[deleted]
Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments
41–50 of 338 posts
Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's say you grow up in a poor community where murders happen often but are not often solved. You don't trust the police to serve justice to those who have wronged you. You notice that many of your neighbors solve their problems themselves - by fighting, threatening, killing. People often heckle you because you try to not fight back when people pick on you - there's a culture of toughness and honor all around you. N…
Doesn't that classify as self-defense?
IIUC self-defense does not extend to the defense of others, and it applies only when there's an imminent threat to your person. If somebody hurts you and then next week you go over to their house and shoot them dead, it's 1st-degree premeditated murder.
Beyond the legal issues, you can get into all sorts of moral issues once you consider uncertainty, culture, and history. Say your sister is in an abusive relationship, and has been beaten severely enough on multiple occasions that you fear for her life. She refuses to go to the police, as many domestic violence victims do. Are you justified in going over to their house and shooting her husband dead? What if you happen to be visiting, but arrive to find him with her hands on her throat, choking her to death? Both scenarios are highly illegal and will get you charged with murder, but morally, many people would have a lot of sympathy for someone in that situation.
Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments
#43I believe the author's hypothesis is probably correct. It seems the only way to avoid the "well my case is different; violence is justified in this situation because..."-bias is to instill or promote a common moral that "violence is not okay – ever". It's the only way you can be sure that you're not falling into the same biases that our "enemies" have fallen into. The more I learn about cognitive biases, the more I t…
> The more I learn about cognitive biases, the more I think they're probably the cause of almost all interpersonal conflict in modern society
Whereas the more I understand about affective impulses, the more I think they're definitely the root cause of all interpersonal conflicts in any society.
There is no doubt that cognitive biases play a part, but they ultimately hinge on -- and stem from -- the affective impulses.
Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments
#44Some personal philosophy (as if the Internet needs more): I always watch out for the dogmatic idealogues, the ones without moderation. You can identify them when they say that the welfare of others, often including their lives, should be sacrificed to the idealogue's cause - and of course the others should have no say in it. Pragmatism and humility are the wisest forms of morality. There should always be something hi…
That doesn't make any sense. "There should always be something higher than your ideals and goals" is a contradiction; if there were something higher, it'd become your ideal or goal.
It seems especially incongruous to suggest that I should be putting other people's ideals over my own. Just how would you propose anybody accomplish such a thing? How is anybody supposed to make the best possible decisions when they are to assume that only someone else could make better decisions? That's idiotic.
And why would you ask anyone to place self-determination above their own ideals? Despite the fact that this is a contradiction as I mentioned above, it isn't a thing worthy of intrinsic praise. Self determination isn't good unless you're determined to do good, and determined enough to actually do what it takes to achieve your ideals. So it can't be above your ideals.
>Unless you are God, you should hesitate to sacrifice others based on your judgement.
Most of those that do will hesitate. But they'll end up sacrificing them anyway, and you'll still be lambasting them for their short-sightedness, because you can't understand the scope of that hesitation from atop your pedestal. Of course, you can see just fine in hind-sight. That's not really a talent.
All in all, you're just saying "People are morally corrupt unless they do what I think is right," which is exactly the same thing they'd say about you. What you offer isn't a solution, it's a complete failure to understand the conflict.
Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments
#45A pastor of mine once talked about this in context of Martin Luther and Zwingli ( in context of the Kappel Wars ), and talked about how violence is often the moral outgrowth of those who have grown so assured of their righteousness (in a Christian context) that they felt they could not sin by committing violence. He pointed to Matthew 5:21-26 and 5:38-47 (The Sermon on the Mount) to bolster his argument against viole…
> violence is often the moral outgrowth of those who have grown so assured of their righteousness I like that. This idea is also present in Buddhism, though they take it a step further and say that all suffering (everything from external violence to internal dissatisfaction with life) is caused by some form of judgment. They say the same thing that you mentioned above: violence is caused by the judgment, "I am right,…
I'm not sure that I expressed myself the best above based on your response, but partly that's because of the difficulty in discussing topics like this across religious traditions.
I would disagree that violence is caused by the judgement, 'you are right, I am wrong'. I think that violence is ultimately caused by sin, vis a vis Augustinian total depravity. But the justification for violence, often among Christians, is self-righteousness (or put another way, pride).
But again, this is a difficult issue to discuss between religions because the basic assumptions are different and terminology has slightly different meanings.
Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments
#46Maybe for high profile terrorism, but what about the more common petty street crime like muggings? I don't buy that is motivated by some high minded morality. Rather it seems like a rational and greedy calculation made by those with not much to lose.
Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's say you grow up in a poor community where murders happen often but are not often solved. You don't trust the police to serve justice to those who have wronged you. You notice that many of your neighbors solve their problems themselves - by fighting, threatening, killing. People often heckle you because you try to not fight back when people pick on you - there's a culture of toughness and honor all around you. N…
Doesn't that classify as self-defense?
I think the word you're looking for is "vendetta", or "revenge", and generally isn't considered a valid legal defense for violence.
If I find out that someone punched my kid, I'm not allowed to drive to their house with a baseball bat and hit them with it. If I happen to be carrying a bat, and someone starts punching me, I'm _probably_ allowed to use it for defense ... but I am not a lawyer and there are many nuances there as well. :)
Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments
#48One of the most perennially popular courses at my alma mater was entitled "Murder". It was an exploration of the moral justification behind state-sponsored violence, from capital punishment to war to genocide. The realization that most violence is morally motivated comes with interesting quandaries when you consider what the response to such violence should be. Say that society successfully develops the norm that vio…
> What do you do with people who do not agree with this norm? Are you justified in using force against them?
Annoyingly enough, the Quakers -- despite being doctrinaire pacifists in all other areas -- answered this question with a resounding "yes". Flogging, stocks, and various other brutalities (I don't remember if they used capital punishment, but I think they did) were routine in colonial Pennsylvania...
Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't that classify as self-defense?
IIUC self-defense does not extend to the defense of others, and it applies only when there's an imminent threat to your person. If somebody hurts you and then next week you go over to their house and shoot them dead, it's 1st-degree premeditated murder. Beyond the legal issues, you can get into all sorts of moral issues once you consider uncertainty, culture, and history. Say your sister is in an abusive relationship…
Defense-of-others, strictly speaking, is not the same as self-defense, but they're discussed in the same breath and generally legislated together, and usable in the same circumstances. Thus references to one are generally read as encompassing both.
You would indeed be justified in shooting the husband if you stumbled upon him choking her to death (in most jurisdictions), but not if you just expected it to happen eventually.
Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments
#50What is the opposing hypothesis here? That violence happens in a morally neutral setting? How would you define morally neutral? Could you make a claim, for example, that a bank robber is motivated by morality (the bank robber believes that robbing the bank is the morally correct thing to do - to redistribute wealth to himself?) Under what circumstances would that NOT be the case? Would the bank robber have to say, "w…
Opposing hypotheses: that violence is a choice driven by self interest; that violence happens when someone is angry enough they don't think things through; that violence is an expression of some primal instinct. I think all of these are somewhat defensible: the bank robber motivated by self interest; assaults driven by personal arguments; drunken street-fights. But I think the article is very interesting and possibly…
What about the scenario in which a person sees a child being sexually assaulted and intervenes? This is certainly not self-interest on the part of the rescuer, other than satisfying a deeply-held moral conviction. It may also be well thought-out. For example, my children have never been raped but I know I would use lethal force if necessary to prevent it.
Even violence based on self-interest is ultimately grounded in morality. For example, if one has a right to life, self-defense is morally justified and murder is wrong. Both are motivated by self-interest (one licit, the other illicit).
If violence does not contain some moral component, then we're stuck with very bizarre consequences (e.g., genocide and violently stopping genocide are on equally amoral footing).