On 19 Mar, 16:57, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote:
> One thing I have to disagree with you on, Pat, is your seeming
> contention that people tend to view an act as good or evil depending
> on its unforeseeable consequences.
>
> Even if it turned out Fritzl's actions turned out to avert World War
> III (through some chaos theoretical, butterfly effect chain of
> events), I don't think that most people would have that change their
> view of the morality of his actions.
Perhaps not, but it would certainly bring a welcome closure to what,
otherwise, would have been viewed as largely, if not completely,
evil. ;-)
>They might be *glad* he acted as
> he did, because it averted a greater evil (by the way, I'm not sure
> that's even necessarily true - his daughter went through some pretty
> horrific stuff), but they wouldn't praise him for his actions unless
> he performed them *intending* to stop WWIII.
>
What you describe in your hypothetical is a classic unwitting
sacrifice in which an individual suffers hardship without realising
that, in the long run, it works out better for everyone. More than
likely, GIVEN the reality of perturbation theory, this kind of thing
happens every day at some level.
One of the arguments FOR his behaviour, I suppose, would be that there
are lives that exist, now, because of it and we can't state that 'they
shouldn't exist', yet that is the hidden statement when we condemn the
actions that brought them into existence. Irrespective OF his
intentions, there are, now, lives, and potentially, generations of
offspring that, in the future, WILL HAVE REQUIRED Fritzl's actions for
them (those descendants) to have any. Is it fair to those who don't
yet exist, to moralise and contend that, perhaps, it would have been
better/easier for their (great-)-great-grandmother, if they didn't
exist? Tough call and one I wouldn't want to make.
> Morality is generally seen as depending on one's knowledge and intent
> at the time of the act, not on its consequences.
>
> (Notably, there are a few exceptions. In criminal law, attempted
> murder is punished less severely than murder. I'm not sure this means
> that the system views attempted murderers as less morally culpable
> than successful murderers, but for whatever reason the difference in
> punishment is there.)
>
> On Mar 19, 6:18 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 18 Mar, 16:33, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > True, cold could exist only if hot exists. "Hot" and "cold" are
> > > cognitive constructs referring to the subjective response we all feel
> > > with respect to being in the presence of molecules whose average
> > > kinetic energy is higher or lower than a baseline number we feel as
> > > mild.
>
> > > What transcends humanity is the fact that molecules have kinetic
> > > energies. What does not transcend humanity (arguably) is "hot" and
> > > "cold." You can make arguments for "hot" and "cold" on the basis of
> > > other organisms that arguably feel. But "good" and "evil" are way too
> > > abstract, and those I think purely depend on human definition.
>
> > > re: Archy's post: In what sense do we contain evil and need a cure?
> > > From whose perspective? There's a reason some philosophers posited
> > > that humans are fundamentally good, and others posited humans are
> > > fundamentally bad. It's a definitional matter. (Unless, say, you
> > > believe in God and define good as "that of which God approves").
>
> > > Needless to say, I agree with Pat 100%. Sure, I'm a normal human
> > > being so on a visceral / colloquial level, I "feel" and "know" Mr.
> > > Fritzl is "evil." But we're not having a colloquial discussion right
> > > now. If I were talking to a friend I might say something like "Dude,
> > > that Austrian guy is so frickin eeevil." But we're having high-
> > > minded debate right now, and that won't cut it.
>
> > > Pat's key point, from my perspective, is: "Now, even I tend to coldly
> > > lump Mr. Fritzl into the category of
> > > evil, but I do so knowing that my declaration doesn't make it so."
>
> > Yup, and I KNOW that I, in true Rumsfeldian splendour, have no idea
> > of the unknowns (especially those that may take generations of
> > descendants to make evident) that might mitigate the fractional amount
> > of the 'whole truth of the situation' that we DO know. My declaration
> > of my perceptions is just that; whilst it MAY be a true revelation of
> > my perceptions, those perceptions are BOUND to be limited by the
> > amount of facts that I can gather regarding any situation and,
> > therefore, are, most likely, NOT a fair, equitable reflection of the
> > entirety of any given situation. We can't help but be limited by our
> > temporal scope; that's a no-fault situation.
>
> > > I join ornamental in asking someone to expand on why it is so obvious
> > > that good and evil precede and transcend humanity.
>
> > > I also posit this further view: Where does viewing things as "good and
> > > evil" help us, as opposed to the reductionist view that hey, people
> > > have visceral reactions borne out of a combination of brain structure,
> > > personal experience, and cultural absorption (part of experience, of
> > > course, but I'm breaking it out because it's important), and most
> > > people happen to have the same positive or negative visceral reactions
> > > to a wide array of things (e.g., everyone reacts viscerally negatively
> > > to the idea of killing a helpless baby).
>
> > Unless you tell them that it was, hypothetically, Hitler (or some
> > other generally despised historical figure). Then people queue up for
> > the job out of righteous indignation. ;-) Good and evil only exist
> > because we tend to put events into a context, which is, necessarily,
> > limited by our tenure on this planet. Put an event into its COMPLETE
> > context and you'll see just how 'required' every step was. It's like
> > the anti-teleology view in that, one simply CAN'T deduce, from the
> > middle of the story, whether or not there is an intended end.
>
> > > On Mar 17, 7:34 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Evil exists if and only if good exists. Both good and evil exist if
> > > > and only if a morality exists.<<MB
>
> > > > Does Cold exist only if Hot exists?
>
> > > > Cold and Hot exist only because we exist?
>
> > > > Good and Evil transcend that of humanity, that of human morality.
>
> > > > Good and Evil existed long before the presence of humanity and
> > > > humanity's sense of morality.
>
> > > > On Mar 17, 7:33 pm, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Evil exists if and only if good exists.
>
> > > > > Whether or not a morality exists depends purely on what one means by a
> > > > > "morality." It's a definitional question, no? Clearly, people have
> > > > > moral intuitions, reflected in emotional preferences between options -
> > > > > certain options feel "right," certain options feel "wrong."
>
> > > > > There are at least two possible preliminary definitions of evil.
> > > > > First, is it having an incorrect or backwards moral map, such that
> > > > > actions that the large majority of people view as "wrong" are instead
> > > > > viewed as right? Second, is it the ability or tendency to act
> > > > > contrary to one's moral map - i.e., to choose and actually carry out
> > > > > options that "feel" wrong?
>
> > > > > I would suggest that this discussion is best carried out by focusing
> > > > > in on which question is being asked. Does the question "Does evil
> > > > > exist" refer to the first question, or to the second, or to either?
>
> > > > > Secondarily - and this is something I will have less agreement on - I
> > > > > will suggest that the topic basically turns entirely on definitions
> > > > > and hence not much headway can be made in thinking about it. Are
> > > > > there people who consistently choose actions, a much larger percentage
> > > > > of the time than do ordinary people, that are viewed by the large
> > > > > majority of people as being wrong? Yes, of course there are such
> > > > > individuals. Are such actions evil? That depends entirely on whether
> > > > > you assign blame to them. One can feel viscerally angry with such
> > > > > people yet, from a purely logical standpoint, assign no "blame" to
> > > > > them.
>
> > > > > Of course, generally in society we do assign blame. My personal
> > > > > tendency is not to do so - I don't find it very helpful. Actions
> > > > > exist in the world, I have visceral reactions and judgments of those
> > > > > actions, but I choose not to have "rational" judgments of those
> > > > > actions. It doesn't feel to me like it gets me anywhere.
>
> > > > > On Mar 17, 4:56 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I tend to think of evil as a virus - though I don't mean I'd go
> > > > > > looking for it on the bench. We can all catch it, but probably get
> > > > > > inoculated against it too - though here we should also remember that
> > > > > > simple measures would eradicate malaria and we don't bother. I find
> > > > > > much less evil around when people will try to assess and accept
> > > > > > facts
> > > > > > and take responsibility - our machine politicians don't recognise
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > damage they do with their denials and public relations claptrap.
> > > > > > One
> > > > > > can think of us infected by a Bureaucron species from afar, but I
> > > > > > find
> > > > > > most evil is concerned with groupthink and rationalisation.
> > > > > > Disaster
> > > > > > is very close. Cracking the evil of bureaucracy requires courage,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > this in turn trumpets the existential hero, perhaps Kierkegaard or
> > > > > > Nietzsche ironically urging us to ever more holiness beyond the
> > > > > > pretences of the holy. Most of the scandals emerging in the UK at
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > moment involve bureaucratic lying by the usual suspects. We really
> > > > > > need some form of branding so we can get on with the cull.
>
> > > > > > On 17 Mar, 14:53, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I think the world had a different moral code back then. No other
> > > > > > > nation stepped up when the US was wiping out the Native American
> > > > > > > tribes. Indeed, the Canadians provided safe haven, but did not
> > > > > > > engage
> > > > > > > the Americans. The ancient Romans engaged in genocide, as have
> > > > > > > African's - we can go on and on. I think today, looking at
> > > > > > > Somalia,
> > > > > > > it can go on for awhile before anyone challenges it. But we are
> > > > > > > moving into an era where globally we ban together and work toward
> > > > > > > ending this kind of "evil doing." We live in a world where this
> > > > > > > cannot stay hidden.
>
> > > > > > > Is the question, what in human nature is destructive? Or cruel?
> > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > murderous? Here in Detroit, the populous has been electing
> > > > > > > members of
> > > > > > > the Kilpatrick family to office for many years (Mayor and US
> > > > > > > Congress.) After the Mayor was removed from office for abuse of
> > > > > > > power
> > > > > > > and suspected in the later murders of two strippers his wife
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
