quote:the definition of violence I am using is that of physical force to cause injury or harm.
Let me point out that performing surgery falls within this definition. Cutting into somebody's flesh is injuring their body. The fact that it's ultimately done to help doesn't make that injury nonexistent.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think "net harm" isn't helpful either...violence is about "harmful intent through the use of force" although that doesn't even cover it properly, as if someone breaks into my house and has a weapon, and I shoot them, my intent is not to harm them, but to stop them from harming my family.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there were a way to stop them without harming them, all things being otherwise equal, would you choose that instead? Why?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If there were a way to stop them without harming them, all things being otherwise equal, would you choose that instead? Why?
but this wouldn't prove that violence is inherently evil. Inherent in your question there already exists a relative value judgment. One that says that not causing harm is preferable to causing harm to bring about the same end, all things being equal. That causing harm is a worse course of action. But not necessarily an evil one. It just exists lower on the scale of "right" actions.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But all things are otherwise never equal. Strange but true, beanbag (non/less lethal) shotgun ammo is illegal in my state. Just a funny side note.
On my tactical vest, I have a stungun (which actually doesn't project, so why is it called a gun?) and pepper spray, as well as extra mags etc. If there was someone in my house I would likely use the nonlethal weapons if I saw they were unarmed. But in this example, the intruder is armed, and I am not going to add extra risk to my own life in trying to prevent harm to an intruder.
I would demand they drop the weapon and kick it to me, and put their hands up and get on their knees. If they complied I would ziptie their hands and call the cops, using zero violence. And if instead of complying they made me feel even a little threatened I would shoot them to disable them, that is, per my training, twice in center mass and once in the head.
Or to put it in general terms, as long as I felt I and my family was safe I would do everything in my power to not use violence.
Please answer my question though...if I did shoot an armed intruder in my home, how is it evil?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why is causing harm lower on the scale of "right" actions?
Because harm causes pain and suffering to the one at the receiving end of it. This lowers their state of well being. Also, given human psychology and our social evolutionary history, reducing someone else's well being through your actions lowers your own possible well being, because you are not acting in ways to maximize your ontological nature. It implies you have no regard for the well being of others or the effect of your actions. It is a way of interacting with the world that precludes you from developing into or becoming a person with certain values and virtues that would take me some time to defend as being values and virtues we should hold.
None of this makes violence inherently evil. It doesn't even make it inherently "wrong" if we'd rather not throw around the word evil. It makes violence qualifyingly wrong. It makes it a sub-optimal choice for action given other choices in certain situations.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why is causing harm lower on the scale of "right" actions?
Because harm causes pain and suffering to the one at the receiving end of it. This lowers their state of well being. Also, given human psychology and our social evolutionary history, reducing someone else's well being through your actions lowers your own possible well being, because you are not acting in ways to maximize your ontological nature. It implies you have no regard for the well being of others or the effect of your actions. It is a way of interacting with the world that precludes you from developing into or becoming a person with certain values and virtues that would take me some time to defend as being values and virtues we should hold.
And that is bad?
quote:
None of this makes violence inherently evil. It doesn't even make it inherently "wrong" if we'd rather not throw around the word evil. It makes violence qualifyingly wrong. It makes it a sub-optimal choice for action given other choices in certain situations.
Why is it "sub-optimal" if there is no "bad" in harm?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say there was no "bad" in harm. Just that causing harm isn't inherently bad (as in the case of removing a bullet from a wound).
The furthest I'd be willing to meet you is to say that causing unjustified harm is inherently wrong (I don't believe in evil). But even that isn't exactly accurate to my philosophy. I don't think black and white pronouncements about good and evil, right and wrong, are very useful. And since my own philosophy has been moving away from judging actions as right or wrong to a philosophy where the locus of evaluation is the person, it's actually impossible for me to say that any given action is inherently wrong, since I'm concerned with the person committing the action. Actions are just events in the world, it's the people committing those actions that we judge. And we judge them based on the results of their actions, why they did those actions, etc...
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boots: are you backing down from your earlier claim that violence is inherently evil, as opposed to being evil because of the harm that it causes?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyone else notice how Boots is only asking questions and ignoring questions to her?
Sometimes these conversations remind me of a judo match, where a common tactic is to get the other one to commit too much and then use that against them.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
m_p_h Agreed...which is a shame, as there is no reason for these discussions to be so adversarial.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone_Wolf: I think Porter was saying that while Kate recently posted myriad responses to multiple posters. Her not getting to yours is not indicative of cowardice or apathy. I stopped responding to what she has written for a time because I need time to sit and craft a good response, and I don't have the appropriate time to do so.
In my particular circumstance it's because I was just giving a project at work to complete and I've been hard at work on it. I just took a 30 second break, and that was enough to craft *this* response and catch up on the thread. I'm going back to work now, but I can think of a multitude of reasons why Kate might not respond to your post the rest of the day, or even tomorrow, and the day after, all without having any sort of negative strike on her as a person. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: I would never take silence as a negative, people have lives. But when people respond to a post which has a question in it, and completely ignore that question, and instead of answering that question ask one themselves, more then once, it gets old.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Stone_Wolf: I think Porter was saying that while Kate recently posted myriad responses to multiple posters. Her not getting to yours is not indicative of cowardice or apathy.
I was saying absolutely nothing about Boots.
I was commenting that that the behavior Boots is accused of is pretty commonly used as a tactic in these conversations.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
So anyway, I think we can all agree that this flogging scenario probably will never happen, at least not in the foreseeable future.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
No computer at home. Hard to post from phone. I will get to you all tomorrow. Srone wolf, it is bad but less bad than allowing the greater violence. And you dodged my all things being equal question. Poter, how do you separate doing harm from the harm it causes?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boots: I asked why it was evil...saying it's bad doesn't answer the question...and I don't think I did dodge it, I said I would try and not use violence if possible. As to why...because an appropriate punishment for trespassing isn't getting shot in the face, so if there is a chance someone just pulled a bone head move I want to try and give them a chance to be arrested and face the law instead of their maker.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone Wolf, let's say that we start with zero unit of harm. An intruder comes into your home intending to cause 50 units of harm. You stop him by causing 10 units of harm to him. We are not at zero anymore; we are at 10 units of harm. That is better than the 50, but it is still harm. Those 10 units were necessary but still harmful. Does that make more sense? If harm weren't bad, you wouldn't worry about an appropriate response because why wouldn't you shoot someone in the face if harming him isn't a bad thing.
mph, if I kick someone, my action is bad and so is the bruise that is a consequence of my bad act.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm flogging? Flogging leaves marks and scars. It would only be a matter of time before the ACLU jumped all over that because a guy that was flogged for a crime felt uncomfortable taking his shirt off at the pool for fear of what people will think of him.
I vote for indian burns. They hurt like hell and don't really leave a mark. Excuse me while I go patent a design for an indian burn machine.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boots, you claimed that all violence is evil, that is, morally bad, wrong, wicked, but that sometimes it is necessary.
I'm saying that violence is only an action, neither good nor evil in and of itself and the morality depends on the circumstance.
So in your example, I have done 10 units of evil to the armed intruder, who planned on doing 50 units of evil to me (nevermind that breaking into someone's home is already evil). I don't buy it.
Harm ≠ evil.
If a swimmer gets a leg cramp in the ocean and is harmed by the sea water flowing into his lungs and causing his death, he is harmed by the sea, but the sea is not evil.
If you are in a car accident caused by mechanical failure and you are thrashed around, violently, it is not evil. Simply unfortunate.
I get your point that harming other humans is not a good thing in and of itself, but sometimes it's better then whatever alternative you are trying to prevent. But please understand people here are not going to agree with you that violence is evil, because evil is about morality and morality requires circumstance.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Hmmm flogging? Flogging leaves marks and scars. It would only be a matter of time before the ACLU jumped all over that because a guy that was flogged for a crime felt uncomfortable taking his shirt off at the pool for fear of what people will think of him.
I vote for indian burns. They hurt like hell and don't really leave a mark. Excuse me while I go patent a design for an indian burn machine.
You mean scars like this? Yes, that could be a problem at the pool.
posted
Stone-Wolf, I have acknowledged (from the start) that sometimes violence is necessary and you admit that it is not a good thing. How is that different from it being a bad thing? And how is bad different in your mind from evil?
The sea water has no intent. Nor does the car.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a difference between doing violence is a bad thing in and of itself and violence is bad.
The end result of violence can often be a very good thing.
The difference between bad and evil is that bad is without morality, bad is what food turns if you leave it out, bad is an unfortunate unpreventable tragedy, bad is no judgment, it just is.
Evil is a moral judgement, and while it is bad, bad is not always evil, just as milk is a drink but not all drinks are milk.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, had I said "necessary bad" instead of the more typical "necessary evil" you would have agreed? If so, consider it done. Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Hmmm flogging? Flogging leaves marks and scars. It would only be a matter of time before the ACLU jumped all over that because a guy that was flogged for a crime felt uncomfortable taking his shirt off at the pool for fear of what people will think of him.
I vote for indian burns. They hurt like hell and don't really leave a mark. Excuse me while I go patent a design for an indian burn machine.
You mean scars like this? Yes, that could be a problem at the pool.
Exactly. I know some would say "The scars will be a reminder for them not to commit any more crimes." While I think those that break the law should be punished, I am not comfortable with causing physical disfiguration that will stay with a person for the rest of their life.
Whipping them and causing these scars is just a step below cutting off fingers for stealing. I guess they could get around it by saying that the person actually chose that as their punishment that as such knew the consequences, but that still doesn't make it right.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could be wrong, but I don't think scarring like that is typical of whipping...more like, someone went apesh** on that poor guy.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing in particular...I know they used to give you lashes as a standard punishment for insubordination in the sail powered navy days...
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and btw, the caption to that picture is...
quote:A whipped slave, Baton Rouge, 1863. The original caption reads: "Overseer Artayou Carrier whipped me. I was two months in bed sore from the whipping. My master come after I was whipped; he discharged the overseer...
Even in those dark days, this type of whipping was considered a firing worthy offense apparently.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone-Wolf, flogging is a brutal act. Perhaps not always as brutal as that example, but brutal nonetheless. I cannot help but belief that flogging damages the soul of both the person being flogged and the person doing the flogging.
I do not see anything good about returning to those "dark days" when flogging was a typical punishment.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I could be wrong, but I don't think scarring like that is typical of whipping...more like, someone went apesh** on that poor guy.
I suspect that a lack of medical attention afterward contributed a lot to the severity of those scars.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Oh, and btw, the caption to that picture is...
quote:A whipped slave, Baton Rouge, 1863. The original caption reads: "Overseer Artayou Carrier whipped me. I was two months in bed sore from the whipping. My master come after I was whipped; he discharged the overseer...
Even in those dark days, this type of whipping was considered a firing worthy offense apparently.
posted
Boots: Would it surprise you to know that a lot of people would find it even more soul damaging to be locked away for years at a time with many wrong doers?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That has always seemed to me to be a much more pointed argument towards reforming our prisons than instituting something like flogging.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
