Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not, most of the time (I believe) people add moral complexion to issues in order to excuse their own complicity in aggression.
Personal thought and contemplation can be deep, as well as external concepts, but reality is very straight forward.
There are powerful forces that abuse less powerful forces, it has nothing to do with intention. When one country bombs Yemen to dust and the other fights back, that disparity does not give you the privileged to say both sides are the problem.
When powerful institutions buy up property and sell it at high rates when people have the physical ability to settle into vacant homes, that is abuse of power.
When corporations keep wealth to themselves while the producers struggle to get by, that is abuse of power.
That is reality and no attempts to defend the rich and powerful change that. Excuse the slaughter of civilians all day by saying the situation is nuanced, but just know you are the problem.
Your OP is complicated. What are you actually talking about? - Thanks
I’m just saying that the power dynamics of the world are simple.
There are some forces in the world that dominate others and as such create a clear understanding of who is in the wrong to the most functional level.
For example a landowner that deprives people the right of settling in vacant homes (with the help of the state) is using power to dominate over others with less power.
When a coalition airforce is destroying Yemen and the local population is fighting back with out any comparable firepower, that scale of power pins the destruction on those perpetrating it.
My point is when reality offers clear evidence to the source of the wrong doing, why do people use moral complexity to obscure simple moral realities?
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,602,372 times
Reputation: 5697
It's due to one or a combination of the following
1. Most people aren't clued in onto the source of right and wrong. Do not hurt, harm, or demean others outside of defense of self or others; and even when you do so for that purpose, only uses reasonable and proportionate force to stop the other person. Even if they do see this much, they either misinterpret it or don't properly incorporate this into their behavior (if they do so at all). Even this point is giving people the benefit of the doubt (a risky thing, in my experience)
2. They know right and wrong, but don't give a damn about it if it's to their advantage to do the wrong.
3. They have kneejerk petty distaste against nitpicky, non-character aspects of who a person is (powerlessness, low aesthetic appeal in some way [not just looks, fashion, etc.], and lots of other possible traits).
4. They actually enjoy hurting people who are in a less powerful position.
Note well I'm addressing your core point, not your specific examples. The vacant homes issue is likely a public policy matter, the Yemen matter is complicated by the fact that it has a number of terrorist cells operating there. Yes, for Yemen, the Saudis were using a hammer when a surgical scalpel would work better. The public housing issue has to do with our lack of (meaningful) policy for affordable housing.
This covers the bases as well as any brief statement I know of.
1. Most people aren't clued in onto the source of right and wrong. Do not hurt, harm, or demean others outside of defense of self or others; and even when you do so for that purpose, only uses reasonable and proportionate force to stop the other person. Even if they do see this much, they either misinterpret it or don't properly incorporate this into their behavior (if they do so at all). Even this point is giving people the benefit of the doubt (a risky thing, in my experience)
2. They know right and wrong, but don't give a damn about it if it's to their advantage to do the wrong.
3. They have kneejerk petty distaste against nitpicky, non-character aspects of who a person is (powerlessness, low aesthetic appeal in some way [not just looks, fashion, etc.], and lots of other possible traits).
4. They actually enjoy hurting people who are in a less powerful position.
Note well I'm addressing your core point, not your specific examples. The vacant homes issue is likely a public policy matter, the Yemen matter is complicated by the fact that it has a number of terrorist cells operating there. Yes, for Yemen, the Saudis were using a hammer when a surgical scalpel would work better. The public housing issue has to do with our lack of (meaningful) policy for affordable housing.
This covers the bases as well as any brief statement I know of.
I can agree with most of your points.
The only thing I would add is that the nature (maybe not policy specific) of the problems seem so obvious that attempts to mitigate responses by claiming moral complexity seem cheap by comparison.
I don't care to much about intention because that leads to moral excuses, if a variable with power is dominating another variable with less power, that by nature of its existence is the root of the problem.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,602,372 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
I can agree with most of your points.
The only thing I would add is that the nature (maybe not policy specific) of the problems seem so obvious that attempts to mitigate responses by claiming moral complexity seem cheap by comparison.
I don't care to much about intention because that leads to moral excuses, if a variable with power is dominating another variable with less power, that by nature of its existence is the root of the problem.
Sometimes so, sometimes no.
Intent doesn't matter when it comes to whether or not the act actually is wrong, independent of the perpetrator's belief. Nor does it matter if the person should pay a penalty.
Intent does matter when it comes to the severity of the penalty. That's why every legal system in the world that I'm aware of distinguishes between murder and manslaughter, with manslaughter getting less severe penalties. If this is true for causing loss of life, then intent should matter as much or more with less serious wrongdoings (legally forbidden or not).
Granted, intent is often hard to prove. That still doesn't change the fact that intent does matter when it comes to severity of the punishment deserved.
Back to the nature of the problems you brought up. With race, religion, gender, orientation, identity, etc. the solution is simple - don't judge people based on these traits. The same goes for pollution - stop polluting the environment, although sometimes we need tax incentives to help the process along.
Intent doesn't matter when it comes to whether or not the act actually is wrong, independent of the perpetrator's belief. Nor does it matter if the person should pay a penalty.
Intent does matter when it comes to the severity of the penalty. That's why every legal system in the world that I'm aware of distinguishes between murder and manslaughter, with manslaughter getting less severe penalties. If this is true for causing loss of life, then intent should matter as much or more with less serious wrongdoings (legally forbidden or not).
Granted, intent is often hard to prove. That still doesn't change the fact that intent does matter when it comes to severity of the punishment deserved.
Back to the nature of the problems you brought up. With race, religion, gender, orientation, identity, etc. the solution is simple - don't judge people based on these traits. The same goes for pollution - stop polluting the environment, although sometimes we need tax incentives to help the process along.
I agree that personal crimes should be handled by a community (in my opinion) and in such a case intent does matter in terms of judgment.
That being said, organized crimes by state powers shouldn't be judged with such leniency due to the magnitude of their effects.
If you want to be technical when Saddam invaded Kuwait he claimed he was invited in by rebels who had taken the capital, when the Japanese invaded China they said they were trying to uplift them (much like European colonists said of the Americas and Africa), or how the Nazis said they invaded Poland and then the USSR preemptively against an incoming invasion.
These excuses don't matter in my mind, even if that is why the decision was carried out being as the nature of evil remains the same regardless of intention.
Sometimes the roots of evil are clear and protecting them under the guise of moral nuance lets them fester and grow.
It's not, most of the time (I believe) people add moral complexion to issues in order to excuse their own complicity in aggression.
Personal thought and contemplation can be deep, as well as external concepts, but reality is very straight forward.
There are powerful forces that abuse less powerful forces, it has nothing to do with intention. When one country bombs Yemen to dust and the other fights back, that disparity does not give you the privileged to say both sides are the problem.
When powerful institutions buy up property and sell it at high rates when people have the physical ability to settle into vacant homes, that is abuse of power.
When corporations keep wealth to themselves while the producers struggle to get by, that is abuse of power.
That is reality and no attempts to defend the rich and powerful change that. Excuse the slaughter of civilians all day by saying the situation is nuanced, but just know you are the problem.
The free market is a system to let the waters rise as fast as we can run to higher ground.
I’m just saying that the power dynamics of the world are simple.
There are some forces in the world that dominate others and as such create a clear understanding of who is in the wrong to the most functional level.
For example a landowner that deprives people the right of settling in vacant homes (with the help of the state) is using power to dominate over others with less power.
When a coalition airforce is destroying Yemen and the local population is fighting back with out any comparable firepower, that scale of power pins the destruction on those perpetrating it.
My point is when reality offers clear evidence to the source of the wrong doing, why do people use moral complexity to obscure simple moral realities?
1. You are trying to make political arguments in the Philosophy forum.
2. Are you saying, if I owned a piece of land, I am somehow compelled to let poor people settle on the land just because they are poor?
1. You are trying to make political arguments in the Philosophy forum.
2. Are you saying, if I owned a piece of land, I am somehow compelled to let poor people settle on the land just because they are poor?
That doesn’t have to do with natural law. You ‘own’ the land you live on/operate under.
Artificial ownership backed by state documentation is maintained by force. As such if a person needs shelter and finds a vacant homes, the only thing stopping them from settling there is authoritarian control.
That authoritarian control is an abuse of power.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
