Revisiting Moral Objectivism with Mathematical Notation

[Nancy Allen``]

Humor me, repeat it in a little more detail as it's quite ambiguis.

[Ray Jones]

The answer to your question from post #93 is: "No."

[Nancy Allen``]

But then by using violence to save your life you would be immoral.

[Ray Jones]

To survive means just that: to survive. The concept of moral comes after that.

[Mike Windu]

Where did we come up with the concept of violence as immoral? I mean I understand the underlying principle but it seems we're just now spouting random scenarios and saying "WOOD U UZ VIOLNCE N DIS SITUATYN?"

[Ray Jones]

Actually, I did say that at some point. (post #71)

"whoever is aware of the fact that he can act in a way that will destroy life, or will be harmful or affect other lifeforms in a somewhat negative way, has responsibility to avoid doing so" See, Nancy, acting violent is NEVER a moral way, NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER. Ever. But not helping others in need also ain't acting moral. The point is in real life you often face situations where you have to find a way to act as most morally as possible.

 

I mean I understand the underlying principle but it seems we're just now spouting random scenarios and saying "WOOD U UZ VIOLNCE N DIS SITUATYN?"

Yeah, the situation temporarily got out of control, eh? ^^;;

 

However, the more I think about it, the way I said it it means that when someone resorts to violence, even if this usage of violence is the ultimate factor whether he dies or not, it is immoral. E.g. in case of a knife attack the attacker is killed or wounded by his own knife. Or even if the attacked person simply manages to knock out the aggressor during his attack. That is not exactly what I meant (but I think it was also a reason for the discussion). I think when you simply react to an attack that you encounter unprepared, which I guess is also a reaction mostly of instinctive nature and to protect yourself from being hit/hurt, it hardly can be considered as immoral act.

[Mike Windu]

Well in that case, morality is simply temporarily abandoned in pursuit of self preservation.

 

[Totenkopf]

While I'd say that an optimal solution is to try to find a way to defuse a situation with non violence, it's incredibly naive and even presumptuous to state that the use of violence is absolutely immoral in any other context than immediate self defense. In part b/c not everyone values nonviolent solutions, but also b/c not everyone agrees on what constitutes morality in the first place. What is the first principle upon which your system is based? Pain prevention ? Aesthetics? Truth? Control/Order? Honor? God said so? Besides, quick violent action doesn't need necessitate death, especially in light of the many non lethal weapons available (or so to be) to the authorities.

 

As to the value of a mathematical equation...the values will much depend on the system you choose to base it on. Not quite the same as saying 1+1=2 (which at least appears universal in its acceptance), but perhaps valid in assigning a hierarchy of moral actions w/in a particular value system.

[Ray Jones]

While I'd say that an optimal solution is to try to find a way to defuse a situation with non violence, it's incredibly naive and even presumptuous to state that the use of violence is absolutely immoral in any other context than immediate self defense.

I think the point was, if you use violence against others to achieve whatever goal, it is immoral. If you use violence against others in any other context than reaction towards violence, it is immoral. And if you use violence although you don't need to, it is immoral.

 

What is the first principle upon which your system is based? Pain prevention ? Aesthetics? Truth? Control/Order? Honor? God said so?

Respect.

 

Besides, quick violent action doesn't need necessitate death, especially in light of the many non lethal weapons available (or so to be) to the authorities.

This seems rather irrelevant, because death isn't necessarily caused through violence. Also we were talking about violence in general, not deadly violence.

[Totenkopf]

But that's just the problem, YOU think it's immoral b/c of your first principle, in this case respect or in someone elses, empathy. That is merely your opinion(s). The question of need does not boil down to a knee jerk predisposition toward the revulsion toward the use of violence as a tool or reaction. Also, as regards the last point, a big reason for opposition to violence is the very real possibility of death or grievous injury in the first place. As far as we know, we only get once around, so there is a sort of self-preservation motivation at work.

 

It's questionable which is worse/immoral: a certain amount of death now to nip something in the bud or idly standing by waiting for the "evil force" to grind itself down over a 1000+ yrs of history or an almost cataclysmic 6 years via brutal fighting. To think onself moral b/c they avoided a fight now is vanity. Using the nazis as was done before this thread was split off, putting herr Hitler in his place before he was ready would very possibly have resulted in death and destruction, but unlikely on the scale that followed (unlikely b/c now we'll never know).

[Nancy Allen``]

I think saying that someone who has to use force, violence, to resolve a situation (police having to shoot someone who is about to shoot someone else for example) is very much splitting hairs.