4 ms·

What's wrong with hitting back a bully if you can? If you can, by all means do it. The problem is not that, it's shaming those who can't hit back.

mbrock 12y ago
Social contracts, religions, wisdom traditions of all kinds have been founded on the insight that "hitting back a bully if you can" is not a good behavior in the long term. The Buddhist text Dhammapada puts it like this, in Gil Fronsdal's translation: Hatred never ends through hatred. By non-hate alone does it end. This is an ancient truth. (Of course this is not evidence; you didn't provide any, either.)
- wvh 12y ago
  Idealistic moral philosophy and real life are quite different. My own experiences tell me repeatedly turning the other cheek will rarely improve your situation in reality. I think the utopia of religions and "wisdom traditions" run counter to human nature, especially in individual situations (e.g. bully violence) as opposed to a lofty moral concept for mankind (as in "we all ought to strive to...").
  - mbrock 12y ago
    I see your point. Moral philosophy and real life aren't separable in a clear-cut way, though. This conversation isn't about judging whether individual actions by people in extreme situations involving violence are right or wrong. It's about the ideas, emotions, and structures that surround those situations. Let's take another example. Consider the moral injunction "don't steal," and the ethical/philosophical idea "stealing is wrong." These are quite basic, definitely not outlandish. Yet there are many situations where stealing is necessary for one's survival[1] and therefore proper. Someone discussing the ethics of theft could well be accused of lofty idealism because of the existence of emergency situations wherein theft are necessary. But I think such examples don't completely invalidate the moral prohibition against stealing; they only show that nuance is required. This conversation started as a discussion of male conditioning, the culture of male violence, and how that relates to bullying at an early age. That's a larger scale than individual incidences of bullying. The "utopian" idea of nonviolence, for example as expressed in my Dhammapada quote, isn't primarily saying that kids should be scolded for hitting back. I'd say it's more relevant to how parents, perhaps especially fathers, should talk about such violence. The hypothetical parent who cheers on the bullied kid when he/she hits back may be propagating values that are not beneficial. [1]: Even such a strict property ethicist as Ayn Rand wrote about this in an essay called "The Ethics of Emergencies."
    - Retric 12y ago
      That's one way of looking at it. Another is violence is part of establishing a pecking order. Not fighting back generally establishes you as someone on a lower rank in the pecking order and invites more of the same over the long term. In cases where someone thinks physically you may be above them but you keep backing down this creates a tension. Where fighting back can clear things up and long term you may start a friendship with some of those bullies. Also, even if you lose making fights more costly / painful is a significant disincentive. PS: There are also pure sociopaths out there and not everyone can put up a good fight etc. But, in plenty of situations violence is not really vicious and can calm things down.
      - mbrock 12y ago
        That seems like a very appropriate viewpoint in a thread about primates. However, as an irredeemable idealist and utopist, I have hopes for a human social order not based on violence.
        Retric 12y ago
        I respect the utopian ideal, but Ideology separated from reality seems to cause a lot of issues. Basically non violent goals are a great thing to work toward, but non violent rules seem less useful.
        mbrock 12y ago
        I don't understand the terminology of "separated from reality." It's beyond obvious that ideology is a part of reality. What else would it be, supernatural?
        Retric 12y ago
        It's a belief, people can look at cultures who really and truly thought human sacrifice would appease the gods and think. "That's false" It's much harder to accept F=M * A is also false. Sure, F=M * A is arguably much closer to the truth we can even say F=M * A is a simplyfied model known to useful Yada Yada but in the end it's clearly not true. There are several less kind ways I could describe such overly simplified models, "Seperated from Reality" seems like the least offensive. Would you prefer, when there is a conflict between ideas and reality it's not reality that's false?

mbrock 12y ago

Social contracts, religions, wisdom traditions of all kinds have been founded on the insight that "hitting back a bully if you can" is not a good behavior in the long term. The Buddhist text Dhammapada puts it like this, in Gil Fronsdal's translation: Hatred never ends through hatred. By non-hate alone does it end. This is an ancient truth. (Of course this is not evidence; you didn't provide any, either.)

wvh 12y ago
Idealistic moral philosophy and real life are quite different. My own experiences tell me repeatedly turning the other cheek will rarely improve your situation in reality. I think the utopia of religions and "wisdom traditions" run counter to human nature, especially in individual situations (e.g. bully violence) as opposed to a lofty moral concept for mankind (as in "we all ought to strive to...").
- mbrock 12y ago
  I see your point. Moral philosophy and real life aren't separable in a clear-cut way, though. This conversation isn't about judging whether individual actions by people in extreme situations involving violence are right or wrong. It's about the ideas, emotions, and structures that surround those situations. Let's take another example. Consider the moral injunction "don't steal," and the ethical/philosophical idea "stealing is wrong." These are quite basic, definitely not outlandish. Yet there are many situations where stealing is necessary for one's survival[1] and therefore proper. Someone discussing the ethics of theft could well be accused of lofty idealism because of the existence of emergency situations wherein theft are necessary. But I think such examples don't completely invalidate the moral prohibition against stealing; they only show that nuance is required. This conversation started as a discussion of male conditioning, the culture of male violence, and how that relates to bullying at an early age. That's a larger scale than individual incidences of bullying. The "utopian" idea of nonviolence, for example as expressed in my Dhammapada quote, isn't primarily saying that kids should be scolded for hitting back. I'd say it's more relevant to how parents, perhaps especially fathers, should talk about such violence. The hypothetical parent who cheers on the bullied kid when he/she hits back may be propagating values that are not beneficial. [1]: Even such a strict property ethicist as Ayn Rand wrote about this in an essay called "The Ethics of Emergencies."
  - Retric 12y ago
    That's one way of looking at it. Another is violence is part of establishing a pecking order. Not fighting back generally establishes you as someone on a lower rank in the pecking order and invites more of the same over the long term. In cases where someone thinks physically you may be above them but you keep backing down this creates a tension. Where fighting back can clear things up and long term you may start a friendship with some of those bullies. Also, even if you lose making fights more costly / painful is a significant disincentive. PS: There are also pure sociopaths out there and not everyone can put up a good fight etc. But, in plenty of situations violence is not really vicious and can calm things down.
    - mbrock 12y ago
      That seems like a very appropriate viewpoint in a thread about primates. However, as an irredeemable idealist and utopist, I have hopes for a human social order not based on violence.
      - Retric 12y ago
        I respect the utopian ideal, but Ideology separated from reality seems to cause a lot of issues. Basically non violent goals are a great thing to work toward, but non violent rules seem less useful.
        mbrock 12y ago
        I don't understand the terminology of "separated from reality." It's beyond obvious that ideology is a part of reality. What else would it be, supernatural?
        Retric 12y ago
        It's a belief, people can look at cultures who really and truly thought human sacrifice would appease the gods and think. "That's false" It's much harder to accept F=M * A is also false. Sure, F=M * A is arguably much closer to the truth we can even say F=M * A is a simplyfied model known to useful Yada Yada but in the end it's clearly not true. There are several less kind ways I could describe such overly simplified models, "Seperated from Reality" seems like the least offensive. Would you prefer, when there is a conflict between ideas and reality it's not reality that's false?