Not a trick question: Why is violence bad?

[GeorgCantor]

OK, the original issue was whether or not freewill *could be* compatible with determinism, there is a major philosophical branch that believes it can be, and is. The fact you disagree with it is irrelevant. And the fact you rely on spirituality as a defense tells me you don't care about accuracy, only using the facts to support your ideology.

That "philosophical branch"(if it exists) needs to provide logial arguments for the compatibility of freewill and determinism. So far you have not presented anything that points to freewill. What you have presented after a dozen requests by me to stop saying what free is not, only leads to an illusion of free will(i.e. no free will).

Emergence, while interesting, is also much abused. Regardless, just because it isn't bound by physical laws as we currently understand them, doesn't mean its supernatural.

'Supernatural' is also very often abused by you. What do you mean by it and what do you mean by 'natural'? And then explain how you know what is natural and what is supernatural and how much of that 'knowledge' is based purely on belief? 1%, 50% or exactly 100.00%?

BTW i never implied freewill was 'supernatural', i never use that word as i don't understand what it's supposed to mean in the first place.

When did I say that, in fact, I am in complete control. The internal processes ARE ME.

And how do you know the internal processes are YOU? Through YOUR self-awareness. So you're saying the internal processes are themselseves and they know they are they. Sorry but this is very dumb. Tell your internal processes to get a clue.

No, you said freewill was spiritual because we don't understand it, and most physicists would agree we don't understand QM... therefore it must be spiritual too.

I said NO such thing. I said we don't understand what 'physical' is, hence freewill and ALL of reality might actually be spiritual. I don't know what both spiritual and what physical are and neither do you or anybody else on the planet for that matter.

All you are doing is inserting 'spiritual' into anything you don't understand.

You don't understand anything but a small set of causal relations in a small subset of reality that looks deterministic under specific conditions and seems to take place in space and time only under certain circulmstances. You have no idea what freewill, space, matter, time and self-awareness are and how they relate to each other. In fact, you'd be completely insane to think you understand something all that much about reality from your fragmented and contradictory knowledge of it. The implied 'understanding' in your post above is actually a very deep misunderstanding on your part. And misunderstanding is exactly the opposite of understanding. Wouldn't it have been much easier for everyone who reads this thread if you acknowledged upfront that you don't know what you are talking about wrt freewill(as i would have done on this and the other fundamental concepts - space, matter, time, self-awareness, etc.), instead of presenting a non-viable model with such certainty as in "free will requires determinism!"?

 

[GeorgCantor]

I put emergence in quotes for a reason. The bottom-up view of emergence is one approach - the reductionist. My approach is based on systems literature and is about the interaction of the top-down (constraints) and the bottom-up (construction). This is the most natural way to talk about the brain and other examples of complex adaptive systems.

So we both agree reductionism is inadequate. But you are not addressing something different, the systems approach, where people talk about different qualitative concepts such as autonomy.

Sounds to me like there is a reason why that approach needs to be constantly defined as systems "science". Otherwise, everything I've seen about it so far doesn't point to a 'science' but to a vague philosophy about emergence, that claims emergence is more or less explained, whereas no such explanation has been presented.

 

[Mkorr]

Many people only think that the initiation of the use of force is immoral, but support things like self-defense. The alleged justification for this comes from the concept of self-ownership and property rights. They are, in some sense, two sides of the same coin. If you do not own item X, someone taking it from you is not stealing anything.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Many people only think that the initiation of the use of force is immoral, but support things like self-defense. The alleged justification for this comes from the concept of self-ownership and property rights. They are, in some sense, two sides of the same coin. If you do not own item X, someone taking it from you is not stealing anything.

That's why a number of people posting on this thread, myself included, have challenged the basis on which the question "Why is violence bad?" is posed. You can't answer the question "why" something is bad if it isn't necessarily bad. That is, violence can be justified in certain circumstances, or you could just say it's a feature of nature.

So a lot of energy is going into defining "bad" here. In terms of moral philosophy, the idea of willful wrongdoing is important, and that entails the "free will" argument. I think the question should be restated to avoid this thread from wandering. (Of course, a number of people seem to like wandering threads in this forum).

 

[CRGreathouse]

Anything that humans deem negative to themselves or anybody is considered "bad" =) so there you have it.

I don't want someone calling me nasty names, but that doesn't mean that their ability to speak freely should be curtailed.

My application (not discussed here!) is to consider a particular legal and socially acceptable action which has negative effects on others. If I adopted your principle I would say that it should be forbidden, but it's not clear that it should be (in light, e.g., of my example of free speech). I'm trying to collect ethical principles that may be relevant without biasing people by discussing its particular nature.

 

[CRGreathouse]

We apply things like the Golden Rule to decide why we think we shouldn't inflict it upon the do-ee, but that's not to be taken for granted. Thus the reason for this thread.

Precisely!

 

[CRGreathouse]

That's why a number of people posting on this thread, myself included, have challenged the basis on which the question "Why is violence bad?" is posed.

Yes, because no one believed me when I wrote "Not a trick question". I'm not looking at the special cases but the broad general principles. There's a general principle that violence (as originally defined here: "nonconsentual forceful interactions or transactions between people, taking something of value from another for one's own gain", essentially intentional harm-causing) is impermissible, and there are exceptions where it *might* be allowed. Self-defense is sometimes allowable, depending on the circumstances and proportionality of the response; military action is sometimes allowable, depending on how and why it's declared and subject to restrictions on the action of those involved, etc.

I'm not asking for those corner cases, like when harm can be prevented only by inflicting lesser harm first. I'm asking about the basic underlying principle that stops me from taking my neighbor's car, stealing from the grocery store, beating up people whose music annoys me, or shooting someone who argues with me. These principles are fairly well-accepted -- not many people seriously argue that it would be OK for me to machine-gun down strangers just for the heck of it, or to steal their valuables, etc. If I walked up to a random house, smashed the window, and proceeded to take things from it there would be few people who would say that this is a moral action. Could it ever be moral? Perhaps, but I'm not talking about those cases.

 

[jreelawg]

violence is bad, because is harmful, or hurtful. No one can argue that being harmed is a good thing. Now if you divide the spectrum, and ask from the stance of the victim, as well as the victimizer. You may find that in some cases the victimizer may feel that the harm inflicted was a benefit.

Often, the victimizer however will in some way or another bring harm to themselves by committing the act of violence against another. For example, you may lose the respect, and trust of others who know what happened. You may turn people against yourself, you may invite a counter attack, or fuel the hatred of others against yourself.

As well as the external implications of your actions, there may be internal implications. In breaking the trust between yourself and others, and in self centering your justifications and your motives, you might iscolate yourself in a way.

Deep down inside, you will know your not trustworthy, or truly worthy of being loved. I think this will eat away at a person from within.

-

 

[SW VandeCarr]

=CRGreathouse;2774180
I'm not asking for those corner cases, like when harm can be prevented only by inflicting lesser harm first. I'm asking about the basic underlying principle that stops me from taking my neighbor's car, stealing from the grocery store, beating up people whose music annoys me, or shooting someone who argues with me.

Do you want to go deeper than I did in post 55? I referenced the general principles that were set forth in the US Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Assuming a functioning democracy carries out the will of the people, these concepts, and the laws based on them, would seem to come into play because they reflect some basic and widely held views on the ways humans should behave.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Often, the victimizer however will in some way or another bring harm to themselves by committing the act of violence against another. For example, you may lose the respect, and trust of others who know what happened. You may turn people against yourself, you may invite a counter attack, or fuel the hatred of others against yourself.

As well as the external implications of your actions, there may be internal implications. In breaking the trust between yourself and others, and in self centering your justifications and your motives, you might iscolate yourself in a way.

Deep down inside, you will know your not trustworthy, or truly worthy of being loved. I think this will eat away at a person from within.

-

Your argument is based on the idea that the "victimizer" will suffer consequences, including social isolation and loss of self esteem. But hardened criminals are largely immune from these consequences, although they may fear the sanctions of the law. A criminal culture has its own rules. Whole cultures of violence have existed in the past such as the Vikings. They had no trouble dehumanizing their victims and acting accordingly.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Reference:

The assumption is that the purpose of the democratic state is to protect our "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" by instituting and enforcing a social order that reflects the will of the people. To that end, we give the state a monopoly on violence to be used only to enforce just laws to maintain a social order that provides greatest benefit to the greatest number of people and guarantees everyone "certain inalienable rights."

The problem then is when the state is seen to abuse this monopoly. The calculus is that the state should use violence/coercion only to the extent that is justified to bring violations of the social order into balance. If someone does something 'bad' by breaking a law they should be punished and the victims compensated only to the extent of rectifying the violation. Too much, and the state becomes abusive. Too little, and society tends toward anarchy.

My example is intended to show that even when the state appears to achieve this goal, our idea of justice may or may not realized. In this example enforcement of contracts and property rights is seen as a social good. I simply ask if you think that when the laws to protect these social "goods" are properly enforced, the result is really compatible with some of idea of justice (which is presumed to be "good"). I didn't say that the outcome was 'bad'. At best it was neutral which is what is it should be. The social balance was restored after it was violated. But are you happy with the outcome? Maybe it's not so simple. Maybe your question doesn't have an obvious answer.

Do you want to go deeper than I did in post 55? I referenced the general principles that were set forth in the US Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Assuming a functioning democracy carries out the will of the people, these concepts, and the laws based on them, would seem to come into play because they reflect some basic and widely held views on the ways humans should behave.

Your post said that the purpose of the state was to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and also to reflect the will of the people. Beyond that you mostly talked about potential abuses of the state's monopoly on violence. (I'm not interested in the state's actions here, just those of the people.) So I'm really left with four maxims for the state from your post:
1. The state should protect the lives of its people.
2. The state should protect the liberty of its people.
3. The state should protect its people's pursuit of happiness.
4. The state should reflect the will of the people.

But I find these to be both too much and too little. #4 can easily contradict the others, and the first three can also contradict themselves. Of course each principle can even contradict itself, when people's rights collide.

Further, I'm extremely wary of using #4 as a basis for an ethical theory. I'd like an ethical theory that says that slavery is wrong, even if it's popular.

Importantly, though, these principles don't seem to address the questions I want to address. Should theft be illegal? Does the thief's desire for liberty and pursuit of happiness (no jail and the ability to steal, respectively) trump the people's will to ban theft? I can't appeal to a common notion that stealing is wrong because that's precisely what I've set out to justify (in this example). What if I want to consider whether downloading copyrighted music is OK, or jailbreaking an iPhone?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Often, the victimizer however will in some way or another bring harm to themselves by committing the act of violence against another. For example, you may lose the respect, and trust of others who know what happened. You may turn people against yourself, you may invite a counter attack, or fuel the hatred of others against yourself.

As well as the external implications of your actions, there may be internal implications. In breaking the trust between yourself and others, and in self centering your justifications and your motives, you might iscolate yourself in a way.

Deep down inside, you will know your not trustworthy, or truly worthy of being loved. I think this will eat away at a person from within.

So don't harm people because:
1. They might harm you back.
2. You know that it's wrong.

But I'm discussing what should be considered wrong. What if bar fights weren't considered to be wrong? If someone said something bad about your or your friend, you could just punch them out, break a bottle over their head, knife them, or whatever. People wouldn't think it strange, and it would be legal. Alternately, suppose that insulting people was a crime, and that it drew the same shock from people as mugging does in the real world. I'd like some ethical principles that would let me distinguish between them and other actions, without reference to the prevailing morals of the day (because I'm talking about what those morals, those assumptions, those laws would/should/could be).

Edit: I'll be a little more explicit, because I may not have made myself clear. In the case where fighting is the norm, #2 does not apply (but I'd like to be able, perhaps, to say that it's wrong). In the real-world where, unlike the second example, insulting people is generally allowable (no strong societal prohibition, no major legal restrictions), #1 applies but it's still considered OK. (I can say, "Bush is an awful person who destroyed our liberties" or "Obama is a terrible person who wastes our money" and be neither jailed nor scorned.)

 

[apeiron]

I'd like an ethical theory that says that slavery is wrong, even if it's popular.

This illustrates the central flaw in your search for deep principles. It never works when you are seeking the philosophical essence of something, because every figure requires a ground, every essence a context. The deep principle must thus concern the relationship between the local and the global.

If you ask questions like what is violence, or is slavery essentially and intrinsically wrong, then the obvious answer is always "it depends".

Now, many people go on from there to assume that all judgements about such matters are merely just relative. So many different contexts can be imagined, ones which change the meaning of the essence (the violence, the slavery, etc), that there can be no general objective (ie: model-able and measure-able) principles at work.

However I have argued otherwise based on systems thinking. The systems approach says that local and global have to form a tight mutual relationship - there has to be a mutual interaction going on that is fruitful enough for something to exist, and then persist. So whatever you observe locally, must have its synergistic counterpart globally.

Therefore, in this particular challenge you set, if you are asking what role does violence play in the human social system, you must also direct as much attention to asking what role does non-violence play. Furthermore, you need to reduce one of these properties to the local scale, the other to the global scale (so as to have a proper local~global hierarchical model).

It seems easy enough to say that violence is bad when it harms the integrity of the social system as a whole. Part of the definition of a system is that local and global are mutually supporting.

But this is a negative definitional approach to then modelling the social system we want to talk about. Which is why I suggested switching it round to a description based on "good" versions of violence (and non-violence). That is competition and co-operation.

Local competitive effort within the broad context of global co-operation obviously is the basis of functional societies (well, tell me how it's not?).

Violence is how we would describe instances of over-competition. And I like the matching term of blandness to describe instances of over-co-operation.

What about slavery? Is it always wrong? Well, it depends. If we apply the lens of competition~co-operation, we should actually be able to provide some credible answers.

Here goes. Slavery was obviously functional in early societies. Social groups were in competition with each other (city state against city state). And before engines and machinery, city states ran on slave power. You stole the natural resources of your rivals in terms of their people, and then used them. In the long run, a more co-operative balance might reassert itself. The slaves would become integrated to their new owner state and gradually become free. But anyway, slavery is wrong to the degree that it represents a destabilising over-competitiveness (at the level of city states). So wrong in a clearly defined context, not wrong in some essential, intrinsic, sense.

Slavery is also wrong if it stiffles local competition (the natural place to have competition remember). What you want in a smoothly functioning social system is a healthy variety of people, ideas and skills. This makes the system adaptive, dynamic. And enslaved people are less productive than a free people (rewarded if they strive within a broadly socially cooperative context).

I'm not an expert, but it seems that certain slaving societies, like Rome, did find ways to harness the talents of its slaves - their creative, competitive, freedoms were largely stiffled, but not completely stiffled. And so this would be why we feel moved to say slavery was less wrong in such a context.

Again, if you try to define any concept in isolation, you will just go round in baffled circles. Every definition needs also a definitional context. And then, it is not good enough to say oh well, there can be no answer for a different reason - one context looks as good as another and so it is all subjective, just someone's point of view. The relations between local and global, figure and ground, event and context, can be defined in a rigorous way for functional systems. Georg may scoff, but there is indeed a science of these things.

Why is this not more widely known? Maybe just because it is a more complex view of reality and it takes a little more effort to get it?

 

[jreelawg]

Your argument is based on the idea that the "victimizer" will suffer consequences, including social isolation and loss of self esteem. But hardened criminals are largely immune from these consequences, although they may fear the sanctions of the law. A criminal culture has its own rules. Whole cultures of violence have existed in the past such as the Vikings. They had no trouble dehumanizing their victims and acting accordingly.

Not entirely. That was just one component. There is still the threat you bring upon yourself by inviting revenge, or counter attack. There is still the fact of having enemies who wish you ill. You very well might be equipped to provide security for yourself, but you will constantly be looking over your shoulder.

Sometimes there is warranted violence, and there is self defense.

Clearly people do have no trouble dehumanizing their victims and cultures of violence have and do exist. That says nothing about wether the effect it has on their phycological framework is good or bad. People are undoubtedly most often the cause of their own problems. It is hard to prove, or say what is good or bad I suppose.

My general point though, is that from an outside and non-bias perspective, violence, generally as defined by the OP, is more bad than it is good in terms of net negative impact.

 

[jreelawg]

So don't harm people because:
1. They might harm you back.
2. You know that it's wrong.

Doesn't it depend on perspective? For me, an outside observer, I see a victim, and a victimizer. For me to judge wether it was good or bad, assuming I am not a benefactor of the act, is dependent on my judgment.

But, your viewing the question of if something is bad, from the first person perspective only. So in essence, you asking if it is bad for the victimizer? Surely if your were the victim, you would say it is bad. So perspective is important.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Clearly people do have no trouble dehumanizing their victims and cultures of violence have and do exist. That says nothing about wether the effect it has on their phycological framework is good or bad. People are undoubtedly most often the cause of their own problems. It is hard to prove, or say what is good or bad I suppose.

I would say that any psychological damage a Viking incurred would probably be due to the rejection he would have experienced from failing to kill enough people in a raid, or certainly failing to bring in enough booty. Showing mercy would have been definitely be viewed as a sign of weakness. Viking warriors lived in and were sustained by a culture of violence. They were very successful for several centuries and one of their ilk established the royal family of England which in turn ruled much of France. I don't think they worried much about retaliation either. As far as I know, no non-Vikings ever attacked their Scandinavian homelands.

My general point though, is that from an outside and non-bias perspective, violence, generally as defined by the OP, is more bad than it is good in terms of net negative impact.

It depends from where and when this 'unbiased' point of view is taken in a cultural and historic context. Do I think the cultural values of the modern western democracies are the best the human race has yet achieved? Yes, I do; but I'm biased.

 

[jreelawg]

I would say that any psychological damage a Viking incurred would probably be the rejection he would have experienced from failing to kill enough people in a raid, or certainly failing to bring in enough booty. Showing mercy would have been definitely be viewed as a sign of weakness. Viking warriors lived in and were sustained by a culture of violence. They were very successful for several centuries and one of their ilk established the royal family of England which in turn ruled much of France. I don't think they worried much about retaliation either. As far as I know, no non-Vikings ever attacked their Scandinavian homelands.



It depends from where and when this 'unbiased' point of view is taken in a cultural and historic context. Do I think the cultural values of the modern western democracies are the best the human race has yet achieved? Yes, I do; but I'm biased.

Yes, but now from the perspective of the Vikings, you argue the violence they had committed against others may be considered good. But it was certainly bad for those they murdered. In arguing that the violence they had committed wasn't bad, you have to apply the bias that what is good for the vikings is more important than what is bad for their victims.

 

[jreelawg]

It depends from where and when this 'unbiased' point of view is taken in a cultural and historic context. Do I think the cultural values of the modern western democracies are the best the human race has yet achieved? Yes, I do; but I'm biased.

Yes, but if you applied cultural and historical context, you are adding bias.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

But it was certainly bad for those they murdered. In arguing that the violence they had committed wasn't bad, you have to apply the bias that what is good for the vikings is more important than what is bad for their victims.

I never argued it wasn't bad. It was horrific! I said I doubt the Vikings suffered any psychological damage, as you supposed they might, as a result of their pillage, rape and slaughter. Their culture supported it and would have ostracized or perhaps even killed "wimps". They got what wanted because they had such a fearsome reputation.

 

[jreelawg]

I never argued it wasn't bad. It was horrific! I said I doubt the Vikings suffered any psychological damage, as you supposed they might, as a result of their pillage, rape and slaughter. Their culture supported it and would have ostracized or perhaps even killed "wimps". They got what wanted because they had such a fearsome reputation.

It is common in modern warfare for intense combat to have a negative phycological effect on people. I don't know wether it is the fear they experienced, the people they killed, or other, but PTSD, is very common among veterans, and I don't think it is really associated with cultural influence as much as their experiences.

For example, a person I know is in support of violence and ruthless killing of the enemy. At the same time, the way he has been affected by his combat experiences is a destabilizing factor in his life.

How successful the Vikings were as a nation doesn't really tell us about how individuals who committed acts of violence were affected personally. Common affects are having a short temper, sleeplessness, higher suicide rates, wanting to isolate yourself from society etc.

 

[DaveC426913]

It is common in modern warfare for intense combat to have a negative phycological effect on people. I don't know wether it is the fear they experienced, the people they killed, or other, but PTSD, is very common among veterans, and I don't think it is really associated with cultural influence as much as their experiences.

For example, a person I know is in support of violence and ruthless killing of the enemy. At the same time, the way he has been affected by his combat experiences is a destabilizing factor in his life.

How successful the Vikings were as a nation doesn't really tell us about how individuals who committed acts of violence were affected personally. Common affects are having a short temper, sleeplessness, higher suicide rates, wanting to isolate yourself from society etc.

I am having a really tough time swallowing the idea that Vikings thought what they did was wrong.

Same with native North Americans. Many tribes were extremely violent (arguably much worse than the Vikings, don't know if Vikings tortured their enemies to death).

I do not believe these cultures saw their enemy as equals; which is what would be required for them to empathize (i.e. to put themselves in their enemy's shoes).

 

[jreelawg]

I never said the Vikings thought what they did was wrong. PTSD doesn't require the belief in self wrongdoing, I don't think. If so it may be sub-conscious. I find it hard to believe that any human being no matter the culture would be immune entirely to the negative psychological impact of intense violence.

Also I think much of how the Vikings are perceived is myth.

 

[JoeDawg]

Also I think much of how the Vikings are perceived is myth.

Much of it was cultivated by the Vikings themselves, for obvious reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dane_Geld

 

[Galteeth]

I am having a really tough time swallowing the idea that Vikings thought what they did was wrong.

Same with native North Americans. Many tribes were extremely violent (arguably much worse than the Vikings, don't know if Vikings tortured their enemies to death).

I do not believe these cultures saw their enemy as equals; which is what would be required for them to empathize (i.e. to put themselves in their enemy's shoes).

The thing is, you really don't know, one way or the other.

 

[JoeDawg]

That "philosophical branch

Boy are you dense. Ok... you want a definition war... here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

'Supernatural' is also very often abused by you. What do you mean by it

Spiritual.

BTW i never implied freewill was 'supernatural', i never use that word as i don't understand what it's supposed to mean in the first place.

From dictionary.com

spir·it·u·al   /ˈspɪrɪtʃuəl/ Show Spelled[spir-i-choo-uhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit; incorporeal.
2. of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature: a spiritual approach to life.

su·per·nat·u·ral   /ˌsupərˈnætʃərəl, -ˈnætʃrəl/ Show Spelled[soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

And how do you know the internal processes are YOU?

That is an epistemological question. Whether freewill exists is ontological.
More evasion, typical.

I said we don't understand what 'physical' is...

phys·i·cal   /ˈfɪzɪkəl/ Show Spelled[fiz-i-kuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to the body: physical exercise.
2. of or pertaining to that which is material: the physical universe; the physical sciences.
3. noting or pertaining to the properties of matter and energy other than those peculiar to living matter.
4. pertaining to the physical sciences, esp. physics.

The fact that we don't understand something completely is not the same as not understanding anything at all. You keep doing backflips emphasizing what we don't know, as if that means we know nothing. Science can tell us quite about about our world. Yes, we have to make certain assumptions, but as long as we recognize our assumptions and where they exist, we don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water.

You don't understand anything

But I'm free enough to enjoy it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Georg, Joe: dial it back a notch with the insults, K?

This is a thread for all to participate in. No need to derail it by throwing poo around.

 

[disregardthat]

How successful the Vikings were as a nation doesn't really tell us about how individuals who committed acts of violence were affected personally. Common affects are having a short temper, sleeplessness, higher suicide rates, wanting to isolate yourself from society etc.

I don't think the symptoms of today can be translated to any society. For example: A society in which ruthlessness in war is a treasured quality, the feeling of isolation will be lower. If whole structure of values is different, the criteria for symptoms will also differ. I think it is plausible that the negative effect of war on vikings were much lower than today.

 

[jreelawg]

I don't think the symptoms of today can be translated to any society. For example: A society in which ruthlessness in war is a treasured quality, the feeling of isolation will be lower. If whole structure of values is different, the criteria for symptoms will also differ. I think it is plausible that the negative effect of war on vikings were much lower than today.

That's possible I guess.

I figure they probably had it worse. If you think about it, they fought with brutal weapons face to face. Many died. They wore conical helmets so swards would hopefully deflect off of their heads.

Had they been fighting orcs, I bet they still get PTSD.

Also, you have to consider that the Vikings were not a tribe or a nation or anything like that. It was a name given to solders who went out on missions and expeditions. It's kind of like how we have the marines.

There is actually no evidence that the Vikings were any more brutal than any other warriors at the time.

 

[dx]

He who knows the Bliss of Truth..does not distress himself with the thought "why did I not do what is good? why did I do what is evil?". Whoever knows this bliss regards both of these as Self, indeed he cherishes both as Self. Such, indeed, is the Upanishad, the secret knowledge of Truth.


- The Upanishads

 

[jreelawg]

He who knows the Bliss of Truth..does not distress himself with the thought "why did I not do what is good? why did I do what is evil?". Whoever knows this bliss regards both of these as Self, indeed he cherishes both as Self. Such, indeed, is the Upanishad, the secret knowledge of Truth.


- The Upanishads

Why is it you have to be taught "secret knowledge of truth" to overcome your conscious. Why does it not read---"Why did I not do what is evil?" "Why did I do what is good?" Because had you not done the evil, you would have no need to convince yourself not to be distressed.

When then asking yourself not of the past, but the future, why should I do what is good, and not what is evil? This is different. This involves obvious truth. You don't need to be in a cult to figure it out, and the less you use abstract poetry in your reasoning the better.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Why is it you have to be taught "secret knowledge of truth" to overcome your conscious.

I think you mean "conscience". Where does conscience come from? Are you born with it? Does a one year old child have a conscience? Would you expect the conscience of a Viking warrior would have been the same as yours? I believe Viking warriors had feelings for, and loyalty to their own kind, and observed a certain moral code of conduct within their clans. Otherwise how could they have been as chillingly effective as they were? They may not have feared death because a warrior's death in battle was the way to Valhalla.

 

[ThomasT]

I'm looking for a sound philosophical argument in (what seems to be) an obvious case so that I can apply it to other, less-obvious situations.

Why is violence bad? I mean nonconsentual forceful interactions or transactions between people, taking something of value from another for one's own gain: assault/battery, theft, or even murder. Actually I'll even include taking things by threat of violence, like protection rackets. These seem like bad things that should not be allowed, and indeed society generally does not sanction this kind of behavior. But why?

I think the standard response is Hobbes' social contract, but this is an incomplete answer to me. Yes, these things exist in a state of nature, but a social contract could provide for protection from some but not all of these, or could provide protection from outside dangers (wildfire, other tribes) but not from internal. Alternately, a social contract could provide for protection from entirely different threats (positive rights rather than negative rights, say) without protecting from these.Please be explicit; assume that nothing is obvious to me. Thanks. :shy:

I agree with those who've replied that violence isn't 'bad'. It's how we settle most disputes. Outside of purely academic circles, violence, or the threat thereof, is the ultimate arbiter of virtually all disputes. There you have it. It doesn't matter what you know, or how you know it, or who you know. What matters is what you want and whether or not you have the means to enforce your will. Period.

Why do we have laws against preemptive violence? Because it's a precursor to societal dysfunction. Why doesn't this apply at the international level? Because there are large armies ready to enforce the will of politicians who control them, and large armies, via the politicians who control them, ready to violently argue against your claims to ... whatever.

Without thinking, we approve of international violent actions that we ostensibly abhor wrt interpersonal behavior. Think about it. Most Americans seem to approve of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. However, if you were to attack and kill another human being simply because, in your estimation, he/she might do harm to you, then you would, most likely, be spending the rest of your life in prison, or executed, if caught.

Why doesn't the US face such consequences? Because it can do more violence to those who might hold it accountable for its actions than they can do in response.

Might makes right. It's always been so, and it will continue to be so. Period. Argue all you want. If I have a gun and you don't, then you will do my bidding, regardless of what is right or correct wrt any analysis.

 

[CRGreathouse]

If I have a gun and you don't, then you will do my bidding, regardless of what is right or correct wrt any analysis.

Yes, but I'm not asking what people would do if you had a gun, I'm asking what is right. Even if the man with the gun can force his will.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Might makes right. It's always been so, and it will continue to be so. Period. Argue all you want. If I have a gun and you don't, then you will do my bidding, regardless of what is right or correct wrt any analysis.

I disagree that 'might makes right" in the sense that we have biological predispositions. Clearly violence is bad for the sentient creature that experiences it, and for those who might in some way have attachments that creature. Our individual sense of right and wrong, our conscience, is initially rooted in small social circles, but not always strongly. Did you ever steal anything from your sibling? Do family members always agree on what's right and what's wrong? Our social conscience is a very pliable thing. Criminals will justify to themselves that their actions are right and society and it's laws are wrong.

Having said that, who posting here wants live in a society without laws; laws to protect our lives, our liberty (reasonably circumscribed to protect others), our property and other "certain inalienable rights."?

 

[ThomasT]

Yes, but I'm not asking what people would do if you had a gun, I'm asking what is right. Even if the man with the gun can force his will.

You're asking if moral criteria and behavior have a biological, an objective physical, basis. Yes -- and so do immoral and nonmoral and amoral behavior.

Preemptive violence, per se, isn't bad or wrong. We make rules against it's various manifestations because it tends to produce dysfunction of one sort or another.