61–70 of 338 posts
One 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…
There's always an excuse or twisted moral justification, which boils down to: Someone acts against my interest so I am right in doing X.
Doesn't matter if that someone is a person, the society, the state, culture or the economic system, there's always something you could come up with to direct your hatred against when life didn't work out the way you wanted it.
One 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? 'Eliezer once wrote a pretty neat sci-fi story dealing with exactly that issue. I highly recommend it; it gives a pretty nice workout for one's moral intuitions. http://lesswrong.com/lw/y4/three_worlds_collide_08/ > There are plenty of implications for startups too, many of whom would not exist without a diffe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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...
To be fair, any ideal which is unwilling to do this is likely to die out when those who are not opposed to force use force against them.
One 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…
One 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…
The article is missing the forest for the trees. It assumes morality is relative. Morality is the product of the intersection of narrative and mythology on a group. Morality is the story a particular group (or civilization) is enacting: the program they're executing. All groups hold myths. Even atheist groups hold myths. They just think their myths are just "the world" or "reality" or "how we got here". Civilizations…
This seems to be the opposite of history. Until recently, violence was one of the only ways for any civilization to persist. The advent of nuclear weapons changed that somewhat (but not if civilizations begin to use them). And most of the myths of a civilization seem to be a byproduct of their actions.
One 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…
The article is missing the forest for the trees. It assumes morality is relative. Morality is the product of the intersection of narrative and mythology on a group. Morality is the story a particular group (or civilization) is enacting: the program they're executing. All groups hold myths. Even atheist groups hold myths. They just think their myths are just "the world" or "reality" or "how we got here". Civilizations…
>"All forms of violence are a quest for identity. When you live out on the frontier you have no identity, you're a nobody. Therefore you get very tough. You have to prove that you are somebody. And so you become very violent. And so identity is always accompanied by violence. Ordinary people find the need for violence as they lose their identities. And so it is only the threat to peoples identities that makes them violent. Terrorists, hijackers, these are people minus identity. They are determined to make it somehow. To get coverage, to get noticed."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvATW2nfYZg
McLuhan defines violence very broadly, in the sense that violence means to violate boundaries. Thus he describes giving birth as violence in which the original identity is given to the individual.
Whether it is a political party, nation-state, or terrorist who uses violence, in some way or another they are seeking to establish or defend their identity. The electric media being a catalyst in all of this:
>"Any loss of identity prompts people to seek reassurance and rediscovery of themselves by testing, and even by violence. Today, the electric revolution, the wired planet, and the information environment involve everybody in everybody to the point of individual extinction."
-Letter to Clare Westcott, November 26 1975.
So, the nation-state that has a nostalgia for the "old days" and "standing for freedom" (implying a lack thereof) seeks identity through violence by invading countries "for freedom" and commits other acts of violence to "make country x great again".
Likewise the terrorist who feels their identity threatened, be it religious or sociopolitical, may seek to reestablish their identity through violence. McLuhan also notes the major role mass media outlets play in awarding terrorists and mass murders the identity they so desperately seek via 24/7 coverage and rumination.
>"Terrorism is an invention in which any two-armed people can take over an entire industry, namely television, with the eager cooperation of its owners. Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity."
-Marshall McLuhan, as quoted by Tom Wolfe
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Setting aside the question of specific methods (flogging and stocks), I don't see why you consider the idea of force being justified only in cases of retaliating against an attacker to be "annoying". Hard pacifists are extremely rare (Jainists are an exception) and more often than not set up as straw men to promote an agenda. Capital punishment's issues primarily stem from the fact that you're using an exogenous body…
What annoys me about the Quakers isn't quite what you'd thought; it's that the Quakers preached that no one should be violent (up to and including preaching peaceful resistance against military invaders), and then they turned around and practiced violence. It's like if Martin Luther King had sponsored terrorism. If you're going to preach pacifism to others, you should be pacifist at home. As it is, the Quakers feel l…
The above seems to show that Quakers resisted the use of capitol punishment and its use increased as Quaker control of the colony waned.