4 ms·

Not being violent is the simplest and most ethical thing one can do. How we excuse it in others is beyond my comprehension.

olliej 5y ago
Is it though? Let's say there's a group of people that has decided to round up a few specific groups, concentrate them in camps, and then systematically execute them. Is it more moral to just let it happen, or use force to prevent it? (Just to note the nazi concentration camps were not any part of the motivation for the allies in WW2, they were perfectly content letting it happen until the Axis invaded. We can see almost exactly the same thing with the Uyghurs in China today)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- blockwriter 5y ago
  For a nation or for a person?
  - olliej 5y ago
    Does it matter? For example if a nation chooses to use force it needs the citizens to participate. Similarly violence of an individual against the state may also be morally justified: for example many people argue the US revolution was a good thing, a slave using force to escape, etc. This isn't to say the reverse can't also be true: a person using violence against the state because they're committing a robbery, but again that leads to questions of morality - the classic primary school question: if a friend is dying, and someone has a cure but my friend can't afford it, is it morally right for me to steal it to save my friend? Anyway, a lot of this is the fairly standard philosophy question of what is morality? The answer to that question depends on the framework you're using, personal values, etc My main point was stating an absolute: "no violence is always the morally correct choice" is not necessarily true
    - blockwriter 5y ago
      I think no violence remains a fantastically right choice, even if it is infeasible. Nietzsche describes somewhere how great a nation willing to be destroyed would be. I am unconcerned with abstract moral grey areas, but the only life that makes sense to me is one revolted by violence and is motivated by peaceful being. I understand that contemplation of those grey areas is important and valuable all the same. Still, in my view, individuals lack autonomy in no few instances. It is beyond the power of the individual to resist compulsory acts, provided that the lever of compulsion is significantly insurmountable. It seems that every act short of violence is preferable to violence. Violence remains inevitable; it is simply appalling. I understand that this position is the result of a kind of moral luck, but this is also a statement of gratitude for so much good fortune. What I cannot comprehend are those that benefit from this same luck and squander it.
torstenvl 5y ago
The U.S. is a nation built on a foundational idea directly opposed to your point of view: that freedom is the highest ideal, and it is justifiable to seek it even at the expense of blood. For that reason, it's my opinion that the rage experienced on the American political stage is not due primarily to the news media, but due to authoritarian political strains on both the left and the right. Everyone feels attacked from all angles because we have politicians trying to spy on your phone calls and internet activity, make the encryption that keeps you safe and free online less secure, ban you from getting married via constitutional amendment, force you to say or not say certain words, force you to get vaccinated, force you to accept political messaging from the leadership without being allowed to respond in kind, force you to serve in the military longer than you agreed (stoploss), force you to carry a pregnancy to term, force you force you FORCE YOU! to comply with the ruling orthodoxy of the day. The root problem isn't that people want to respond to this with violence. The root problem is that people don't recognize the violence being perpetrated by the state. The Louisville chief of police directs a no-knock warrant, Breonna Taylor ends up dead in the inevitable clash, and the low level officers executing the warrant are made scapegoats instead of putting the politicians who made this happen into the electric chair. I pray every day for this country not to erupt in further violence. But I fear with every fiber of my being that it will be inevitable unless the political leadership takes stock of what they are doing to the people.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- blockwriter 5y ago
  Peace alone is beautiful. If violence happens on one side of the political spectrum or the other, it does not need to be quantified or compared. If one identifies with a political movement that engages in violence, the only valid response is to wake up in the middle of the night, startled by the racing in the chest, and realize that you no longer have a political existence. You have been made a political orphan.
cronix 5y ago
If you see a [pronoun] being attacked by a [pronoun], I guess according to you it's completely ethical to walk away. It's definitely the simplest, no question.
- blockwriter 5y ago
  I believe a peaceful existence transcends this specific situation. The moral principle has already been violated by the attacker. The passerby in this situation would be faced with a quandary, and all must do as they must in those circumstances.

olliej 5y ago

Is it though? Let's say there's a group of people that has decided to round up a few specific groups, concentrate them in camps, and then systematically execute them. Is it more moral to just let it happen, or use force to prevent it? (Just to note the nazi concentration camps were not any part of the motivation for the allies in WW2, they were perfectly content letting it happen until the Axis invaded. We can see almost exactly the same thing with the Uyghurs in China today)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
blockwriter 5y ago
For a nation or for a person?
- olliej 5y ago
  Does it matter? For example if a nation chooses to use force it needs the citizens to participate. Similarly violence of an individual against the state may also be morally justified: for example many people argue the US revolution was a good thing, a slave using force to escape, etc. This isn't to say the reverse can't also be true: a person using violence against the state because they're committing a robbery, but again that leads to questions of morality - the classic primary school question: if a friend is dying, and someone has a cure but my friend can't afford it, is it morally right for me to steal it to save my friend? Anyway, a lot of this is the fairly standard philosophy question of what is morality? The answer to that question depends on the framework you're using, personal values, etc My main point was stating an absolute: "no violence is always the morally correct choice" is not necessarily true
  - blockwriter 5y ago
    I think no violence remains a fantastically right choice, even if it is infeasible. Nietzsche describes somewhere how great a nation willing to be destroyed would be. I am unconcerned with abstract moral grey areas, but the only life that makes sense to me is one revolted by violence and is motivated by peaceful being. I understand that contemplation of those grey areas is important and valuable all the same. Still, in my view, individuals lack autonomy in no few instances. It is beyond the power of the individual to resist compulsory acts, provided that the lever of compulsion is significantly insurmountable. It seems that every act short of violence is preferable to violence. Violence remains inevitable; it is simply appalling. I understand that this position is the result of a kind of moral luck, but this is also a statement of gratitude for so much good fortune. What I cannot comprehend are those that benefit from this same luck and squander it.

torstenvl 5y ago

The U.S. is a nation built on a foundational idea directly opposed to your point of view: that freedom is the highest ideal, and it is justifiable to seek it even at the expense of blood. For that reason, it's my opinion that the rage experienced on the American political stage is not due primarily to the news media, but due to authoritarian political strains on both the left and the right. Everyone feels attacked from all angles because we have politicians trying to spy on your phone calls and internet activity, make the encryption that keeps you safe and free online less secure, ban you from getting married via constitutional amendment, force you to say or not say certain words, force you to get vaccinated, force you to accept political messaging from the leadership without being allowed to respond in kind, force you to serve in the military longer than you agreed (stoploss), force you to carry a pregnancy to term, force you force you FORCE YOU! to comply with the ruling orthodoxy of the day. The root problem isn't that people want to respond to this with violence. The root problem is that people don't recognize the violence being perpetrated by the state. The Louisville chief of police directs a no-knock warrant, Breonna Taylor ends up dead in the inevitable clash, and the low level officers executing the warrant are made scapegoats instead of putting the politicians who made this happen into the electric chair. I pray every day for this country not to erupt in further violence. But I fear with every fiber of my being that it will be inevitable unless the political leadership takes stock of what they are doing to the people.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
blockwriter 5y ago
Peace alone is beautiful. If violence happens on one side of the political spectrum or the other, it does not need to be quantified or compared. If one identifies with a political movement that engages in violence, the only valid response is to wake up in the middle of the night, startled by the racing in the chest, and realize that you no longer have a political existence. You have been made a political orphan.

cronix 5y ago

If you see a [pronoun] being attacked by a [pronoun], I guess according to you it's completely ethical to walk away. It's definitely the simplest, no question.

blockwriter 5y ago
I believe a peaceful existence transcends this specific situation. The moral principle has already been violated by the attacker. The passerby in this situation would be faced with a quandary, and all must do as they must in those circumstances.