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

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

#241

Post by jsprogrammer » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 5:03 PM UTC

mercer wrote: post #235

jsprogrammer wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In the same way that a parent getting angry can sometimes be more effective than a parent logically dishing out an appropriate punishment There is no way to know if that statement is ever true.

Perhaps not, but at least from personal experience it can be made plausible. The handful of times that my actions caused one or both of my parents to 'lose their shit' (and at times even apologize for that later) are etched in my mind, deservedly so, and they kept me from ever doing that particular thing again. In contrast, the vast majority of other things I was punished for required repeat offenses and repeated and…

It's not necessarily outrageous, it just seems that you are basing further reasoning upon that proposition. The problem is that you can't ever verify that proposition, which means you can't ever verify any thing else that is reasoned on top of it (so, why not try to find reasonings that can be verified (or, at least, nullified)).

I'm not sure what the right answer (if there even is one) in this situation is, but one interesting thought I had while reading your most recent comment:

>The handful of times that my actions caused one or both of my parents to 'lose their shit' (and at times even apologize for that later) are etched in my mind, deservedly so, and they kept me from ever doing that particular thing again. In contrast, the vast majority of other things I was punished for required repeat offenses and repeated and increasing punishment before I cleaned up my act.

Was:

One way to resolve this with the original statement ("In the same way that a parent getting angry can sometimes be more effective than a parent logically dishing out an appropriate punishment") is to say that your parents losing their shit over your behavior was the logical punishment. :)

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

#242

Post by breischl » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 5:09 PM UTC

kaonashi wrote: post #234

tomjen3 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The topic is about violence. Feminists aren't violent; in fact they're a reaction against gender-based violence. This is board with many nerds. It is fair to say that we have all been bullied to some degree. Bullying may not be violent to the degree that it physically hits people over the head, but it is far more violent than anything feminism complains about. And Doctor Matt Taylor was bullied for what clothing he…

> Bullying may not be violent to the degree that it physically hits people over the head Then it isn't violence. Bullying implies violence. You're describing something else.

>>Bullying implies violence.

That is incorrect. Dictionary definition: "Persistent acts intended to make life unpleasant for another person."

So if I followed you around HN for the rest of the week responding to all postings/comments with insults and browbeating, that would be completely non-violent but still bullying.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/bullying

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

#243

Post by kej » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 5:12 PM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #92

kej wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mea culpa. While my general experience doesn't show much overlap between the groups, my making assumptions about you was just as wrong as the other guy making assumptions about you.

Carry on with your interesting research, whatever your opinions on taxation.

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

#244

Post by humanrebar » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 5:15 PM UTC

gjm11 wrote: post #212

ordinary wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, thank you for your contributions to this thread. They've been very interesting. I noticed a couple of points in this post that I would like some clarification on, if you have the time and inclination. Christians are supposed to submit to their government, even oppressive ones. There are quite a few references for this (b) (c). Finding more examples isn't difficult if you want more. Where does this senti…

> Is an atheist sinful by definition ? In typical Christian theology, everyone is sinful -- "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", "If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves", etc. As to whether not being Christian is itself a variety of sin, or makes you especially bad, or guarantees damnation rather than salvation, the tradition (even the particularly important subset of it called the Bible) is n…

> ...one of St Paul's letters speculates that pagans' consciences will "accuse or perhaps excuse" them when they are judged

The Bible is clear that Christ himself will judge the good and the bad in the afterlife (a) (b). Those with faith in Christ believe His decisions will be ultimately fair.

The ideas that there are many ways to God or that 'try your best' is good enough is absolutely not supported in scripture (c), though the idea that there's no specific action or ritual that earns salvation is certainly supported (d). Sometimes the people confuse verses that downplay the importance of rituals to also downplay the importance of Christ himself.

Why would Jesus leave perfection in heaven and die a painful death if His death was not strictly necessary? And then why would He command His followers to make disciples of all the Earth?

That point of view doesn't make sense to me from a Biblical perspective. But, then again, people are free to not believe in the Bible, at least in this life.

(a) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+5...

(b) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:21-...

(c) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A13-...

(d) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A8...

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

#245

Post by billmalarky » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 5:15 PM UTC

throwaway7767 wrote: post #190

rustynails wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know what you're saying but it isn't true. Let's look at 2 examples, the LGBT community and Feminism. LGBT celebrates its differences. It welcomes everyone. It is open minded and tolerant. Feminism bullies, ridicules, excludes, creates us/them divides and is continually hypocritical. You could not have 2 more different different approaches. You don't need to be a bully. You don't need to threaten or ridicule or div…

Now you're elevating a vocal subset of "feminists" to represent the entire group. There are plenty of old-school feminists, from when feminism was about equal rights. They just don't create as much internet drama as the other kind, so you hear about them less.

The extremist/radical subset aren't just overly "vocal" though. Their behavior causes real world negative consequences for a lot of people (women and men). That's pretty hard to just shrug off. Like it or not, they appear to be the face of the modern feminist movement. Radical islam has the same issue. Is radicalism the minority? Or course. But when the media (social or mainstream) continues to shove the radical message in people's face over and over... well you know.

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

#246

Post by notdonspaulding » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 5:17 PM UTC

Grue3 wrote: post #192

humanrebar wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where "sin" means essentially not being Christian enough... "sin" in Christian theology is disobedience (and therefore rebellion) against God. Defining it as "not being Christian enough" is problematic for at least two reasons: 1. If people self-identify as Christian, how do we identify the liars and the self-deluded? 2. If we can't trust people to identify themselves properly, how do we identify each other as Chri…

This entire post is an amazing textbook example of "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

This is my least favorite logical fallacy, because it's misapplied as an argumentative shortcut in almost every case, including this one.

In particular, with No True Scotsman being flung about as carelessly as it is these days, there's no way for any group to exclude certain positions or ideas as outside their own.

As an example, the US Army has certain eligibility requirements regarding age, citizenship, and physical fitness. Imagine an ISIL member dresses in fatigues, goes into a shopping mall, and blows himself up. The news headlines might read "Suicide bomber was Army Soldier".

Under most applications of No True Scotsman I see today, any attempt by the Army to differentiate themselves from the terrorist would be met with howls of "No True Scotsman!".

Indeed, even if the terrorist was active duty Army, I believe the Army should have able to claim, "This action and these beliefs are demonstrably inconsistent with ours as a group." but that too would be met with "No True Scotsman!".

It seems to me that the logical conclusion of this line of reasoning leaves mankind with no ability to organize itself in groups around certain ideas without also allowing anyone to define the group as they see fit.

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

#247

Post by mercer » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 5:18 PM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #241

mercer wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps not, but at least from personal experience it can be made plausible. The handful of times that my actions caused one or both of my parents to 'lose their shit' (and at times even apologize for that later) are etched in my mind, deservedly so, and they kept me from ever doing that particular thing again. In contrast, the vast majority of other things I was punished for required repeat offenses and repeated and…

It's not necessarily outrageous, it just seems that you are basing further reasoning upon that proposition. The problem is that you can't ever verify that proposition, which means you can't ever verify any thing else that is reasoned on top of it (so, why not try to find reasonings that can be verified (or, at least, nullified)). I'm not sure what the right answer (if there even is one) in this situation is, but one…

Ah, I see what you're getting at.

It was just one example, but I could name many others like it. From the discussions I've had with friends over issues where clearly my or their getting 'upset' effectively ended the discourse and made both of us 'dig in', to situations with colleagues where my or their increasingly forceful insistence only led to the opposite outcome. In most cases my experience has been, over and over again, that most of the time, once civility and a certain emotional distance is abandoned, the outcome suffers from it, often for both parties.

That said, I think you make a good point. There's a time and place for abandoning civility, and I do occasionally feel that also here on HN civility is used defensively for the wrong purposes. I'm inclined to think the dangers of abandoning this 'civility' are greater on HN and other internet forums than their benefits, in part because HN is one of the few places where I still feel there's worthwhile discussion going on, and I want it to remain that way. I've found myself reading, say, /r/programming threads where I was surprised by the high amount of memes, personal attacks and/or knee-jerk comments because I thought I was on HN. I've left a number of forums in my lifetime because they turned to shit because of toxic members. That's the main reason why I err on the side of civility.

But, again, all that said, I do agree with you, and you provided a valuable counterpoint that I haven't considered in a while. Sometimes losing your shit is the right thing, and just as much as I don't want to be a reactionary, knee-jerk, over-emotional commenter, I also don't want err toward the opposite end of the spectrum.

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

#248

Post by ksk » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 5:19 PM UTC

chroma wrote: post #21

dnautics wrote: post #3

What 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…

I'm also not sure what sort of violence the author would classify as not motivated by morality. From the article: > ISIL members believe they are morally justified and obligated to commit acts of terror, while US soldiers accept some loss of civilian lives to achieve the deaths of those terrorists. In all of these scenarios, the violent act is perceived by the perpetrator as virtuous. In the case of ISIS, the author…

> In other words, if they had more accurate weaponry and better information, they would harm fewer innocent people.

That already exists. You could send someone to assassinate that single person. So yeah, some soldier would have to risk their life (kinda what the profession is about), but the innocent civilians won't have to pay with their lives.

Also, using the same logic, if a few serial killers are hiding somewhere in an apartment complex, why doesn't the government bomb the neighborhood?

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

#249

Post by squozzer » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 5:22 PM UTC

A more fundamental question is why morality - especially the kind that allows for violence against non-followers - exists at all.

I hypothesize that morality was initially invented to subdue the masses into servitude - obey the alpha male, and slay those who do not. The logical next step would be to consider outsiders as disobedient to the alpha male until they accept his rule.

Religions are essentially this principle, with supernatural being(s) as the ultimate alphas, and prophets as their messengers.

Ideologies do away with supernatural beings, maybe replacing anthropomorphic gods with "forces of history", e.g. Dialectical Materialism or Manifest Destiny, and replace prophets with destined / enlightened rulers.

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

#250

Post by tangent128 » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 5:28 PM UTC

breischl wrote: post #242

kaonashi wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bullying may not be violent to the degree that it physically hits people over the head Then it isn't violence. Bullying implies violence. You're describing something else.

>>Bullying implies violence. That is incorrect. Dictionary definition: "Persistent acts intended to make life unpleasant for another person." So if I followed you around HN for the rest of the week responding to all postings/comments with insults and browbeating, that would be completely non-violent but still bullying. https://www.wordnik.com/words/bullying

Dictionary definitions inherently lag behind practical usage; I would have no problem classifying harassment as a non-physical class of violence.

Especially given cases where it can be more damaging to a person than physical assaults against their meat.