Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Violence

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 1:46:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you think there are exceptions to the idea that "The initiation of violence is immoral?"
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 1:54:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If the survival of humanity or the human community to which I belong is at stake, then yes, seeing as, for me, the idea of individual rights which precludes such things is based in social contract theory, and social contract theory is predicated on the existence of human communities bound together into nations. Otherwise, no.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 1:58:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 1:46:26 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Do you think there are exceptions to the idea that "The initiation of violence is immoral?"

Of course - you need to look at the general concept, which is aggression. Aggression takes place in any number of forms, the initiation of force is really just a product of the build up. A popular current conception of aggression - that which defines it as the intiation of force - simply ignores so much else of what is frankly aggression and in doing so over-emphasizes the immorality of violence.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 2:34:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
An man, phone in hand, walks along a sidewalk. Before he steps off the sidewalk into busy traffic, he is tackled by a passing motorcycle enthusiast (who is a larger man). He thanks the enthusiast, and continues to a pub to get a drink in celebration of life. Upon entering the bar, he is immediately decked by another patron. The patron takes all the money from the man's wallet and buys everyone in the bar several rounds.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 2:35:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A preemptive strike, that follows sufficient non-violent provocation can be justified if the ends justify the means, and the means have costs that are less than the total costs of an ultimate confrontation (non-preemptive). Something like Israel launching a surgical strike of an Iranian atomic bomb building site.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 3:13:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1) Protection from violence in the future
2) Securing freedoms and liberties deserved
3) Protection of enslaved and brainwashed.
4) Pre-emptive defence from e.g. mugging
5) A gentleman's agreement.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 7:18:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 1:46:26 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Do you think there are exceptions to the idea that "The initiation of violence is immoral?"

I can't count them all.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 7:22:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 7:18:02 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 2/3/2013 1:46:26 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Do you think there are exceptions to the idea that "The initiation of violence is immoral?"

I can't count them all.

To prevent future harm to person(s) underselling of harm. That's a pretty good rule, I think, which would encapsulate most of the scenarios I can think of.
Tsar of DDO
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 7:23:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 1:46:26 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Do you think there are exceptions to the idea that "The initiation of violence is immoral?"

No. Wanna fight about it?
Nidhogg
Posts: 503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 7:25:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 3:13:29 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
1) Protection from violence in the future
2) Securing freedoms and liberties deserved
3) Protection of enslaved and brainwashed.
4) Pre-emptive defence from e.g. mugging
5) A gentleman's agreement.

+1
Ridiculously Photogenic Debater

DDO's most mediocre member since at least a year ago
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 8:04:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 1:46:26 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Do you think there are exceptions to the idea that "The initiation of violence is immoral?"

I think initiation takes several forms. Initiation of violence could be the inspiration of violence in another.

Even in the case of killing an animal for food, humans can conceive of ways to do so nonviolently.

Accordingly, no.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 8:06:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 3:13:29 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
1) Protection from violence in the future
2) Securing freedoms and liberties deserved
3) Protection of enslaved and brainwashed.
4) Pre-emptive defence from e.g. mugging
5) A gentleman's agreement.

Good enough reason for me to use it anywhere.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 7:16:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
No, absolutely not. You cannot prove with 100% certainty that someone will attack you, so to respond before that person attacks means that you are the aggressor and that everybody should attack you since you have no regard for the rights of others.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 7:32:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 1:58:46 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/3/2013 1:46:26 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Do you think there are exceptions to the idea that "The initiation of violence is immoral?"

Of course - you need to look at the general concept, which is aggression. Aggression takes place in any number of forms, the initiation of force is really just a product of the build up. A popular current conception of aggression - that which defines it as the intiation of force - simply ignores so much else of what is frankly aggression and in doing so over-emphasizes the immorality of violence.

Could you expand on what you mean by "so much else of what is frankly aggression"?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 1:08:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 7:32:05 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/3/2013 1:58:46 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/3/2013 1:46:26 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Do you think there are exceptions to the idea that "The initiation of violence is immoral?"

Of course - you need to look at the general concept, which is aggression. Aggression takes place in any number of forms, the initiation of force is really just a product of the build up. A popular current conception of aggression - that which defines it as the intiation of force - simply ignores so much else of what is frankly aggression and in doing so over-emphasizes the immorality of violence.

Could you expand on what you mean by "so much else of what is frankly aggression"?

I could write a book about this, but I only have 10 minutes so I'll have to give you the tl;dr answer.

Do you play chess or have studied the history of international relations? If so, you know that the actual, physical use of force is often just the last step in a long line of something whether it be the building up of tensions, arms, threats, etc. You can't view "force" in isolation, it's always contextualized. White's pawn on b5 in a slav defense set up for black (with the black pawns on a7, b7, c6, and d5) is a threat by its very presence. It gives black 3 bad options. Similarly, with countries whose neighbors have either blockaded a port, are re-arming, or otherwise - it tends to place that neighbor in a similar situation where he is faced with 2-3 poor choices.

The situation becomes even more complicated when it's personal. It ties back to a conception of self - we're not disembodied minds, but fathers, sons, men, women, members of a certain class, religion, race, etc. If someone's masculinity is challenged in such a way as to effectively emasculate them, who are we to object to the measured use of violence? There are much, much worse things than a broken nose.

I'm aware the answer is brief, but it's all I have time for now.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 2:18:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 1:08:39 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/5/2013 7:32:05 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/3/2013 1:58:46 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/3/2013 1:46:26 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Do you think there are exceptions to the idea that "The initiation of violence is immoral?"

Of course - you need to look at the general concept, which is aggression. Aggression takes place in any number of forms, the initiation of force is really just a product of the build up. A popular current conception of aggression - that which defines it as the intiation of force - simply ignores so much else of what is frankly aggression and in doing so over-emphasizes the immorality of violence.

Could you expand on what you mean by "so much else of what is frankly aggression"?

I could write a book about this, but I only have 10 minutes so I'll have to give you the tl;dr answer.

Do you play chess or have studied the history of international relations? If so, you know that the actual, physical use of force is often just the last step in a long line of something whether it be the building up of tensions, arms, threats, etc. You can't view "force" in isolation, it's always contextualized. White's pawn on b5 in a slav defense set up for black (with the black pawns on a7, b7, c6, and d5) is a threat by its very presence. It gives black 3 bad options. Similarly, with countries whose neighbors have either blockaded a port, are re-arming, or otherwise - it tends to place that neighbor in a similar situation where he is faced with 2-3 poor choices.

The situation becomes even more complicated when it's personal. It ties back to a conception of self - we're not disembodied minds, but fathers, sons, men, women, members of a certain class, religion, race, etc. If someone's masculinity is challenged in such a way as to effectively emasculate them, who are we to object to the measured use of violence? There are much, much worse things than a broken nose.

I'm aware the answer is brief, but it's all I have time for now.

If a tiger is solitary and territorial, and one infringes on that tiger's territory and threaten's that tiger in a way to incite a response, is it the tiger or the person's fault if that person is mauled?

Who incited that violence?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 2:40:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 8:06:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/3/2013 3:13:29 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
1) Protection from violence in the future
2) Securing freedoms and liberties deserved
3) Protection of enslaved and brainwashed.
4) Pre-emptive defence from e.g. mugging
5) A gentleman's agreement.

Good enough reason for me to use it anywhere.

All of this needs to be tempered by good sense, of course.

However, you cannot point to rule 3 as justification in law. It's when you should do it. You can't use it as justification when the true reason for your action is e.g more money. It's a useful solution, not a system in and of itself.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 2:54:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A common thread for justification of violence (save for I think the first poster after the OP) is the presupposition of overall beneficial consequences as the relevant moral framework to use. This creates an incommensurable tension with libertarians and other people who are of a deontological bent in that opponents are left to argue past each other. The more relevant question that the OP should have asked is something like "What philosophical justification can there be given for violence?" or "What are the different philosophical approaches to initiation of force?" rather than inviting in a conflicting style of moral reasoning.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 2:59:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 2:54:18 PM, Noumena wrote:
A common thread for justification of violence (save for I think the first poster after the OP) is the presupposition of overall beneficial consequences as the relevant moral framework to use. This creates an incommensurable tension with libertarians and other people who are of a deontological bent in that opponents are left to argue past each other. The more relevant question that the OP should have asked is something like "What philosophical justification can there be given for violence?" or "What are the different philosophical approaches to initiation of force?" rather than inviting in a conflicting style of moral reasoning.

This is a brilliant post indicative of a brilliant mind... but, I don't consider my post suggestive of any such presupposition.

Something tells me you ignore me, though.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 3:08:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 2:59:12 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 2/5/2013 2:54:18 PM, Noumena wrote:
A common thread for justification of violence (save for I think the first poster after the OP) is the presupposition of overall beneficial consequences as the relevant moral framework to use. This creates an incommensurable tension with libertarians and other people who are of a deontological bent in that opponents are left to argue past each other. The more relevant question that the OP should have asked is something like "What philosophical justification can there be given for violence?" or "What are the different philosophical approaches to initiation of force?" rather than inviting in a conflicting style of moral reasoning.

This is a brilliant post indicative of a brilliant mind... but, I don't consider my post suggestive of any such presupposition.

Something tells me you ignore me, though.

You blend well into a wall ;)
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 3:23:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 3:08:50 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/5/2013 2:59:12 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 2/5/2013 2:54:18 PM, Noumena wrote:
A common thread for justification of violence (save for I think the first poster after the OP) is the presupposition of overall beneficial consequences as the relevant moral framework to use. This creates an incommensurable tension with libertarians and other people who are of a deontological bent in that opponents are left to argue past each other. The more relevant question that the OP should have asked is something like "What philosophical justification can there be given for violence?" or "What are the different philosophical approaches to initiation of force?" rather than inviting in a conflicting style of moral reasoning.

This is a brilliant post indicative of a brilliant mind... but, I don't consider my post suggestive of any such presupposition.

Something tells me you ignore me, though.

You blend well into a wall ;)

Hmmm.

So, you often don't notice me, or you consider ignoring me easy? ?_?
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 3:26:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd like to add to the presupposition grievance one of my own, which I've been suggesting from the start -- the initiation of violence does not necessarily suggest that violence can only be initiated by one who actually enacts that violence.

Defending one's self from an attack, for example, is not the initiation of violence, even if it's a violent act, and even if it's a more violent act than the initial perceived attack.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 3:29:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 2:18:51 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 2/5/2013 1:08:39 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/5/2013 7:32:05 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/3/2013 1:58:46 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/3/2013 1:46:26 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Do you think there are exceptions to the idea that "The initiation of violence is immoral?"

Of course - you need to look at the general concept, which is aggression. Aggression takes place in any number of forms, the initiation of force is really just a product of the build up. A popular current conception of aggression - that which defines it as the intiation of force - simply ignores so much else of what is frankly aggression and in doing so over-emphasizes the immorality of violence.

Could you expand on what you mean by "so much else of what is frankly aggression"?

I could write a book about this, but I only have 10 minutes so I'll have to give you the tl;dr answer.

Do you play chess or have studied the history of international relations? If so, you know that the actual, physical use of force is often just the last step in a long line of something whether it be the building up of tensions, arms, threats, etc. You can't view "force" in isolation, it's always contextualized. White's pawn on b5 in a slav defense set up for black (with the black pawns on a7, b7, c6, and d5) is a threat by its very presence. It gives black 3 bad options. Similarly, with countries whose neighbors have either blockaded a port, are re-arming, or otherwise - it tends to place that neighbor in a similar situation where he is faced with 2-3 poor choices.

The situation becomes even more complicated when it's personal. It ties back to a conception of self - we're not disembodied minds, but fathers, sons, men, women, members of a certain class, religion, race, etc. If someone's masculinity is challenged in such a way as to effectively emasculate them, who are we to object to the measured use of violence? There are much, much worse things than a broken nose.

I'm aware the answer is brief, but it's all I have time for now.

If a tiger is solitary and territorial, and one infringes on that tiger's territory and threaten's that tiger in a way to incite a response, is it the tiger or the person's fault if that person is mauled?

Who incited that violence?

Tigers can't be held morally responsible. If there's any responsibility it rests on the person.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 3:30:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 3:29:14 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

Tigers can't be held morally responsible. If there's any responsibility it rests on the person.

Let's assume that tigers could be held morally responsible. Then..?
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 3:33:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 3:30:26 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 2/5/2013 3:29:14 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

Tigers can't be held morally responsible. If there's any responsibility it rests on the person.

Let's assume that tigers could be held morally responsible. Then..?

What, are tigers rational agents then? Just say "person" then. You would have to go into detail, but at first glance if someone's inciting violence against a rational tiger than...Obviously "incite" is a vague word. I'm not saying every incitement or provocation justifies violence.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 3:51:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 2:54:18 PM, Noumena wrote:
A common thread for justification of violence (save for I think the first poster after the OP) is the presupposition of overall beneficial consequences as the relevant moral framework to use. This creates an incommensurable tension with libertarians and other people who are of a deontological bent in that opponents are left to argue past each other. The more relevant question that the OP should have asked is something like "What philosophical justification can there be given for violence?" or "What are the different philosophical approaches to initiation of force?" rather than inviting in a conflicting style of moral reasoning.

I take it that a reply to me is still on its way as I didn't just declare "utilitarianism."
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 3:52:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 3:33:48 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/5/2013 3:30:26 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 2/5/2013 3:29:14 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

Tigers can't be held morally responsible. If there's any responsibility it rests on the person.

Let's assume that tigers could be held morally responsible. Then..?

What, are tigers rational agents then? Just say "person" then. You would have to go into detail, but at first glance if someone's inciting violence against a rational tiger than...Obviously "incite" is a vague word. I'm not saying every incitement or provocation justifies violence.

See, that's why I said "tiger" and not "person"... it removes any disconnection between incitement and violence.

In other words, although the tiger is a rational agent, it still stands that this rational agent has certain proclivities known by whomever is provoking that tiger. Accordingly, although that tiger can, within this particular circumstance, assume guilt for any violence given violence is granted a normative value, the question is whether that tiger should assume that guilt given the provocation that led to the tiger's violence, displacing the fault of the violence from the tiger to whoever incited that violence, even if its the victim of that violence.

See what I'm saying?
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 3:58:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 3:52:01 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 2/5/2013 3:33:48 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/5/2013 3:30:26 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 2/5/2013 3:29:14 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

Tigers can't be held morally responsible. If there's any responsibility it rests on the person.

Let's assume that tigers could be held morally responsible. Then..?

What, are tigers rational agents then? Just say "person" then. You would have to go into detail, but at first glance if someone's inciting violence against a rational tiger than...Obviously "incite" is a vague word. I'm not saying every incitement or provocation justifies violence.

See, that's why I said "tiger" and not "person"... it removes any disconnection between incitement and violence.

In other words, although the tiger is a rational agent, it still stands that this rational agent has certain proclivities known by whomever is provoking that tiger. Accordingly, although that tiger can, within this particular circumstance, assume guilt for any violence given violence is granted a normative value, the question is whether that tiger should assume that guilt given the provocation that led to the tiger's violence, displacing the fault of the violence from the tiger to whoever incited that violence, even if its the victim of that violence.

See what I'm saying?

If the tiger is just thinking "stimulus - response" then he's not morally responsible. You said a morally responsible tiger, which implies that he's capable of deliberation.

Just to be clear, we're not long dealing with normal tigers in this circumstance once you qualify it with being 'rational tiger.' I honestly just want to replace this with 'person' now.

I think any rational agent who provokes a tiger is an idiot and deserves anything that's coming to them. Is that a suitable answer?
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 3:59:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I find the idea of a rational tiger an obfuscation. If anybody incites a normal tiger and the tiger strikes back then the one who holds the lion's share of blame is the person who repeatedly incited him.