3 ms·
Opposing hypotheses: that violence is a choice driven by self interest; that violence happens when someone is angry enough they don't think things through; that
by rm445 11y ago
Opposing hypotheses: that violence is a choice driven by self interest; that violence happens when someone is angry enough they don't think things through; that violence is an expression of some primal instinct.
I think all of these are somewhat defensible: the bank robber motivated by self interest; assaults driven by personal arguments; drunken street-fights. But I think the article is very interesting and possibly has a very valid point, especially regarding potentially different approaches.
One thing I would like to see teased out, though, is just how much the 'moral motivation' involved in various violent acts boils down to an assailant retaliating for some non-violent but supposed outrage of their personal dignity. I think a lot of fights could be described that way but that doesn't make it a valid moral motivation.
- unit91 11y agoWhat about the scenario in which a person sees a child being sexually assaulted and intervenes? This is certainly not self-interest on the part of the rescuer, other than satisfying a deeply-held moral conviction. It may also be well thought-out. For example, my children have never been raped but I know I would use lethal force if necessary to prevent it. Even violence based on self-interest is ultimately grounded in morality. For example, if one has a right to life, self-defense is morally justified and murder is wrong. Both are motivated by self-interest (one licit, the other illicit). If violence does not contain some moral component, then we're stuck with very bizarre consequences (e.g., genocide and violently stopping genocide are on equally amoral footing).
- cortesoft 11y agoThe original author never mentions the word "valid" in regards to moral motivations. Trying to define what would make a moral motivation "valid" seems quite difficult.