Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments • Hacker News Board

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#91

Post by tedks » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 1:11 AM UTC

Retra wrote: post #44

hackuser wrote: post #11

Some 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 t…

Well said. The implicit assumption in "There should always be something higher than your ideals and goals" is that the status quo should always be maintained. Any goal or idea that disrupts business-as-usual is obviously wrong because changing anything, taking any action is wrong, not because the result of the action is bad but because nobody save the invisible maintainers of control should be agents of change.

This is top-down, hierarchical society at its finest.

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#92

Post by dnautics » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 1:12 AM UTC

kej wrote: post #8

wavefunction wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to laugh when I read your post because you use "redistribute wealth" to refer to bank robbery. I have to imagine you have likely referred to taxation as "theft" at least once.

I'm gonna guess that PhDs working on non-profit public domain cancer research probably don't overlap all that much with the taxation-is-theft crowd.

Surprise! I am in that camp (sort of; I think individual income taxes are bad, but not corporate taxes, or tariffs - as long as they are indiscriminate and not used as a tool for social engineering). I'm not that dogmatic about it, there are far worse things that states do.

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#93

Post by dnautics » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 1:15 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #52

sp332 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The non-profit is presumably tax-exempt, which doesn't help your point.

Honestly though, non-profit public domain cancer research should be tax-supported.

why should it be? I'm okay with not being tax-supported.

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#94

Post by dnautics » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 1:19 AM UTC

kej wrote: post #79

wavefunction wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part is supposed to convince me otherwise? The PhD? Non-profit public domain cancer research? There's nothing inherent in either of those personal qualities to suggest such. I have never heard anyone refer to theft as "redistributing wealth" without corresponding usages of "taxation = theft."

I just meant that working in the non-profit sector and working on public domain research generally coincide with wanting to benefit society at the expense of your own bank account, whereas the taxes are theft people would usually preserve their own bank account at the expense of society.

You should check your assumptions. There are plenty of people who are opposed to public (as in state-sponsored) good works that think it should be done publically (as in out in the open) through private funding.

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

-Frederic Bastiat, ca. 1850

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#95

Post by stcredzero » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 1:28 AM UTC

I find that the most anti-intellectualism, cheap-shot emotional abuse, and stereotyping on the Internet is motivated by moral sentiments through online pseudo "activists" who are really working out their anger and self-esteem issues under the supposed imprimatur of one cause or another. This goes for select subsets of both ends of the political spectrum, and select subgroups on both sides of any hot-button issue.

Attention is the currency of the Internet, and outrage is the easiest way to get it. Underlying most forms of injustice, especially systemic injustice, is the psychology of "othering." Any group that says it is furthering a cause of justice, but which does not go to careful lengths to check the natural tendency of groups to out-group outsiders, is a corrupt doppleganger, buying online social currency with the coin of outrage. Such groups do not heal society, but harm it, regardless of the ideology or cause they espouse.

There is no major cause which is free of such intellectually malformed pseudo-activisism. Neither are there any significant causes that are entirely formed of such. Calling out such hateivism should not be seen as taking or opposing a particular side. Activism worthy of the name should fight such hateivism done in its name. Those who would knowingly exploit such tendencies for more social currency and expanded membership are not worthy of the name activism.

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#96

Post by rosser » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 1:38 AM UTC

pekk wrote: post #77

russnewcomer wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Where "sin" means essentially not being Christian enough, I am skeptical that the correct diagnosis for violence is "sin" when people who identify as Christian do not seem especially less likely to commit violence than people who identify as adhering to some other worldview with moral entailments. Frankly, if you want everyone else to believe that Christians are less violent than people of other religions, you have t…

This is neither constructive, nor based on anything that your comment's parent's author has said anywhere in this discussion.

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#97

Post by foxylad » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 1:53 AM UTC

clock_tower wrote: post #48

nostrademons wrote: post #37

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? 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...

Quaker here. I can't speak for Pennsylvanian quakers two centuries ago, but I'm very surprised to hear about stocks and flogging in a Quaker context. To be clear, Quakers renounce all violence, including against those who perpetrate it.

The central tenet of our faith is that there is that of god in every person, so it follows directly that violence against any person is violence against god, and therefore unacceptable. Quakers have put their money and actions where their mouth is - they have always rejected capital punishment, and have been very active in prison reform since the 1800s. They set up the Friend's Ambulance Unit so they could serve during the Second World War. Quakers also recognise that there are many forms of violence, and sponsor the Alternatives to Violence Program (AVP) training for schoolkids.

To get back to the original question about dealing with violent people, of course you need to use force against them, to prevent them doing more violence. But that force should be as non-violent as possible, to make it clear that society's norms are intact. Norway's treatment of Anders Breivik is inspirational - it is clear that his incarceration is in no way violent - there is no element of revenge, much to many people's fury. But imagine a Breivik sympathiser - seeing a civilised society treating him in a civilised way leaves very little to spur them on to similar acts.

And what about Daesh? They have successfully used resentment against the violence done to muslims to build a society where violence is the norm. This is not sustainable - it won't be long before the flood of recruits reverses, as they discover what arbitrary violence means to them and their loved ones.

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#98

Post by nerfhammer » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 2:02 AM UTC

clock_tower wrote: post #90

vkou wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of the Aztecs, they quite arguably happened to run into someone even more destructive, punitive, insular, judging, self-righteous, and violent then they were.

Cortez and his 300-odd men could never have taken down the Aztecs, were it not for how all their neighbors hated them so passionately that they'd rather be ruled by smelly, strange-looking, gold-hungry space aliens.

Far more important were the western diseases they had no idea they were carrying

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#99

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 2:03 AM UTC

pekk wrote: post #77

russnewcomer wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Where "sin" means essentially not being Christian enough, I am skeptical that the correct diagnosis for violence is "sin" when people who identify as Christian do not seem especially less likely to commit violence than people who identify as adhering to some other worldview with moral entailments. Frankly, if you want everyone else to believe that Christians are less violent than people of other religions, you have t…

[deleted]

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#100

Post by panic » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 2:09 AM UTC

Retra wrote: post #44

hackuser wrote: post #11

Some 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 t…

"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's only a contradiction if you're aware of what that higher something is. Part of humility is realizing there are things you don't know. Your ideals and goals are imperfect, and will change over your lifetime. Why didn't you choose the "highest" ideals to begin with?