S.O.S. : Peace with Justice

[thinkdr]

"S.O.S." as used here stands for Save OurselveS! I learned of an interesting connection between violence and abuse toward refugees with the Global Climate Crisis. {It has to do with the ravages left behind when empire-builders from the power elite in the U.S.A. went into Nicaragua, Honduras, and Guatemala ...as well as with the human attack on the planet's atmosphere, euphemistically-known as "climate change."}

Many of us are aware of the extreme weather conditions such climate changes cause. I believe we need to save ourselves from something equally dangerous to our well- being. That is our propensity to resort to violence. Our first response often is to strike out. And we learn at a very early age: “If anyone bothers you, or annoys you, get even!” There will be no peace as long as we continue to think that violence solves anything. We are aware that peace without justice is no peace at all. Thus we need to have a clear understanding of justice.

UNDERSTANDING CLEARLY WHAT JUSTICE IS

Every person, from the most primitive to the most sophisticated, has a need for justice. “Justice” means “restoring the balance.” We innately sense when things are out of balance and we feel a need to set it right, to see the balance restored. However, the problem is that we have been settling for the lowest form of justice instead of aiming for the highest form as our goal. Most everyone of us has a warped sense of justice. This calls for an analysis.

The Science of Value tells us that there are at least three major dimensions of value: restricted; unlimited; and uncountable-and-priceless value. The scientists in this field speak of the restricted value as “S-Value.” They call the unlimited “E-Value.” And they refer to the super-special, the priceless value as “I-Value.” (These letters, S, E, I, stand for technical terms within the science that I will not burden you with here.)

The important fact to note is that these values form a spectrum with S-Value worth the least – as values go – with E-Value of a higher degree worth more; and with I-Value (Intrinsic Value) worth the most. Intrinsic Value is the most valuable among values. Each of these dimensions can be applied to various topics and fields of interest. …But below all these dimensions lie the values worth so little they are practically of zero worth. These are the Fragmentary values. When these are applied to Justice, what do we find? The result is: Vengeance; Retribution; Payback; ‘Getting even.’ Let’s see what results when the major dimensions are applied to the topic of justice.

The S-Value of justice is the notion of fairness, that everyone is treated the same by the justice system; “everyone gets his day in court”, etc.

The E-Value of justice is equity. Here belongs compensation; and also the consideration of individual circumstances, which a judge takes into account.

The I-Value of justice provides us with the “three R’s”: Rehabilitation; Redemption; and Reconciliation. These are the highest forms of justice. These give us the most value in return for our efforts. These truly restore the balance.

The main point to keep in mind is that it is a distorted sense of justice to seek the fragmentary, fractional value of revenge and “getting even” rather than aiming for the best justice which means one or more of the three Rs.

That is why we need to send out an S.O.S. call. We need to save ourselves from a propensity to commit violence. As Dr. Martin Luther King pointed out, “An eye for an eye soon leaves everyone blind.” Vengeance is a gyp! We get virtually no value in return when we settle for the lowest form of justice. We are cheating ourselves. Let’s stop it by aiming for the super special value, the Intrinsic Value, the high return, the reconciliation which leads to peace.

Let’s seek and find common ground. Let’s find something we can build on, both with our friends and with those we consider to be aggressors, and those we label as enemies. Let’s aim for real peace not merely an armistice or cease-fire, a lull before the next war.

True peace is serenity. It is stability, harmony and justice. Let’s work for a just world, employing nonviolent methods of operation. Peace will be what results. You can bet on it!


What say you?

[thinkdr]

.

A new outfit, launched the other day, is called the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Here is a story about it, and its moral and ethical implications:
https://www.vox.com/2019/7/1/20677441/s ... s-military


After reading this column, and/or going to the website of this new Think Tank, what is your impression? Will some new ideas arise that will further the quest for world peace? Will the new agency have an impact on U.S. foreign policy? Where do you stand on the issue of America engaging in very expensive, endless wars?

Do you believe our military spending is a productive use of taxpayers' money? Is fighting a foreign war ethical? If not, ought we endorse it or take part in it?

[WendyDarling]

Countries have always jockeyed for resources which are the unspoken impetus for most of the wars. Maybe the citizens of all countries need to give up their energy rights, go back to the early 1800's, pre-industrial revolution. Horse/buggy and candles. Halt most productions other than plant based food. Walk or ride a bike everywhere. Forget modern ways.

[thinkdr]

...the citizens of all countries need ... plant based food and to) walk or ride a bike everywhere.

You're onto something there, WD. Town planners and designers of modern communities would be wise to heed your good suggestions.

You are listing some of the main ingredients that result in vibrant glowing health. You are speaking of true health-care - namely, how to be healthy - not the sickness-care that is usually spoken of when "health-care" plans are proposed. You might have added: get plenty of sleep, arrange to have a loving atmosphere around you, make sure the food is fresh, raw, and whole if possible. Get it organically grown, if possible. Have salads be the main dish. Start the day with a fruit meal; then raw, unsalted nuts. You did mention the importance of exercise. Fresh air helps too. So does pure water.

Do you agree with those who consider staying healthy to be an important part of the good life, i.e., of the ethical way-of-life?
Is Health a high value? Is it a component of well-being?

And is it not the case that the the longer a person can stay strong and active the more help that person can be of help to others! The longer you live (in a state of full health) the more opportunity to lift others up, help them to rise in life-quality; the more chance to be kind, to take on responsibility, and be accountable for it.

Readers: what are your views on this subject?

[thinkdr]

.

My objective is to increase the amount of useful information in this world.

Do you - any of the readers and participants at this Forum - believe that physical health is as important as moral health?

Along with physical health goes longevity, for if one does not get sick, nor come down with a disease, and does not have all manner of aches and pains,
one tends to live longer.

Moral health (also known as moral integration) on the part of an individual brings us that much closer to an ethical society. Education in Ethics can spread moral health.

Do you hold that insight into moral health ought to include insight as to physical health?

Are people born with a capacity for empathy, and then lose it later when they get corrupted by the culture in which they are immersed? Or is it simply the case that some have it, and some don't?
And among those who have it, do they always use it? Is further research needed on the subject?

What say you?

[thinkdr]

In this thread on the topic of Applied Ethics, issues that were raised are these: the Climate Crisis, the propensity to use violence, how it does harm and thus how it is unethical; an anti-foreign-war policy endorsed by some billionaires, a philosophical analysis of the concept "justice"; an explanation of how to be healthy, and reflection on the question: is health relevant to Ethics? and exploring the meaning and relevance of the concept "Empathy."

No one has expressed any interest in any of this!

No one has informed us that they have read any of the references on the problems, and tentative answers to the problems of Ethics. No reviews nor comments.

So I ask of the Readers of this thread: What are you interested in when it comes to ethics --whether theory of ethics or Applied Ethics? I'll be glad to discuss what you think is important in the field of ethics.

Let's have a conversation

What do you say?

[thinkdr]

.


s...Calling your attention to a book that recently came out.

Check out this excellent contemporary and highly-relavant analysis:

J. A. Reid - The Man Who Sold America

https://www.amazon.com/Surviving-Trump- ... merReviews


[If your local library doesn't have it, suggest that they order it.]
.

[Mad Man P]

What say you?

I disagree with your reasoning

Our modern notion of "justice" has warped compared to its original use.
Justice was merely understood to mean the carrying out of the law.. If the law said a thief should have their hand cut off, then cutting off the hand of a thief would be justice.
One could argue about the most productive or ethical way for a society to respond to immoral acts or crimes, but in such a discussion it would be folly to ignore human nature.
Our natural disposition toward punishment is not to be dismissed so casually... there's a good reason that disposition evolved.
Both reward and punishment play major roles in molding our behavior, just as it does for most animals
Knowing that you WILL get punched in the face if you push someone beyond a certain limit can be quite dissuasive of doing exactly that, even when you're truly angry at them.
Furthermore, knowing that people will largely support the violence you experienced as well deserved given you actions, can be even more dissuasive.

Right or wrong, this is a reality we have to contend with. You cannot discount the effectiveness of punishment and violence nor can you discount the fact that certain people are considered deserving of such treatment.

We cannot build a society meant to house ideal people and expect that society to function when occupied by real people.

To illustrate the disconnect, imagine a news story in which a father had his daughter raped and murdered, the man who committed this horrible crime was sentenced to be rehabilitated (which we know to be a largely painless experience) and smiled all the way out of the courtroom. The father being, unstandably unsatisfied with this outcome, in turn shoots and kills his daughter's killer.

Would you ever wish to be so dispassionate as to not be able to relate to that father? And if you can relate.. if his action is understandable. How harshly can we really judge him for being human?
If this were a fictional story, most if not everyone would be rooting for him.

How immoral is it for this man to reject the idea of treating his daughter's killer "with dignity and respect" in an attempt to reform them into a productive member of society.
The expectation is as though the murderer were merely a malfunctioning machine that needed to be fixed and any anger toward him considered irrational or worse immoral.

And while one might very well make the case that human beings are biological machines, there's an argument to be made for why that's an unhealthy way to treat people, as it would be bordering on psychopathic.

Ideals are all well and good... but I would contend that any code of ethics or morality has to be tailored to real human beings in order to be practiced and practical.
otherwise we're just looking for ways to fill our prisons and "re-education" centers... Idealism is the quickest way to growing resentful, because everyone will fall short and you'll be living among the guilty.

Mind you, I'm only criticising your reasoning. I actually don't disagree with your conclusion
The main reason I would advocate for rehabilitation over punishment is because we do not have a flawless justice system...
The thought that we might punish or worse kill someone innocent is the sole reason I find that solution more compelling.

And I imagine, that thought, if any, would be the sole thought that may stay a grieving father's hand as well... this guy might not be the guy who did it, can you live with hurting or killing an innocent man?

[thinkdr]

What say you?

... I actually don't disagree with your conclusion
The main reason I would advocate for rehabilitation over punishment is because we do not have a flawless justice system...
The thought that we might punish or worse kill someone innocent is the sole reason I find that solution more compelling.

And I imagine, that thought, if any, would be the sole thought that may stay a grieving father's hand as well... this guy might not be the guy who did it, can you live with hurting or killing an innocent man?

"

Thank you, MMP, for a well-written, thoughtful reply.

What you are saying in the quote above is that I actually did take realities into account in my clarification and analysis of the concept "justice," since I allowed for an imperfect Justice System.
Yes, the Science of Value reveals that every system has imperfections. Every system has flaws. This finding has received confirmation many, many times.

Thanks again.
It was nice to hear from you.


Does anyone else have views on any of the topics of Applied Ethics set forth in this thread?

Speak up.

[promethean75]

*raises hand*

can I go to the bathroom?

[thinkdr]

Mad Man P wrote:

You cannot discount the effectiveness of punishment and violence nor can you discount the fact that certain people are considered deserving of such treatment.

I do not recall doing this. Can anyone point out where I brought up the idea of "punishment," or where I discounted the desire we have to see justice done when we witness ethical violations, or blatant disregard of what we consider to be valued norms - whether they are cultural norms (traditions) or institutional norms.

What I did imply is that vengeance reminds us of the Hatfields and McCoys with their endless feuding. Sure, it will reduce the population, but is it ethical to murder? Not in the Hartman/Katz system of Ethics. No way.

To commit violence is to harm, and Ethics deduces that minimizing harm is the way to go. If we want to maximize the value we get out of our time on Earth and/or if we want to see the advent of an ethical society in this world, one in which it would be a joy to inhabit, then we would aim to reduce suffering, including the pain which violence inflicts. To explain it more directly, to be ethical is to be kind, helpful, act decently, be responsible, be willing and ready to be held accountable, be compassionate, empathic, etc.


In ancient India - and there evidently are traces of this sentiment still today - if someone violated a man's daughter, they buried the accused in the ground with only his head showing. Or they buried someone alive. They believed this vengeance to be just.
I, for one, am glad humanity has evolved from that stage; today in India that practice is, for the most part, frowned upon and refected.


I would like to ask Mad Man to define for us the notion "deserves." It would be a fine contribution to Ethics to hear a rational analysis of how people [who he tells us are very influenced by rewards and what Skinner called 'negative reinforcement,' namely punishment] -- how they "deserve" what they may get, if their behavior is determined by earlier conditioning (by positive or negative reinforcement

Up till recently, Promethian held that Skinner's analysis is correct: we are just products of our conditioning. Thus how can an individual be held responsible for any crime he or she commits?! {This is also similar to the "I am a victim, Your Honer, of the bad childhood I was subject to !!" defense.}

Earlier I asked Readers what they are interested in, in the field of ethics. That inquiry still stands. We know that at least two care deeply about the inadequacy of our current system of justice. In contrast, what I was doing in the initial post is suggesting what an Ethical system of Justice would be.

Any comments or observations about any other aspect of Applied Ethics?

[Meno_]

I think the system of negative reinforcement does even at this late stage suffice to evaluate transgression and punishment in line with how capacity is regarded to levels of understanding to knowledge, as to the comparable punishment which is incurred in accord.

The insanity defense is such a tool, and lesser defenses may also apply, as in parental molestation of sexual predators, for instance.
The conclusive idea being still, is that criminals are held to higher standards as their free will can more aptly overcome the crime, when there is more understanding about it's moral and ethical wrong.
The crime and punishment feedback loop may develop more extrinsic factors coming into play in that process, this being a contentious factor in punishment serving toward a less detrimental effect on crime, rather than more instrumental.

This theory , as of yet, is the only supportive claim , rather then merely. Skinnerian proposition.

And what that implies, is, that there will need to be more not less reliance on standard evaluative criteria, as specific use will entail more uncertainty

[Mad Man P]

To commit violence is to harm, and Ethics deduces that minimizing harm is the way to go. If we want to maximize the value we get out of our time on Earth and/or if we want to see the advent of an ethical society in this world, one in which it would be a joy to inhabit, then we would aim to reduce suffering, including the pain which violence inflicts. To explain it more directly, to be ethical is to be kind, helpful, act decently, be responsible, be willing and ready to be held accountable, be compassionate, empathic, etc.

Well this here is where you run into a technical difficulty...
Human nature is unknown to us in all of its complexity. The nature vs nurture debate rages as strong as ever...
As a consequence the actual "minimum" of harm realistically possible is an unknown.
So the question becomes, IF reaching a state of zero harm should turn out to be impossible, or only possibly in an undesirable circumstance, can violence ever be used to "minimise" the level of harm we DO suffer?

I would argue, that's unquestionably true.
If a serial killer is in the process of trying to murder someone and you happen to find yourself witnessing this then the use of violence to stop it is not only permissible but I would say admirable
If a bully is beating the daylights out of a kid half his size in the schoolyard... when the next door neighbor gets drunk and takes his anger out on his 6 year old kid... the list goes on.

So it's clear that violence can be used to mitigate harm.. harm can mitigate harm.
All it takes now is for us to imagine that receiving a beating for a suitably severe transgression might discourage someone from committing such a transgression again in the future.
How many more times this person would have transgressed without the beating is an unknown, one might argue, and that's technically true.
But a further mitigating factor one might imagine is the knowledge it produces in others...
if you watched someone who received such a beating, YOU might very well be dissuaded from such an act...

It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to envision how instances of violence or even retribution could in sum total minimise the harm suffered.

There was a reason that people in ancient times invested so much creative thought into prolonged and public methods of torture and execution.
This was in a place and time without security cameras, fingerprints, or any modern forensic equipment.
It was vitally important to them that while the risk of getting caught was infinitesimal... the price was so extreme as to be dissuasive.

Certainly a starving man would still steal no matter what the price, out of desperation and necessity...
But middle class teenagers, unlike today, would not casually take up shoplifting as a form of rebellion or means of seeking attention...

Don't get me wrong, I believe in a lot of cases it's possible to mitigate harm in other more productive ways..
By no means is violence our only tool for mitigating harm... but to dismiss it totally as though ineffective or obsolete seems premature.

I would like to ask Mad Man to define for us the notion "deserves."

What someone "deserves" would be an estimation of an appropriate, or suitable response to their actions.
What all people consider appropriate or suitable tends to shift with our culture and the prevailing conventional wisdom...

I tend to believe how people arrive at "deserve" is they inject themselves into the shoes of the parties they can relate to and then measure their own response.
Hence why psychopaths and sadists who regular people cannot relate to at all, seem truly evil and to be deserving of limitless horrors... or hell one might say.

Mind you, this is an observation I'm making
I don't believe anyone "deserves" anything in an objective way... it refers to a subjective or intersubjective assessment and as a consequence is prone to change and negotiation.

Something that needs to be taken into account in any ethical discussion is what can realistically be expected of human beings, so as to propose a conduct that's not only possible, but comfortable on a larger scale.
Otherwise the imposition and repression necessary would counter any good it purports to achieve.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that people may never be able to forgive certain transgressions... they may never be able to reconcile. Admonishing them to act like they can may not be the most healthy solution.

[thinkdr]

Greetings, Mad Man P

Thank you for a rational discussion well-articulated.

You did a good job in finding exceptions to the counsel of the Unified Theory of Ethics finding that violence is not advisable because it does harm... more harm than good.

So I ask you, How many schoolyard bullies, wife-beaters, and rapists in action have you seen lately? Did you intervene when you encountered a well-built guy beating up his wife? Did you get into the middle of the violence? Was violence on your part the only way to subdue the perpetrator? Couldn't you wrestle him down, and then step on his face until the police arrived -- without injuring him physically?

Yes, the suggestion to avoid violence is a high ideal which the Theory held.

I did not ever expect that teaching that precept would end all violence. For violence often results from bad tempers; and many, many folk out there could benefit from some counseling in Anger Management.


Does any other Reader want to participate? Do you have a comment to make?

[WendyDarling]

Thinkdr wrote

You did a good job in finding exceptions to the counsel of the Unified Theory of Ethics finding that violence is not advisable because it does harm... more harm than good.

Mad Man P

It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to envision how instances of violence or even retribution could in sum total minimise the harm suffered.

Actually, some forms of violence act as a deterrent to even greater amounts of violence in the future. That's what I read. Some violence stops a great deal more violence because people do not want to suffer the punishment.

[Karpel Tunnel]

So I ask you, How many schoolyard bullies, wife-beaters, and rapists in action have you seen lately? Did you intervene when you encountered a well-built guy beating up his wife? Did you get into the middle of the violence? Was violence on your part the only way to subdue the perpetrator? Couldn't you wrestle him down, and then step on his face until the police arrived -- without injuring him physically?

Wrestling is not avoiding violence and stepping on someone's face is not either. The police will use violence if they decide it is necessary, so this is passing the buck. The police will definitely use violence to stop violence and if there are weapons involved their violence is very likely to include using guns.

And certain wives being beaten up and rape victims or about to be rape victims are justified in using violence to defend themselves.

I got in a couple of fights as a kid against bullies. I never threw the first punch, but I defended myself with violence. One of the guys I became friends with. It's not a first option for me, unless it seems likely I have to be violent to protect myself or some other innocent and fortunately this hasn't happened to me as an adult. There have been instances were some men could see I was not going to accept their violence and would respond in kind and they opted out. Not because I am some intimidating figure, but they probably wanted easier targets.

[Mad Man P]

So I ask you, How many schoolyard bullies, wife-beaters, and rapists in action have you seen lately? Did you intervene when you encountered a well-built guy beating up his wife? Did you get into the middle of the violence? Was violence on your part the only way to subdue the perpetrator? Couldn't you wrestle him down, and then step on his face until the police arrived -- without injuring him physically?

I get the impression that you've not fully grasped my arguments as I have already answered this question.
But I'll reiterate with more clarity, I hope:

The reason why someone might respond with force or brutality in the face of gross transgressions might be due to anger, as you suggest
A response that I believe has evolved to serve as a means to discourage those who act in an unacceptable way; to correct that behavior through punishment. The same way our tendency toward feeling gratitude or admiration is a means to encourage good or kind behavior. What's more than that, these responses, when witnessed, serve as examples to others and can be intructional to their behavior as well.

This is a reason we might adopt as our own, without it merely being impulsive or temperamental... but as a recognition of its effectiveness.
That is to say: We might consider a violent response to certain transgressions as not only justified but the best response given the circumstances.

You cannot be a moral pragmatist in the form of a consequentialist and yet maintain an idealistic perspective.. either your concerned with the practical realities of human behavior and their consequences on our well being or you're concerned with adherence to some principle you hold as an ideal. "Violence is harm and harm is bad so we should avoid violence" is too simplistic a formula to capture the realities we face... and can only serve as an idealistic precept delivered in the guise of consequentialism.

Let's take the example of the schoolyard bully: It's a difficult prospect to convince a bully to swear fealty to some moral precept that would cause him to stop his behavior, or to try to instill in him empathy for the kid he is bullying... One has to assume that if he had any inclination toward either he wouldn't be a bully to begin with. However, not wanting to get his ass kicked by the mob of kids that would gather if he was seen bullying someone might be more persuasive, furthermore the natural ostracization following from such an ass kicking might very well encourage, out of social necessity, that he show genuine remorse to be forgiven and accepted back. And that's if we're not even considering the tremendous good that sort of behavior might do for the bullies victim. The sense of solidarity and comfort that would emerge in not only that kid but all the other kids, knowing that a mob would gather to defend or even avenge them.

To FEEL the consequences of good and bad behavior on yourself or to even witness it for yourself, rather than being told about it or asked to muster empathy... I'd argue is a more powerful lesson and more convincing.

We all rely on the good will of the people we live with and if we ever lose that good will, catching a beating is the least of what can happen... In this the lesson we might most easily impart using violence is that, there is a line that we can cross that will cause us to lose that good will... Even a psychopath could be made to understand the utility of good behavior over bad under such conditions, without needing to muster empathy.

If we accept that, then it's not clear to me that violence is the worst response in all cases... in fact, it seems that at times it might well be the best response.

What's more, squeamishness toward violence is not what gives someone moral character, being a meek and weak is not a virtue. At best it's a lack of conviction, at worst abject cowardice...
When someone is being bullied in the schoolyard the admirable kids are the ones who will stand up to stop it... not the kids that run to get the teacher nor the kids that just watch.

[thinkdr]

Mad Man P writes: "When someone is being bullied in the schoolyard the admirable kids are the ones who will stand up to stop it... not ... the kids that just watch."



We are in complete agreement here.
The best way to stop it,, I hold, is by Nonviolent Direct Action. {Grab the arms of the bully, restraining him, holding him back, while lovingly saying to him: "You don't want to get in trouble with the authorities and get thrown into detention...it's not worth it Let the kid go!"}

---or, stand in front of the one being bullied, shielding him. Look straight in the eyes of the bully, showing no fear.
Have a constructive attitude of solidarity and we're all in this together.

[Mad Man P]

Mad Man P writes: "When someone is being bullied in the schoolyard the admirable kids are the ones who will stand up to stop it... not ... the kids that just watch."



We are in complete agreement here.
The best way to stop it,, I hold, is by Nonviolent Direct Action. {Grab the arms of the bully, restraining him, holding him back, while lovingly saying to him: "You don't want to get in trouble with the authorities and get thrown into detention...it's not worth it Let the kid go!"}

---or, stand in front of the one being bullied, shielding him. Look straight in the eyes of the bully, showing no fear.
Have a constructive attitude of solidarity and we're all in this together.

We are nowhere near agreement...
It's morally indefensible to be "in this together" with the bully and it's technically impossible to be "in this together" with both the bully and their victim, as they have very different projects in this moment.
My contention is that he should not be worried about getting in trouble with "authorities" he should be worried about getting in trouble with everyone and anyone of moral character...
And It's very hard to imagine that being worrying or even qualifying as "getting in trouble" if all they do is stand there and talk to you lovingly... Nor do I imagine that would reassure the victim.

Punishment is why it IS bad for you to race past that moral line... otherwise it's just words that make crossing that line seem daring and rebellious... perhaps even fun.
Without punishment, we leave ourselves incapable of maintaining a reality from which one could derive the value of good and bad behavior... namely generating and maintaining the good will and cooperation of others.
Or put differently, In a world where good will is present and unconditional, you have to rely solely on ideological indoctrination as there would be no wordly reason to adhere to any code of conduct.

[thinkdr]

Mad Man P writes: "When someone is being bullied in the schoolyard the admirable kids are the ones who will stand up to stop it... not ... the kids that just watch."
We are in complete agreement here.
The best way to stop it,, I hold, is by Nonviolent Direct Action. {Grab the arms of the bully, restraining him, holding him back, while lovingly saying to him: "You don't want to get in trouble with the authorities and get thrown into detention...it's not worth it Let the kid go!"}

---or, stand in front of the one being bullied, shielding him. Look straight in the eyes of the bully, showing no fear.
Have a constructive attitude of solidarity and we're all in this together.

[c It's morally indefensible to be "in this together" with the bully

If you say so, friend. ...Evidently you haven't read or absorbed the definition of "morality" explicated in the new paradigm for Ethics, as outlined in the Structure paper. I have faith, though, that you will educate yourself in the latest ethical insights sooner rather than later. For if you were aware of it, and understood it, you would then know what is in your best interest -- as well as being in the bully's best interest, and as well as being in the best interest of all humankind. We rise or fall together.
Right now the world is falling apart and fleeing from Unity towards Divisiveness. There is Tribalism. There is a lack of that Good Will of which you speak. Don't contribute to it, my friend.

I stand with the late B. F. Skinner on the matter of punishment. Unless it is mild negative reinforcement, It in the long run does not work....to get us where we really, really want to go. Punishment (especially severe violence) does not dissuade in a constructive manner. I'm a little older than you, at close to 90, and I have seen 'a thing or two.' I have known lawbreakers who were put through intense humiliation, booking, begging their loved ones to raise some cash for bail, faced Criminal Court, and yet, for years later, kept right on doing the shoplifting violation which got them the punishment.

What got them to give it up was the gradual gain in awareness, as they studied Ethics, and took it seriously, and began to practice its findings. They began to live by this valuable knowledge. They saw the connections. They now had more of a universal grasp of the Web-of-Life.
In other words, they got educated.

That has been my personal experience. I have seen Nonviolent Direct Action work time and again in my own life. ...even when I was detained for being a Conscientious Objector to war, I practiced it, and it got me out of some scrapes, or potential immanent bodily harm at the hands of other prisoners. (They hey seemed to have some foolish ideas along with bad tempers and/or lack of impulse control. But I may be wrong.)



Mad P writes: it's technically impossible to be "in this together" with both the bully and their victim...

I disagree. See the above discussion.


,You say: "My contention is that he should not be worried about getting in trouble with "authorities" he should be worried about getting in trouble with everyone and anyone of moral character..."

Okay. It seems to me that kind of "punishment" is what I was talking about in the post quotted. You phrase it better than I did. Thank you.

[promethean75]

I have known lawbreakers who were put through intense humiliation, booking, begging their loved ones to raise some cash for bail, faced Criminal Court, and yet, for years later, kept right on doing the shoplifting violation which got them the punishment.

Yeah but most of those criminals are natural reprobates without any virtuous motivation to commit crime. Only the smart ones who after being put through the criminal justice system and experience first hand the hipocrisy, incompetence and corruption throughout, appreciate and take pride in their criminal nature, emerging from prison as a greater enemy of the state than ever before.

"If you want to see the absolute scum of the earth go to any prison in the US during shift change." - Paul Harvey

There is an art to this, man. An art of epic importance that pales almost any other cause by comparison (except maybe war). Everything else becomes small and insignificant when this fundamental contradiction is fully recognized at the heart of society and government. Most criminals don't have the intellect to understand how profound this problem is; their unruly behavior is synonymous to a stupid, undisciplined animal rather than something carefully orchestrated and with greater purpose.

Crime... good crime for the right reasons... is a meticulous art form and noble profession that doesn't belong to amateurs and dime store thieves.

[thinkdr]

Crime... good crime for the right reasons... is a meticulous art form and noble profession that doesn't belong to amateurs and dime store thieves.

Greetings, promethean75

Would you be so kind as to explain for us:
What is "good crime for the right reasons"?

Could you provide some examples; or tell us what constitutes a "right reason" for being unethical. For I believe you would agree that crime, in general, is bad
for civilized society. In contrast, education in Ethics and Civics is good for a civilized society.
{Of course, as a Conscientious Objector I violated a bad law that required I have a 'draft-card' and report to an army base upon command. And I suppose there was some art to it: As I was doing my time The War Resisters League and the Fellowship of Reconciliation was arranging, unknown to me, that I have a job when I became eligible for parole.}

Isn't it unwise to assume that "the State" is always something to be the enemy of? Can't it be transformed by electing more-sincere people of good-will to public office? There are some who genuinely care about 'the little guy,' the so-called 'commoner.'


I await your response. And look forward to a good discussion.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Would you be so kind as to explain for us:
What is "good crime for the right reasons"?

Could you provide some examples; or tell us what constitutes a "right reason" for being unethical.

If there was a right reason, then it wouldn't be unethical.

For I believe you would agree that crime, in general, is bad
for civilized society. In contrast, education in Ethics and Civics is good for a civilized society.

It depends on what the Ethics is that is taught and what ideas of Civics are taught. And even via what pedagogy.
And different people will have different answers as to what constitutes good versions of Ethics and Civics.

{Of course, as a Conscientious Objector I violated a bad law that required I have a 'draft-card' and report to an army base upon command.

Well, there you go. So, different people having different values will decide that different laws are unethical and break them.

Isn't it unwise to assume that "the State" is always something to be the enemy of? Can't it be transformed by electing more-sincere people of good-will to public office?

Not if, for example, Wall St. has veto power, campaign finance means that even good people are beholden to the monied elite, and lobbying effectively undermines democracy, which it does. All three do. And different people will decide that different candidate have and do not have good will.

There are some who genuinely care about 'the little guy,' the so-called 'commoner.'

They won't get far.

[promethean75]

what's happenin', doc. i think your question might be a non-starter because i don't believe 'criminal/illegal' is equivalent to 'unethical', for several reasons. first, as you know, i wouldn't consider normative ethics to be anything more than an inter-subjective convention shared by people who willingly agree on codes of conduct. and that they do agree is no indication of or evidence for some set of 'right' behaviors that would exist independently of their agreement. second, i don't believe a philosophy of 'values' can ever be established in the same way objective knowledge is established in the natural sciences. value statements are of a different nature than statements of fact... or rather, the ways we analyze (through correspondence and coherence) the truths of value statements does not involve the kinds of judgement and justification we use to examine the truth of statements of fact. this idea can be considered one of the tenets of the positions of 'non-cognitivism' and 'emotivism' (i linked you to these months ago). we can certainly talk about ethics, yes, but we can't do so under the control of the same criterion we use to evaluate indicative statements of fact. essentially i'm saying that while 'ethics' is a very real kind of discourse, it belongs to its own kind of language game with its own kind of rules. we'd not understand 'jane is a bitch' or 'killing is wrong' in the same way we'd understand 'a triangle has three angles' or 'you have to leave now if you don't want to be late'.

thus is one of the critical problems involved in the philosophy of ethics. and incidentally, this problem is made even bigger by virtue of the fact that 'ethics' is probably more important than any other field in philosophy. ain't that a bitch. the thing we need to be most certain of happens to be the thing we are the least certain of. go get with biggs. he'll tell ya all about it.... like twenty six times if you let em.

but all that aside, i think you'd agree that just because something is illegal, it isn't necessarily unethical. when a citizen stayed out past curfew in nazi germany, are we really to say they were being unethical? criminal, yes, but unethical?

and remember how many social and political revolutions owe themselves to the commission of some geat criminal act. in fact, if the europeans didn't voluntarily emancipate themselves from the tyrannical rule of the monarchies hundreds of years ago, we might not be here in uhmerica sitting at our computers right now. seriously, those unethical sonsabitches told the king to go f**k himself. can you believe that?!

but i'm no martyr. if i be a criminal, it's for my own purposes - restoration of honor, respect, pride or rank - and not for the betterment of that malodorous abstraction 'mankind'. if i commit crime, i do so because that's my pleashu....

[thinkdr]

What promethean presents us with is a curious argument that has a number of difficulties. He writes : "i wouldn't consider normative ethics to be anything more than an inter-subjective convention shared by people who willingly agree.... That George Washington was the first President is such a convention, yet it is a fact. And that stones fall toward the center of the Earth is such a convention also. What else is "fact" but an inter-subjective agreement?

Of course, the fact about anything is also a set of properties which when fluidly payed with constitutes 'creativity.' R. S. Hartman held that there is an infinitely thin line between fact and value. I myself observe that factual discussions are riddled with values.

Hartman defined the concept "value" as a perceived (or experienced) one-to-one partial correspondence between two sets - the set of attributes describing a concept of x, and the properties possessed by this specific x being judged or evaluated, at time t. The judge cannot be left out of this relation. If you perceive a full correspondence, you are likely to call x 'good.' And that is what "'good"means. Spelling out the implications of this gives us the discipline known as Formal Axiology.

That body of knowledge serves as the met-language of Ethics, as it carefully and exactly (using standard arithmetic) defines terms such as 'fair,''not bad,' 'mediocre, ' 'bad,' 'no good',' (and its synonyms 'lousy,' and 'terrible.')

promethean, in describing the U.S. (so-called) justice system, employs such terms as "hypocrisy" and "corruption." Both of these are Ethical terms and are well-defined in the Unified Theory of Ethics. To him, the existence of these states in the justice system is a fact. If others see it the same way, then it is an objective fact. Note that M.C. Katz in his writings in Moral Philosophy does not waste any time on the issue of objectivity versus subjectivity; he lets others argue endlessly about these ideas without ever really defining what they mean.

How promethean can argue that Ethics is non-cognitive is beyond me! Has he ever read the papers by Dr. Katz? Cognition is required to comprehend what is being taught therein. Links to a few of those writings are listed below.

Happy reading !!!