6 ms·

Is it morally appropriate to get together a group of your friends and pressure someone to commit suicide on social media? By your logic, it seems that it is; th

Is it morally appropriate to get together a group of your friends and pressure someone to commit suicide on social media? By your logic, it seems that it is; their suicidal reaction to malicious and intentional verbal abuse is not anyone else's problem but their own. Many people seem to feel otherwise, and there are laws in place in various regions as a result. Are they wrong to choose to restrict your speech in favor of the collective good? If not, then what is the dividing line between "verbal abuse is okay" and "verbal abuse is not okay"? If it merely drives them to self-harm rather than suicide, is that morally acceptable, in some way that causing suicide is not? Societies have a long-standing tradition of restricting individual behaviors for the collective good. Wishing that societies wouldn't this is hopeless, because it seems like every society that doesn't restrict individual behaviors to some degree ends up becoming a textbook example of how not run a society. I read your moral position here as "if you are too frail to resist someone's words, you don't deserve protection from their verbal abuse with malicious intent". If I have misunderstood how your moral reasoning applies to the topic under discussion — trolls willfully causing psychological harm on the Internet — please help me understand where I've misapplied your logic.

scotuswroteus 5y ago
>Is it morally appropriate to get together a group of your friends and pressure someone to commit suicide on social media? By your logic, it seems that it is; their suicidal reaction to malicious and intentional verbal abuse is not anyone else's problem but their own. Did you intend to pressure them to do that? If you acted with that INTENT, and external evidence proves it, then NO, by OP's logic, that abuse is the perpetrator's problem. >Societies have a long-standing tradition of restricting individual behaviors for the collective good. In the UK? Come off it.
teakettle42 5y ago
> I read your moral position here as "if you are too frail to resist someone's words, you don't deserve protection from their verbal abuse with malicious intent" I’m not the original parent, but I read (and share) the position as: Barring intent by the speaker to inflict direct and immediate physical harm, if you are too frail to maintain your mental health in the face of someone else’s speech (or you pretend to be), then you are not served — and neither is justice, fairness, or truth — by the state applying its monopoly on violence to forcibly silence others at your behest. Instead, each individual is personally responsible for their own mental well-being, while the state’s responsibility extends no further than offering services and support to help enable your own individual resiliency.
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  In the case of the UK's laws, they are targeting people with specific intent to cause psychological harm. That's a critical component of "trolling": if no harm was caused to the abused party, then the trolls wouldn't bother, because they're fixated on hurting others for personal pleasure. So, then, "barring intent" is an invalid condition for this discussion, right?
  - teakettle42 5y ago
    I said direct and immediate physical harm. “Psychological harm” is something else entirely. Your position presupposes the guilt and innocence of both parties. The individual claiming “psychological harm” can just as easily be the perpetrator, and psychological harm will be inflicted on the victim by the state when they’re arrested for upsetting someone with narcissistic personality disorder.
    - floatingatoll 5y ago
      I do not presuppose guilt or innocence, but a claim must be made in order to reach a judgment on either, so all claims are presupposed in that sense. It seems unlikely that a UK court would reach such a judgment in favor of the perpetrator, as opposed to simply jailing them.
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    What constitutes intent when it comes to words? Do you have some magical device that enables you to extract intent from people's heads? I thought tru-crime was just science fiction and yet we have multiple individuals actually supporting a dystopian future where that's a real thing.
    - floatingatoll 5y ago
      It’s not necessarily magical, but we call those devices “judges” and “juries” here in the states, referring to those whose roles in the legal system include judging someone’s intentions. They usually do so without widespread access to telepathy or divination, and so too their UK counterparts.
StanislavPetrov 5y ago
>Is it morally appropriate to get together a group of your friends and pressure someone to commit suicide on social media? You are mistaking morality with legality. Morally its wrong, legally it shouldn't be. >I read your moral position here as "if you are too frail to resist someone's words, you don't deserve protection from their verbal abuse with malicious intent". Again, mistaking morality with legality. I'm not the OP, but that's my legal position, though it's not my moral position. >Societies have a long-standing tradition of restricting individual behaviors for the collective good. Wishing that societies wouldn't this is hopeless, because it seems like every society that doesn't restrict individual behaviors to some degree ends up becoming a textbook example of how not run a society. All coherent societies restrict individual behavior for the collective good. That doesn't mean that these restrictions should be dependent on entirely subjective things like thoughts and feelings. Minimal restrictions on individual behavior such as barring interpersonal violence or stealing property are more than ample for a society to run just fine without devolving into anarchy. I would argue we already have far too many legal restrictions on behavior, and we should be seeking to trim these restrictions away instead of pile more on and strip away what few freedoms we have left.
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  > That doesn't mean that these restrictions should be dependent on entirely subjective things like thoughts and feelings. That doesn't necessarily mean that restrictions should be dependent on entirely subjective things. Subjectivity alone is not sufficient cause to refuse considering whether the benefits of a proposed legal restriction on behavior outweigh the drawbacks. Subjectivity is a drawback, not a deal-breaker, and must be evaluated in full context alongside the benefits of the proposal. Subjectivity is a serious concern, and should never be glossed over or minimized in such evaluations. Subjectivity carries great risk, and should be revisited and reevaluated over time to ensure that the outcomes are considered against the intentions.

scotuswroteus 5y ago

>Is it morally appropriate to get together a group of your friends and pressure someone to commit suicide on social media? By your logic, it seems that it is; their suicidal reaction to malicious and intentional verbal abuse is not anyone else's problem but their own. Did you intend to pressure them to do that? If you acted with that INTENT, and external evidence proves it, then NO, by OP's logic, that abuse is the perpetrator's problem. >Societies have a long-standing tradition of restricting individual behaviors for the collective good. In the UK? Come off it.

teakettle42 5y ago

> I read your moral position here as "if you are too frail to resist someone's words, you don't deserve protection from their verbal abuse with malicious intent" I’m not the original parent, but I read (and share) the position as: Barring intent by the speaker to inflict direct and immediate physical harm, if you are too frail to maintain your mental health in the face of someone else’s speech (or you pretend to be), then you are not served — and neither is justice, fairness, or truth — by the state applying its monopoly on violence to forcibly silence others at your behest. Instead, each individual is personally responsible for their own mental well-being, while the state’s responsibility extends no further than offering services and support to help enable your own individual resiliency.

floatingatoll 5y ago
In the case of the UK's laws, they are targeting people with specific intent to cause psychological harm. That's a critical component of "trolling": if no harm was caused to the abused party, then the trolls wouldn't bother, because they're fixated on hurting others for personal pleasure. So, then, "barring intent" is an invalid condition for this discussion, right?
- teakettle42 5y ago
  I said direct and immediate physical harm. “Psychological harm” is something else entirely. Your position presupposes the guilt and innocence of both parties. The individual claiming “psychological harm” can just as easily be the perpetrator, and psychological harm will be inflicted on the victim by the state when they’re arrested for upsetting someone with narcissistic personality disorder.
  - floatingatoll 5y ago
    I do not presuppose guilt or innocence, but a claim must be made in order to reach a judgment on either, so all claims are presupposed in that sense. It seems unlikely that a UK court would reach such a judgment in favor of the perpetrator, as opposed to simply jailing them.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  What constitutes intent when it comes to words? Do you have some magical device that enables you to extract intent from people's heads? I thought tru-crime was just science fiction and yet we have multiple individuals actually supporting a dystopian future where that's a real thing.
  - floatingatoll 5y ago
    It’s not necessarily magical, but we call those devices “judges” and “juries” here in the states, referring to those whose roles in the legal system include judging someone’s intentions. They usually do so without widespread access to telepathy or divination, and so too their UK counterparts.

StanislavPetrov 5y ago

>Is it morally appropriate to get together a group of your friends and pressure someone to commit suicide on social media? You are mistaking morality with legality. Morally its wrong, legally it shouldn't be. >I read your moral position here as "if you are too frail to resist someone's words, you don't deserve protection from their verbal abuse with malicious intent". Again, mistaking morality with legality. I'm not the OP, but that's my legal position, though it's not my moral position. >Societies have a long-standing tradition of restricting individual behaviors for the collective good. Wishing that societies wouldn't this is hopeless, because it seems like every society that doesn't restrict individual behaviors to some degree ends up becoming a textbook example of how not run a society. All coherent societies restrict individual behavior for the collective good. That doesn't mean that these restrictions should be dependent on entirely subjective things like thoughts and feelings. Minimal restrictions on individual behavior such as barring interpersonal violence or stealing property are more than ample for a society to run just fine without devolving into anarchy. I would argue we already have far too many legal restrictions on behavior, and we should be seeking to trim these restrictions away instead of pile more on and strip away what few freedoms we have left.

floatingatoll 5y ago
> That doesn't mean that these restrictions should be dependent on entirely subjective things like thoughts and feelings. That doesn't necessarily mean that restrictions should be dependent on entirely subjective things. Subjectivity alone is not sufficient cause to refuse considering whether the benefits of a proposed legal restriction on behavior outweigh the drawbacks. Subjectivity is a drawback, not a deal-breaker, and must be evaluated in full context alongside the benefits of the proposal. Subjectivity is a serious concern, and should never be glossed over or minimized in such evaluations. Subjectivity carries great risk, and should be revisited and reevaluated over time to ensure that the outcomes are considered against the intentions.