. And I do agree with that, if it is indeed what you're saying.
quote:Perhaps thats part of the problem in the first paragraph. I'm not sure I normally draw a distinction between doing "good" and doing "net good." Interesting thought though.
Oh, I definitely draw a distinction. However, to be clear, the distinction between them involves among other things negligence. Here's a hypothetical: the person giving money to the charity (for consistency we'll say it's still a church charity) has heard many reports that this particular church is corrupt. As in, very corrupt. These reports are widespread.
For whatever reason, the giver decides to ignore these reports and give money to the charity anyway. This money is predictably stolen from the charity, to enrich those running it, whether it's a priest or a member of the congregation or whatever.
I don't think the giver in this case has done a good thing, even though their intention was to do a good deed, because there were obvious signs that what would result from their good intentions was a bad result.
Obviously that's a pretty cut and dried example, but do you understand what I'm getting at?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Personally I don't think a good deed is ever truly wasted, even if it's totally unknown to everyone except the doer, and accomplishes no known results.
Thats what I meant by in some "karmic way" (or alternatively some omnipotent tally) but I don't personally believe in that so I think "good deeds" can indeed be wasted if there are no known effects. (good deeds in quotes because I don't necessarily think a deed done with good intentions is good)
quote: Really, just far enough past neutrality to be registered as 'good', but not an iota less-does that make sense?
I can see how that makes sense for you and it is an interesting point. I would note that this seems to be a slightly different point from the corrupt priest or Pershing examples though since in both of those cases there are people that know of the deeds and there are many known results.
quote:
quote:Well, overall no. You haven't actually "done" anything. Being robbed is involuntary. Donating to a charity with a certain level (or lack of) oversight is voluntary.
Except there is robbery in the theft-of-charity example, too.
Technically, I think violence is precisely what distinguishes robbery from theft.
quote:It's like in a mugging, walking down the street with a hefty wallet, that's voluntary.
That is why I put the qualifier "overall." If you do something to invite theft then you are potentially doing harm if you get robbed*. But by robbery, I assumed you meant a fairly random and unpredictable robbery.
*(I don't mean in the criminal sense, blaming the victim and all that, but I mean in the sense of the consequences** in the bigger picture. **(The consequences that one is assessing in order to figure out whether harm is being done))
It is the "doing" part that seems key to me in assessing, well, whether someone "did" a deed, good OR bad. Now, one can decide to not do something, which can also be a good deed. But it just doesn't seem to me that being robbed is a deed because in my interpretation of "getting robbed" one hasn't done anything or decided to do anything (or not), period. Is that clear?
quote: But you appear to be agreeing with my point: intentions matter, just not necessarily very much. And I do agree with that, if it is indeed what you're saying.
Kinda.
To elaborate, I think good intentions matter in terms of whether one is doing a good deed or not only if someone is actually affected by those good intentions. (i.e. in your example, the good intentions made someone feel better) I don't think the good intentions inherently have much effect on whether a deed is good or not.
quote: Obviously that's a pretty cut and dried example, but do you understand what I'm getting at?
Yes. And I don't think we're actually that far apart. See, for me the church collection plate is like a charity with no oversight. Human nature being what it is, you're really just relying on that priest. Your expectation of the money being corrupted should be much higher than in charities with higher levels of transparency, tax receipts (which could allow the government to track cash-flow), etc.
But I would note the important distinction that this is all just for assessing the probability for whether one will do good or not before one actually does something.
One can take all the precautions in the world and still not do good. One can attempt to do evil and accidentally do good. Life sucks that way I suppose, but there it is.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thats what I meant by in some "karmic way" (or alternatively some omnipotent tally) but I don't personally believe in that so I think "good deeds" can indeed be wasted if there are no known effects. (good deeds in quotes because I don't necessarily think a deed done with good intentions is good)
Granted the religious angle isn't likely to persuade you. Why would it? But I think good deeds multiply, just like bad deeds. That is, doing one good (or bad) thing makes it easier in the future to do another good (or bad) thing. Do you agree? And if so, wouldn't that make a good deed with no measurable impact still good-because it makes it more likely the doer will continue?
quote:I can see how that makes sense for you and it is an interesting point. I would note that this seems to be a slightly different point from the corrupt priest or Pershing examples though since in both of those cases there are people that know of the deeds and there are many known results.
That's true, but I was moving from the big huge examples to a more abstract 'is it or isn't it' question. For the religious reasons I have, but also for the practical reason I just described: what we do becomes habit forming.
quote:Technically, I think violence is precisely what distinguishes robbery from theft.
OK, but the involuntary component is still there in both of them. It's just changed type is all. Being mugged is precisely as involuntary as giving money for a good cause to someone who then misuses it: you didn't ask for either, in fact you specifically wanted it not to happen.
quote:But it just doesn't seem to me that being robbed is a deed because in my interpretation of "getting robbed" one hasn't done anything or decided to do anything (or not), period. Is that clear?
Yup. It's just that I fail to see how having one's charity robbed involves any more of a decision to be robbed than walking down the street and getting mugged. In the robbery, one has made no choice at all about being stolen from. In the charity, one has made a specific decision that is then specifically defied. What's the qualitative difference, really?
quote:
To elaborate, I think good intentions matter in terms of whether one is doing a good deed or not only if someone is actually affected by those good intentions.
But aren't we always affected by good intentions, once they're known? Even if it's only a matter of despising someone slightly less because we know they believed they have good intentions?
quote:I don't think the good intentions inherently have much effect on whether a deed is good or not.
Oh, I don't either, not inherently. That's why I qualified it with things like negligence above. Just as much as we meatbags have a duty to do good things, we have a duty to be well-informed to minimize bad surprises down the road.
quote:See, for me the church collection plate is like a charity with no oversight. Human nature being what it is, you're really just relying on that priest.
Actually, my understanding of most church charities is definitely not that there isn't any oversight. Just that it's not always 'official' (that is, governmental) oversight. In the end, though, it seems to be about trust: giving to the collection plate involves trust of the church managing it. Giving to the Red Cross as an example involves trusting that great big organization. Maybe there's more oversight in one or the other case, but it still comes down to trust, doesn't it?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Of course it matters. I already said so above, before you even posted. It seems to me you're more interested, here, in reaching for a 'Gotcha!' spot in my post than in actually discussing the ideas I'm talking about. You're free not to liken me as some sort of terrorist-apologist at your leisure, then, now that I've replied.
No, I find your personal brand of logic on this topic to be totally stupid and nonsensical. I am not a "gotcha" journalist... not in any sense other than that I am not afraid to point out how dumb your idea is. It's really dumb.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what you picture that kind of language accomplishing, Orincoro, but I'd wager you would be perfectly capable of carrying out a meaningful, intellectual discussion without calling anyone's thinking or ideas "dumb" and still be able to communicate appropriately with them. Really. You might even get less hostile replies here at Hatrack if you toned down the language a few notches.
quote:No, I find your personal brand of logic on this topic to be totally stupid and nonsensical. I am not a "gotcha" journalist... not in any sense other than that I am not afraid to point out how dumb your idea is. It's really dumb.
If that's the way you feel, and you're not willing to engage in a discussion beyond saying, "It's really dumb," I don't see any point in talking about it any further with you. I prefer Mucus's and Juxtapose's conversation to yours (just using two peeps who've replied multiple times).
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I'm not sure what you picture that kind of language accomplishing, Orincoro, but I'd wager you would be perfectly capable of carrying out a meaningful, intellectual discussion without calling anyone's thinking or ideas "dumb" and still be able to communicate appropriately with them. Really. You might even get less hostile replies here at Hatrack if you toned down the language a few notches.
I remind you that a began with a point which was studiously ignored in favor of Rakeesh playing the victim to my characterization of him, which I stand by.
When talking to people who post opinions here with the design of garnering negative responses which they can alternatively ignore, quibble with, plead ignorance of, and generally fail to actually discuss at all- one wonders why they post at all. I find it dumb. Occasionally, when I feel the person posting is actually at all interested in what anyone else has to say, I respond in kind. This is not one of those times- but if you think I should just stop posting, you may be right.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Nothing you've said has been 'studiously ignored' by me. That's a lie. Objecting to your distasteful, inaccurate comparison isn't 'playing the victim', so that's another lie.
I didn't post this thread in order to garner negative opinions which I would then ignore - ask Mucus or Juxtapose - so that's still another lie, nor have I failed to discuss in detail everything they've brought up.
That's quite a few lies in a short span of post.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
So thank you for teaching me that someone else's opinion of you and your actions, should you happen to disagree, qualifies as a lie. Good to know. Everything you've posted about me has been a lie.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think your complete lack of rebuttal to my claim of repetitive lying is pretty clear an admission of guilt.
And now that that's out of the way, I can't stop you from posting in this thread, just myself from responding to you-unless at some point in the future you actually have something new, honest, and relevant to say.
ETA: Well, you've included a rebuttal of a sort, now.
quote:
So thank you for teaching me that someone else's opinion of you and your actions, should you happen to disagree, qualifies as a lie.
You're perfectly entitled to your opinion to me. That's not what I was calling a lie. The lies were in your characterization of my responses. I'll list them again, even though your response to them before was 'screw you'-hardly compelling.
1. I didn't ignore the 'point' you made in favor of playing the victim. I addressed it in detail at 9:30pm last night.
2. I didn't post this thread to garner negative opinions which I would then ignore at my leisure. I refer you to my responses to Tom, Mucus, and Juxtapose as examples.
3. I certainly haven't failed to discuss disagreements with my posts.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Calling you a terrorist would be a lie- because it would be contrary to what I believe to be true. Saying you sound like a terrorist sympathizer is not a lie. All of these points are in fact matters of opinion.
It's not my fault you sound like a terrorist sympathizer buddy- and you do. Go ahead and throw a tantrum every time somebody calls you on your outrageous jingoist garbage. Oh, and keep trying to make yourself sound like you're actually arguing for something reasonable- it's not working, but if you just continue to restate the same thing over and over, *it becomes true*.
Also, remember to declare victory and go home, and also tell the person you've just "defeated" that you're done talking to them, as if you aren't going to read and feel compelled to respond later. But no, I hope you don't. :pat pat: there's a good jingoist. There's a good boy!
(btw, if that fails, you just post a sarcastic little note about how "cool" the person who is insulting you is, in an attempt to make them feel bad because they are, after all, never going to be as cool as you are!)
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And now that that's out of the way, I can't stop you from posting in this thread, just myself from responding to you-unless at some point in the future you actually have something new, honest, and relevant to say.
quote:Personally, I agree that the world is a generally better place because of people who are willing to sacrifice for others. I don't think I agree that that means that each and every instance of sacrifice improves the world. Does that distinction make sense?
Looking back at the thread during the argument with Orincoro, I was wondering what you thought of my reply to this objection of yours? That such sacrifices, when known to the world, still accomplish some good because they inspire similar sacrifice in others?
In fact, in that sense, the sacrifice serves more than one good purpose, I think: not only does it instill a resolve in people to work to make sure that specific sort of event (wrongful use of soldiers) doesn't happen again, but also in a more general way people admire that there are those willing to sacrifice, even when it might be misused, and thus are more likely to emulate.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That such sacrifices, when known to the world, still accomplish some good because they inspire similar sacrifice in others?
What makes that kind of emulation necessarily positive? Some cultures have a history of blood fueds that degrade and retard their progress over hundreds of years, and often contribute to their usurpation by foreign powers. Ireland and Scotland, as I recal from my sociology classes, were perfect examples of that effect.
Also, social behavior epidemics like graffiti, suicide, cutting, self mutilation, inappropriate sexual behaviors, etc, are all spread through mimicry and idealization of socially powerful behavior. There are few socially powerful acts greater than sacrifice- that's why hundreds of Japanese soldiers killed themselves on Iwo Jima- were their deaths to the benefit of the men who were forced to slaughter them, or to the society that suffered the humiliation of their defeat *and* the loss of their fathers and sons and husbands? Was there even an element of good that could begin to outweigh the damage done to their society as a result of that act? I am just not seeing the upside here.
And, just to extrapolate that line of reasoning out to its end point- a culture that was totally commited to self-sacrifice would also seem to me to be willing to offer itself up completely to destruction. Though that might serve the ideals that they fight for- they would be dead, and have no need of their ideals. Japan is an example of a culture that almost did exactly that- and they might even have been lucky, in a twisted way, that the a-bomb came when it did, although that's an argument that can be had seperately. There's no question that the Japanese were prepared to make devastating sacrifices for their war effort, even in the face of certain defeat. It's not inconceivable that, had things gone another way, their willingness to sacrifice would have destroyed their culture entirely. Sparta fell because they were too good at, and dedicated to, war- we have countless examples of this in history.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Of course it matters. I already said so above, before you even posted. It seems to me you're more interested, here, in reaching for a 'Gotcha!' spot in my post than in actually discussing the ideas I'm talking about. You're free not to liken me as some sort of terrorist-apologist at your leisure, then, now that I've replied.
No, I find your personal brand of logic on this topic to be totally stupid and nonsensical. I am not a "gotcha" journalist... not in any sense other than that I am not afraid to point out how dumb your idea is. It's really dumb.
No, it isn't. I may not agree with it, but I don't think it is stupid, or pointless.
I DO think your aspect of this conversation, like many others, IS pointless, counterproductive, and shows a lack of comprehension relating to actual conversation and general compassion.
Basically it is a stupid and dumb way of trying to make a point, and makes YOU look like you don't actually care why anyone thinks what they think, at least if they don't agree with you.
Not that I expect you to listen....this is hardly the first time someone has pointed this out to you.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thats what I meant by in some "karmic way" (or alternatively some omnipotent tally) but I don't personally believe in that so I think "good deeds" can indeed be wasted if there are no known effects. (good deeds in quotes because I don't necessarily think a deed done with good intentions is good)
Granted the religious angle isn't likely to persuade you. Why would it? But I think good deeds multiply, just like bad deeds. That is, doing one good (or bad) thing makes it easier in the future to do another good (or bad) thing. Do you agree? And if so, wouldn't that make a good deed with no measurable impact still good-because it makes it more likely the doer will continue?
Perhaps, although I'm not sure thats really true. But I'm not sure what that accomplishes in our example. If there are no known effects to the deed, then a person who is more likely to do the same deed again accomplishes exactly nothing. In fact, it is a waste of time.
If we're speaking more generally about deeds done with good intentions, one has to measure the probability that a deed done with good intentions actually does result in good and it seems to me that a person in the habit of doing deeds with no measurable outcomes would be at extremely high risk of doing harm in other cases.
quote:In the robbery, one has made no choice at all about being stolen from. In the charity, one has made a specific decision that is then specifically defied. What's the qualitative difference, really?
Didn't you just list it? In second scenario, the person has made a specific decision to act which results in consequences, consequences which they may disapprove of but still consequences. In the first scenario, one hasn't decided to act.
This is out of the scope of the discussion as to whether an action is good or bad. It seems we're almost discussing what one should consider an action in the first place.
quote:But aren't we always affected by good intentions, once they're known?
Well, to bring it back to the church collection plate. I certainly wouldn't know if someone donated to a plate somewhere. And good intentions seem a dime a dozen anyways.
Also, as Orincoro has more aggressively stated than I would, in the Pershing example, I am not in the least comforted that there are men willing to sacrifice their lives (or more accurately, their lives in exchange for their enemies lives) for some general.
I'm reminded of a saying from Babylon 5, "It's easy to find something worth dying for. Do you have anything worth living for?"
quote:
quote:See, for me the church collection plate is like a charity with no oversight. Human nature being what it is, you're really just relying on that priest.
Actually, my understanding of most church charities is definitely not that there isn't any oversight.
I didn't say "most church charities." I said church collection plate. I was quite specific.
My understanding is that you pass around a plate, people put money into it, priest collects money, with no record of what actually happened.
This is opposed to a proper donation where one donates and gets a tax receipt and a record of donation. That at least gets the government involved. Then a proper charity should also be audited by third parties, not just by itself.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Looking back at the thread during the argument with Orincoro, I was wondering what you thought of my reply to this objection of yours? That such sacrifices, when known to the world, still accomplish some good because they inspire similar sacrifice in others?
I crashed hard last night, or I would have responded sooner.
I think you're right that sacrifice, in general, inspires others to be better. I'm not sure if that benefit outweighs the life lost though. It'd be different from situation to situation.
quote:In fact, in that sense, the sacrifice serves more than one good purpose, I think: not only does it instill a resolve in people to work to make sure that specific sort of event (wrongful use of soldiers) doesn't happen again, but also in a more general way people admire that there are those willing to sacrifice, even when it might be misused, and thus are more likely to emulate.
In this specific circumstance, the event also serves to highlight to people that their good intentions can be perverted by others, a fact which could very well lessen willingness to sacrifice. I'm not sure if this effect is stronger than the effects you talked about (that'd be an interesting study), but I do know that even if the effects are net positive, ~3000 lives is a steep price to pay.
Last night I remember you asking me about intentions, and whether they matter, but now I can't find it. I'll answer anyway.
I think where the outcome is harmful, intentions matter disproportionately to the size of the harm. That is, "I didn't mean to spill the milk" is just fine. "I didn't mean to enter the launch code" is not.
EDIT - I just realized this rule presumes a certain level of knowledge on the part of the person acting. "I didn't know Pershing was just using us for personal glory" doesn't really fit on it. I'll need to think on it more.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I didn't say "most church charities." I said church collection plate. I was quite specific.
My understanding is that you pass around a plate, people put money into it, priest collects money, with no record of what actually happened.
This is opposed to a proper donation where one donates and gets a tax receipt and a record of donation. That at least gets the government involved. Then a proper charity should also be audited by third parties, not just by itself.
Good gravy, your understanding is off. In every church I've ever been associated with two members, not related to one another, collect and count the money and sign a tally sheet. They, or someone else, takes the deposit to the bank and the bank statement is mailed to the church office where a third unrelated person (not church staff or clergy) compares the deposit total to the tally sheet. Members who pay by check or who put their money in a numbered envelope have their donations recorded and are sent a quarterly statement.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm taking at face value the original proposition which Rakeesh stated which is:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... like if someone gives money to the offering bowl at church and a corrupt clergyman steals it.
As in the money is stolen from the bowl before any of the verification that you've noted is even possible.
In any case, if your particular church has a system which can prevent stealing from the bowl as described by Rakeesh then you're talking about something different than what we're talking about.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, then Rakeesh's example is a hypothetical bearing no resemblence to a real-world possibility. Unless the priest in question is skilled in slight of hand and can pocket money from the plate while blessing it in front of an entire congregation.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Okay, then Rakeesh's example is a hypothetical bearing no resemblence to a real-world possibility. Unless the priest in question is skilled in slight of hand and can pocket money from the plate while blessing it in front of an entire congregation.
You're saying there's no possible way a false tally sheet could be substituted for the genuine article before the money is deposited? Or better yet, and simpler really, the church takes that money out of the accounts to pay various phony expenses? Church embezzlement is pretty common, as it is in many organizations with any kind of cash flow.
And anyway, you a church can just spend the money in bad faith by choosing to pay itself overly well from the donations- that's not even illegal is it? I recall the priest at my Catholic high school drive a very nice Lexis. It didn't fit very well with his message when he was speaking to the students, but I don't know if it was technically "wrong," or even unexpected.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What makes that kind of emulation necessarily positive? Some cultures have a history of blood fueds that degrade and retard their progress over hundreds of years, and often contribute to their usurpation by foreign powers. Ireland and Scotland, as I recal from my sociology classes, were perfect examples of that effect.
The emulation isn't always positive. I don't think I implied it was a given. But in the situations you cite, those sacrifices wouldn't have been in a good cause in the first place, so people emulating them wouldn't be doing good either.
quote: Also, social behavior epidemics like graffiti, suicide, cutting, self mutilation, inappropriate sexual behaviors, etc, are all spread through mimicry and idealization of socially powerful behavior. There are few socially powerful acts greater than sacrifice- that's why hundreds of Japanese soldiers killed themselves on Iwo Jima- were their deaths to the benefit of the men who were forced to slaughter them, or to the society that suffered the humiliation of their defeat *and* the loss of their fathers and sons and husbands? Was there even an element of good that could begin to outweigh the damage done to their society as a result of that act? I am just not seeing the upside here.
In such cases I agree the overall upside is definitely very, very bad. I believe I discussed that, in general at least, with Mucus earlier. My point was never that the net moral result would be good.
--
Mucus,
quote:But I'm not sure what that accomplishes in our example. If there are no known effects to the deed, then a person who is more likely to do the same deed again accomplishes exactly nothing. In fact, it is a waste of time.
But I'm counting the giving itself as a good deed, and something that has - very small, it's true - an impact, much like sympathy for someone else. And of course someone emulating that first giving would never be able to identically emulate it, so it's not necessarily true that the result would be the same. It might be better. It might be worse too, of course. The $20 someone puts in the plate might save a family from homelessness and all the troubles that brings. Or it might end up in a corrupt person's hands, and get a kid started on heroin or something.
quote: If we're speaking more generally about deeds done with good intentions, one has to measure the probability that a deed done with good intentions actually does result in good and it seems to me that a person in the habit of doing deeds with no measurable outcomes would be at extremely high risk of doing harm in other cases.
Hmm. I see your point, but doesn't that entail first believing your idea that something is good only if its results are good? That's not a criticism, just a question; certainly I've been doing the same thing as well. Both our stances involve substantial initial-assumption-buying-into.
Anyway, the idea of someone habitually doing anything good or bad with no measurable outcomes is to me pretty abstract, almost impossible in the real world. It's almost impossible living in a society to take any action, much less specifically good or bad actions, that have no measurable outcome.
quote:Didn't you just list it? In second scenario, the person has made a specific decision to act which results in consequences, consequences which they may disapprove of but still consequences. In the first scenario, one hasn't decided to act.
You're characterizing the charity case incorrectly, it looks like to me. In the second scenario, the person has made a specific decision with some pretty specific consequences. Having their money stolen isn't one of those consequences they've chosen by their actions. Having their charity stolen is something that happens to them, not something they've courted. That's what I mean when I ask you what the qualitative difference between the mugging and the stolen charity is.
quote:This is out of the scope of the discussion as to whether an action is good or bad. It seems we're almost discussing what one should consider an action in the first place.
Heh, good point.
quote:Well, to bring it back to the church collection plate. I certainly wouldn't know if someone donated to a plate somewhere. And good intentions seem a dime a dozen anyways.
Granted. So lemme put it in more generalized terms. Don't you feel a little better about the world, even just a tiny bit, knowing there are people who are willing to give of their time, money, and effort to help others? I'm not asking if you think the net benefit is good, just whether that specific notion makes you feel better.
quote:Also, as Orincoro has more aggressively stated than I would, in the Pershing example, I am not in the least comforted that there are men willing to sacrifice their lives (or more accurately, their lives in exchange for their enemies lives) for some general.
But I dispute that, morally speaking, they exchanged their lives for their enemies' lives, for General Pershing. He was who they took orders from, but not who they served, do you understand the distinction I'm making? Necessarily it comes back to the charity case. Someone whose offering is stolen to buy boats or houses or drugs or whatever wasn't themselves buying those things. Their offering was hijacked en route, the same as the sacrifice of Pershing's men.
quote:I didn't say "most church charities." I said church collection plate. I was quite specific.
My understanding is that you pass around a plate, people put money into it, priest collects money, with no record of what actually happened.
This is opposed to a proper donation where one donates and gets a tax receipt and a record of donation. That at least gets the government involved. Then a proper charity should also be audited by third parties, not just by itself.
Hmm. Well, we're speaking in general church charity here, so I won't insist on it because I don't know either. It's just that my personal experience with church charity is a bit different than the no-oversight case you're describing, but I don't know how widely applicable my experience is.
Anyway, I still think it comes down to trust. Because after all, in big government-overseen charities, the people managing those charities are themselves more likely to be business trained, and thus more knowledgeable in the methods of fraud and theft than someone whose business experience is confined to collecting little offerings out of a plate. Greater oversight for greater capability does not necessarily guarantee less likelihood overall of fraud, does it?
quote:In any case, if your particular church has a system which can prevent stealing from the bowl as described by Rakeesh then you're talking about something different than what we're talking about.
Hmmm. I see now I should've gone into more detail with the church offering plate comparison, because a system with the sort of non-professional oversight dkw's describing is what I was talking about. My mistake-I should've been clearer.
------
Juxtapose,
quote:I think you're right that sacrifice, in general, inspires others to be better. I'm not sure if that benefit outweighs the life lost though. It'd be different from situation to situation.
In Pershing's case, I definitely don't think the benefit outweighs the lives lost. What I started this conversation objecting to was the notion that there was no benefit, that's all. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clearer. I think I did, but that happened later in the conversation, as my ideas were challenged and I responded, I think.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Welp, this subject got spun wildly around by its pigtails in a way almost unique to hatrack.
quote:I think I am calling it what it is
Well, you aren't. You're trying to avoid having to say that the soldier's lives were utterly wasted. That still somehow they did something different than have their lives be pointlessly wasted in order to pointlessly kill other people because of what they in their minds were intending, perhaps, with their service.
The soldiers died for nothing.
The soldiers died for nothing.
Sincerity does not make service for a higher cause real. Saying "everyone who serves a higher cause, if their offering of service is genuine, can still be said to be truly serving it no matter what specific actions they take" is not true. They may think they are serving that higher purpose. They may have full intention to serve that higher purpose. It is solidly and factually incorrect to say that they are in situations where they are actually being used for another goal. They are serving that other goal, much as the soldiers served Pershing.
One intending and believing that he or she is doing good can be serving evil, etc.
It's just like people who are intending to do bad, selfish things could just as easily be tricked or unknowingly trapped into serving good.
That's all there is to it.
All it really requires is an acceptance of the fact that the statements "They were not heroes, they were victims" and "Their lives were utterly wasted" are better ways to frame the situation than how you would really really really like to. You are trying to coach the concept comfortably, but it doesn't really work.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Italics really lend lots of rhetorical weight to your arguments, y'know?
quote:Well, you aren't. You're trying to avoid having to say that the soldier's lives were utterly wasted. That still somehow they did something different than have their lives be pointlessly wasted in order to pointlessly kill other people because of what they in their minds were intending, perhaps, with their service.
*shrug* This is hardly persuasive, since it boils down to, "You're wrong because you're wrong." You're also inferring a lot about my motives that you can't possibly know, as well as assuming that somehow my point of view somehow minimizes the horror and tragedy of that sort of waste.
Well, if nothing I've said in this thread so far has assured you that I share your outrage and view it just as strongly as a horrible thing as you do, I don't see what else I can say.
quote: Sincerity does not make service for a higher cause real. Saying "everyone who serves a higher cause, if their offering of service is genuine, can still be said to be truly serving it no matter what specific actions they take" is not true. They may think they are serving that higher purpose. They may have full intention to serve that higher purpose. It is solidly and factually incorrect to say that they are in situations where they are actually being used for another goal. They are serving that other goal, much as the soldiers served Pershing.
On a question of morality, it is quite odd to hear you use words like 'factually incorrect'. Anyway, you appear to be ignoring entirely a component of my argument: that there is or at least can be a distinct difference between the service offered and the cause served. That even if the two are radically different doesn't necessarily mean the service was not offered.
quote:
All it really requires is an acceptance of the fact that the statements "They were not heroes, they were victims" and "Their lives were utterly wasted" are better ways to frame the situation than how you would really really really like to. You are trying to coach the concept comfortably, but it doesn't really work.
I don't think those are factual statements. Again with that word, 'fact'. I can't claim the moral insight you have, that finds facts in the haze of subjective moral questions. But here's something to consider, a statement just as factually (heh) accurate as yours: "They were heroes and victims, and they died for their country even though their general twisted their service."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They died for Pershing. Nothing they did had anything to do with benefiting the country.
If we make it so that we're saying that people 'died for their country' without actually doing anything to benefit their country in doing so, then we've watered down the statement by making it not really mean what it should.
Pershing can't affix his little vanity pin to his breast and say "Now, don't be so sour. They died for their country, after all!"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They died for Pershing. Nothing they did had anything to do with benefiting the country.
So, wait a second. What if in all sincerity and good intention, a military unit fights in a battle that later counts for tactically and strategically nothing. Like, let's say some Marines take an island in some war, but the next day a volcano erupts, completely destroying it. Or even the very instant the enemy surrenders or is killed to the last soldier, the volcano erupts and destroys the entire island and everything and everyone on it.
The country they died for certainly gained nothing tangible from their sacrifice. Nothing worthwhile was gained. By your reasoning, people only die for their country if something tangible is gained for their country. I don't buy into that reasoning, and I've explained why in detail. I don't see much point in reiterating my reasoning. I wish you'd actually respond to it with something other than, "But you're wrong!" which so far has pretty much been the extent of your argument.
quote:Pershing can't affix his little vanity pin to his breast and say "Now, don't be so sour. They died for their country, after all!"
You're quite right. Pershing has no right to make any kind of claim to honor, glory, or decency on the foundation of the sacrifice of his men. Just like the corrupt charity-taker doesn't get to say, "C'mon, what's the problem, these are all donations!"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What if in all sincerity and good intention, a military unit fights in a battle that later counts for tactically and strategically nothing.
Two separate scenarios can branch off of this:
1. a military unit fights in a battle that later counts for tactically and strategically nothing, but it is a sincere attempt engaged upon with that intent by the commanding officer.
2. a military unit fights in a battle that later counts for tactically and strategically nothing, and the commanding officer knows this ahead of time but just wants a little extra glory for himself, with no desire to earn anything tactically or strategically.
The way I would categorize the way in which the soldiers died in these instances, appropriately, changed.
quote:"But you're wrong!" which so far has pretty much been the extent of your argument.
I'm sorry you think so, but it is a grossly unfair assessment of my sincere attempt to tell you why I think I disagree with your attempt to say that these soldiers' lives were 'not wasted.'
I could just as easily say that the extent of your counterargument is "But I don't think I'm wrong!" or "But I'm right!" but I understand why this is both feeble and bad form.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:1. a military unit fights in a battle that later counts for tactically and strategically nothing, but it is a sincere attempt engaged upon with that intent by the commanding officer.
2. a military unit fights in a battle that later counts for tactically and strategically nothing, and the commanding officer knows this ahead of time but just wants a little extra glory for himself, with no desire to earn anything tactically or strategically.
The way I would categorize the way in which the soldiers died in these instances, appropriately, changed.
So now intent does matter-the intention of the commanding officer? Seems to me you want to have it both ways. Intent doesn't matter on behalf of those who do the actual dying, but does on the part of the CO.
quote:I'm sorry you think so, but it is a grossly unfair assessment of my sincere attempt to tell you why I think I disagree with your attempt to say that these soldiers' lives were 'not wasted.'
You're starting to actually address specific points, but lemme summarize: I say in so many words that intent matters, even if the actual outcome is at odds with that intent. You said, "The soldiers died for nothing."
I said 'sincerity matters' and explained why, and you said no it doesn't-factually doesn't, no less.
So I'm afraid my assessment wasn't unfair at all. Note that I'm not saying that about Mucus or Juxtapose or Orincoro's responses to my argument. They go into some detail why I'm wrong, whereas you've simply been saying until just now that the assumptions I'm making are wrong. I don't question your sincerity, though, nor do I think you're discussing this in bad faith. But so far you haven't really been making many arguments at all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't buy into that reasoning, and I've explained why in detail. I don't see much point in reiterating my reasoning.
So you keep saying. Are you not noticing that your explanation of why *you* think so convinces no-one else that it is also correct.
Honestly, you're just straight up wrong on this one. I'm actually genuinely surprised you would even try to argue any kind of position on this issue at all, either way. It's as pointless as the things we're talking about. I mean this sincerely, there is no simple way of explaining to you why you are wrong, but you are. It's not an analogy to your argument at all, but suppose someone pointed at the sky and said, "that sky is really an ocean." Your argument isn't like that, but it provokes a similar response- and it comes from a person equipped to at least converse with others, and to understand more or less other people's points, but who still disagrees with them for reasons that are not all that clear. I mean, I can understand why you think what you think, but every piece of basic knowledge and experience and reasoning I use tells me it's wrong- and I don't know why you don't see that as well. I am left feeling that I understand this because I understand something about science (in my non-analogy), but that aside from setting the reboot button on your brain and starting over, I can't give you that experience or knowledge, or whatever it is I feel I have and you don't.
But as you said, I brought up real points that you surprisingly agreed with... because I really thought they made it clear that your conclusion didn't hold up. I still don't see why they don't demolish your position. Unless you are simply arguing that the senseless deaths of soldiers has "an effect," albeit, any effect whatsoever on anything, at which point there's no real argument there. We're talking about this specific case, so it had an effect- multiple effects in fact, but how could you possible hope to ever establish that those effects were a net good, or even good at all?
And even if you don't even care about the effects of the event, at what point can anything be considered "good," if the effect is not taken into account? This whole thing is a bowl of rancid spaghetti- it just leads back and forth, and smells funny.
People are not disagreeing with you or arguing against your idea because they don't understand it, they are arguing against it because it doesn't hold up. It's not a strong argument. It's really not anyone's responsibility to prove to you that your idea is wrong, and you haven't seemed, to me, to have been able thus far to articulate why the other points raised don't convince you of the same conclusions others have reached. You keep agreeing with almost everything, and yet maintaining the same conclusion as if it isn't weakened by all those other points. Have you already established this conclusion as an article of your personal faith? If so, what really interests me is why you are motivated you to do so? Why does it need to be this way?
quote:In any case, if your particular church has a system which can prevent stealing from the bowl as described by Rakeesh then you're talking about something different than what we're talking about.
Hmmm. I see now I should've gone into more detail with the church offering plate comparison, because a system with the sort of non-professional oversight dkw's describing is what I was talking about. My mistake-I should've been clearer.
I'm just confused now then. I had thought that you were describing a scenario where a corrupt priest steals a your donation from the offering bowl. Your donation effectively creates no real-world result but it seemed that your argument was that your intent to donate made that a "good" action.
I thought you were drawing a parallel with the Pershing example where the soldiers died for no real result, but that their intentions were sufficient to make that a "good" action as well.
If it is in fact the case that as dkw describes that the priest stealing the money from the bowl, "is a hypothetical bearing no resemblance to a real-world possibility" then what *did* you propose and how does it relate to the Pershing question?
quote:
quote: If we're speaking more generally about deeds done with good intentions, one has to measure the probability that a deed done with good intentions actually does result in good and it seems to me that a person in the habit of doing deeds with no measurable outcomes would be at extremely high risk of doing harm in other cases.
Hmm. I see your point, but doesn't that entail first believing your idea that something is good only if its results are good? That's not a criticism, just a question; certainly I've been doing the same thing as well. Both our stances involve substantial initial-assumption-buying-into.
Yes, I suppose. (More accurately, an action is good if it results in something better than in a world where that action did not take place)
quote:Anyway, the idea of someone habitually doing anything good or bad with no measurable outcomes is to me pretty abstract, almost impossible in the real world. It's almost impossible living in a society to take any action, much less specifically good or bad actions, that have no measurable outcome.
True, which is why I kinda tried to bring it back to the Pershing and offering bowl examples Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I may be so bold as to summarize the argument as I see it (feel free to add/change):
In the Pershing example, you can start with a map of result -> good, (intended by the soldier):
[soldiers died ---> -10, not intended enemy soldiers died --> -10, intended families lose soldiers on both sides --> -20, mixed create example of self-sacrifice --> +1, not intended create example of tragedy in the face of hunger for glory --> +1, not intended ]
Obviously I pulled the numbers of of nowhere, but I hope they won't be too controversial since it seems you have already conceded that the deaths of the soldiers was a overwhelming net loss.
It seems like the algorithm most of us are using is to sum up the good "units" and see whether it comes out positive in order to determine whether "they were doing good."
It seems like the algorithm you're using is to go into each of those results and regardless of whether the result was intended or not, if the result is positive and the soldier intended something good (regardless of whether that intention is similar to the result or not), then "they were doing good."
Does that sound about right?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you keep saying. Are you not noticing that your explanation of why *you* think so convinces no-one else that it is also correct.
Considering I'm discussing this with *checks* three people right now, and even then there have been some meetings of the mind with Mucus, I don't think this is as damning as you seem to.
quote: But as you said, I brought up real points that you surprisingly agreed with... because I really thought they made it clear that your conclusion didn't hold up. I still don't see why they don't demolish your position. Unless you are simply arguing that the senseless deaths of soldiers has "an effect," albeit, any effect whatsoever on anything, at which point there's no real argument there. We're talking about this specific case, so it had an effect- multiple effects in fact, but how could you possible hope to ever establish that those effects were a net good, or even good at all?
How many time do I have to explain that I don't think and am not suggesting that I think these things result in a net good, Orincoro?
I do not think and I am not suggesting that the death of Pershing's soldiers and their enemies just after the end of WWI resulted in a net good.
Is that clear enough for you to stop bringing up 'net good' as a sticking point? I certainly hope so.
As for it resulting in any good at all, I've already been over that as well: I think intentions matter, and even absent tangible results, intentions can still have an impact. I used the example of someone sympathizing with another person, and that second person feeling better at least a tiny bit because of it. Mucus, at least, doesn't appear to think my argument is rancid spaghetti or sky-oceans or whatnot. He doesn't agree with me, but I'm not asking him to. Or you. A simple refraining from misstating my arguments would suffice.
To put it plainly, Orincoro, given your demonstrated inability or unwillingness to actually respond to the arguments I'm making (net good being the most striking example), all I can do is return your accusations back at you.
----
Mucus,
quote:I'm just confused now then. I had thought that you were describing a scenario where a corrupt priest steals a your donation from the offering bowl. Your donation effectively creates no real-world result but it seemed that your argument was that your intent to donate made that a "good" action.
Hmm. Let me try recasting the situation this way.
1. Offering of service, be it charity or soldiery. 2. Acceptance of that service, by a priest, red cross worker, or general. 3. Use of that service.
#3 is where the most perfidy can sneak in, obviously. The use of the service can be mismanaged through incompetence. For example, too much money spent on administration in charity, or in military affairs during WWI, the continued use of trench warfare being another example.
It can be actually stolen or perverted. For example, the charity worker takes the money and spends it for a purely selfish purpose. Buys a new Lexus, for example, and drives around town. Or ignores lawful orders and launches a military attack during a cease-fire for a much, much more horrible example.
Or it can be used as it was given. The charitable contribution is used to help a family get some much-needed food, or get their car repaired. Or a general uses the service of the soldiers to execute a strategically brilliant attack, bringing a war begun by an aggressive, land-grabbing enemy to an early conclusion.
My belief, for religious and practical reasons, is that #1, if it is good, remains good even if #3 is horribly twisted away from the good purpose into evil. In fact, that #1 and #3 are necessarily separate, though not by much. My belief most definitely isn't that good intent on the part of #1 is sufficient to overcome any degree of perfidy on the part of #3.
That's why I was likening Pershing's awful action to charitable contribution to a church. Does that make sense?
As for why I think #1 can possibly be good in and of itself, I believe I've explained that as well. Did my rephrasing communicate meaning better this time around?
ETA:
Yes, Mucus, that's precisely what I was trying to get at:) Thanks for putting it in terms so easily understood-did a better job than I did, certainly!
quote:It seems like the algorithm you're using is to go into each of those results and regardless of whether the result was intended or not, if the result is positive and the soldier intended something good (regardless of whether that intention is similar to the result or not), then "they were doing good."
Well, it depends to me on whose point of view you're looking out of. In the Pershing example, for instance, I would say of the soldiers themselves, "They were doing good," even though the net result was very bad. I would say something very, very different of Pershing himself, though, even when speaking about the same events.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
), but I do believe it in a practical sense as well.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
