TheRPGSite

In a recently closed thread here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10392), another past closed thread (here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2322)) was brought up that dealt with whether a fantasy setting dealing with pedophilia in a potentially positive way was legitimate or not.  As with the discussion of Poison'd, there were people who feel that you shouldn't judge people by the fantasies that they are willing to indulge in with others or the fantasies themselves, even though most people generally make exceptions for games like RaHoWa and FATAL, apparently believing that they can tell the difference between a person exploring dark fantasies for legitimate reasons from a person who gets their jollies out of such fantasies and would carry them into the real world.  I don't think it's that simple.

I think there are legitimate reasons why certain fantasies, especially expressed in public, creep normal people out who haven't been convinced to believe that it's abnormal to be disgusted by fantasies and normal to accept them.  I continue to be amazed by people who think it's a worse sin to condemn a disgusting fantasy than it is to enjoy it.  It's as if psychopaths have convinced the world that their cold analytical perspective is normal and that the normal reaction is abnormal.  Why do I say that?

In this article (http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html), the author writes:

   In another Hare study, groups of letters were flashed to volunteers. Some of them were nonsense, some formed real words. The subject's job was to press a button whenever he recognized a real word, while Hare recorded response time and brain activity. Non-psychopaths respond faster and display more brain activity when processing emotionally loaded words such as "rape" or "cancer" than when they see neutral words such as "tree." With psychopaths, Hare found no difference. To them, "rape" and "tree" have the same emotional impact -- none.

In other words, a normal person reacts differently to emotionally loaded words than they do emotionally neutral words because of the concepts that they represent.  It's not surprising that they react the same way to fantasies described with such words and evoking similar acts.  Arguing that this sort of reaction is somehow wrong and abnormal is saying that we should react with emotional detachment and indifference like psychopaths or hide and suppress our reactions if we don't.  But that negative reaction to certain words or ideas is why normal people don't push a three-year-old friend into the deep part of a motel pool because they want to see someone drown (http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/psychopath/1.html) or say things like, "[M]y mother, the most beautiful person in the world. She was strong, she worked hard to take care of four kids. A beautiful person. I started stealing her jewellery when I was in the fifth grade. You know, I never really knew the bitch -- we went our separate ways."

When we hear things like that, we're supposed to be shocked and feel revulsion and the reason why we're supposed to be creeped out by people who have such fantasies is that it's safer to assume that they are psychopaths than to assume that they aren't.  Yes, normal people can have such fantasies and never harm anyone but treating such fantasies as normal makes it harder to sort out the dangerous psychopaths from normal people.  If you don't want people to think you are a psychopath, don't talk and act like one rather that telling me there is something wrong with me for being shocked by such fantasies and finding them unpleasant.  Such fantasies are a warning sign that there is something that's not right about a person and if you don't want people to think there is something wrong with you, find something else more normal and less shocking to fantasize about.  In fact, I think a big part of the reason why society used to demand a certain amount of restraint and conformity from people is that people who do have something wrong with them find it difficult to exercise restraint and to conform.

If you look at the Columbine killings, the Austrian who kept his daughter as a sex slave in the basement, and a large number of similar situations, there were almost always warning signs but those warning signs were ignored by people who wanted to assume the best, wanted to mind their own business, and didn't want to judge the behavior of someone else as strange.  We intuitively feel that strange people are creepy for the same reason that we intuitively fear falling from high places.  It's a survival instinct and we're stupid to simply ignore it.

In fact, here (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/33915_kondro07.shtml) is an article about a psychopath, their fantasies, and how they see themselves:

   In 22 hours of interviews with Longview police Detective Scott McDaniel, Kondro compared himself to an alligator resting at the bottom of a pond. Sometimes, he came up to feed.

"There's an adrenalin rush," he explained later. "It's kind of addicting."

[...]


Kondro led a double life. As a Catholic schoolboy, he says he fantasized about hurting and raping girls. As a young teen, he put together a "rape kit" and kidnapped a young woman.

"I'm a sociopath, psychopath. I've done a lot of weird things," he said. "I can remember (as) a little kid being sexually deviant with kids in the neighborhood. And it never stopped. My victims never got older. I've been a serial child rapist ever since I was a child myself."

Kondro said he deserves to be put to death.

"If someone did what I did to my family," he said, "I'd want them on death row."

Maybe not everyone who has a fantasy like that is dangerous or will act on it, but plenty of dangerous people who do things like that often do fantasize about them first.  That makes such fantasies suspect, and rightly so.  I see no equivalent benefit in normalizing it.

I totally think that people should be squicked out by such stuff.  I suspect that you'd find (if a calm conversation on the subject could be had) that even many of the people who cherish such fantasies are, simultaneously, squicked out by them.

I tend to take issue with the leap from "This squicks me out!  YUCK!" to "Even talking about this is morally repugnant."  But that's not what you're saying here, so ... I think that until and unless you go further on the whole "If you want people to think you're normal" line of reasoning, I'm in full agreement.

Not sure how this fits in, but I've been trying to figure out why I enjoy, and am not at all embarrassed to say I enjoy, stuff like S. Clay Wilson's Checkered Demon and Captain Pissgums, or R. Crumb, etc. Heck, I even thought that Natural Born Killers skated on the good side of the line separating worthwhile stuff from offensive crap.

Yet I'm turned off by Poison'd APs, Very Bad Things (with Christian Slater), and other cultural products--which at least at first blush I blame on "bad taste".

So far I see three possibilities.

1) It's entirely an issue of what I like, and I don't really care about the offensiveness issue at all.

2) It's a question of good art justifying the offensiveness in some way. As if Very Bad Things would annoy me less if it was just a bad movie instead of a bad movie that revels in grossness.

3) It's a question of honesty vs. self-indulgent hypocrisy. Then again the honesty I'd expect to find in RaHoWa isn't something I'd enjoy. Truth be told I can't help but read the grosser underground comics, or Troma films, as basically self-parodying. So maybe it's "good" irony vs. "bad" earnestness that turns me off.

Quote from: John MorrowIWhen we hear things like that, we're supposed to be shocked and feel revulsion and the reason why we're supposed to be creeped out by people who have such fantasies is that it's safer to assume that they are psychopaths than to assume that they aren't.  Yes, normal people can have such fantasies and never harm anyone but treating such fantasies as normal makes it harder to sort out the dangerous psychopaths from normal people.  If you don't want people to think you are a psychopath, don't talk and act like one rather that telling me there is something wrong with me for being shocked by such fantasies and finding them unpleasant.

Logically, it seems to me that if

1) Your goal is to more easily sort out dangerous sociopaths.
2) A useful but not conclusive marker for sociopathy is not being revulsed by such material.  

Then you should encourage people to react naturally to such material. Such material should be available or it is useless as a test.  Further, you don't want to encourage people to feign revulsion that they don't feel -- since that would make it harder to distinguish.  

Obviously this means that anyone who feels genuinely revulsion by such should not be forced or encouraged to include it in their games.  However, I don't think that anyone has been arguing that regarding the questionable RPG material.  As far as I've seen, people have been saying that if it floats their boat, then that's their business.  


That said, I don't think I really buy those premises.  I'm not convinced that rare RPGs will have any impact in identifying dangerous sociopaths.  So the whole chain of logic doesn't really factor in how I think about them.  I'm not generally into the whole scene of dark-themed RPGs in general, and I would prefer culturally to push more positive themes.  However, my preference for doing so would be relatively low-key.

Quote from: John MorrowMaybe not everyone who has a fantasy like that is dangerous or will act on it, but plenty of dangerous people who do things like that often do fantasize about them first.  That makes such fantasies suspect, and rightly so.  I see no equivalent benefit in normalizing it.

There are at least four alternatives, when perceiving sociopathic anti-social behavior:
1) Positive emotion: "Hey, that sociopathic behavior is fun and everyone should try it!"
2) Negative emotion: "Sociopaths squick me!  I don't want to look!"
3) Absence of emotion with curiosity and intellectual approval: "I feel nothing but I want to use such tactics to my personal advantage."
4) Absence of emotion with curiosity and intellectual disapproval: "I feel nothing and I want to understand such tactics in order to exterminate those who use them."

Sociopaths are exactly that, a competitor form of social life.  If the larger society hopes to survive, it had better evolve some white blood cells.  I can't  imagine a smart white blood cell could have any reaction but (4) -- curiosity without approval.

In some happy circumstances, criminologists can help societies to reduce crimes.  Criminology cannot advance without appropriate scientific curiosity about crime.  Edit: Therefore I want to stress that it's possible to support popular criminology in clumsy ways, which do more harm than good, or in clever ways, which minimize reactions (1) and (3) while maximizing reaction (4).  In order to maximize reaction (4), I think it may be necessary to allow some observable sociopathic fantasies in the short run, but that such an apparent act of tolerance does not constitute "condoning" or "normalizing."

Quote from: John MorrowMaybe not everyone who has a fantasy like that is dangerous or will act on it, but plenty of dangerous people who do things like that often do fantasize about them first.  That makes such fantasies suspect, and rightly so.  I see no equivalent benefit in normalizing it.

This just seems so... thought police to me. And just because there's a consensus of what the bad behavior is now, in this instance, doesn't mean this is a good way to approach things. "You think it, therefore you're suspect," can not lead to anything good. Yeah, you might catch a few crazies before they do anything, but your wide net will also catch many, many harmless people merely exercising their minds. Where do you draw the line? "OOOhhh, those video games, they turned my child violent! Do YOU play violent video games?"

Quote from: JimLotFPThis just seems so... thought police to me. And just because there's a consensus of what the bad behavior is now, in this instance, doesn't mean this is a good way to approach things. "You think it, therefore you're suspect," can not lead to anything good. Yeah, you might catch a few crazies before they do anything, but your wide net will also catch many, many harmless people merely exercising their minds. Where do you draw the line? "OOOhhh, those video games, they turned my child violent! Do YOU play violent video games?"

I don't agree that, "'You think it, therefore you're suspect,' can not lead to anything good," especially when a person lacks the restraint to keep their opinions to themselves.  Are you honestly telling me that if a person told you he had fantasies of driving around at night murdering homosexuals or raping little children that you wouldn't have concerns about that or consider them suspect?  Would you trust a friend with child molestation fantasies with a child and, if not, why not if not because their fantasies make them suspect?

If GTA encouraged you to engage killing homosexuals do you think that there wouldn't be an uproar over it?  Or how about GTA: Racial Holy War where you pick a race and drive around murdering members of another race?  Or how about a game where you play Nazis and get points for rounding up Jews?  Do you honestly think that such games wouldn't create an uproar?  And isn't the uproar that such games would create that keep them out of the mainstream and keep mainstream publishers from pushing those limits?  And, yes, that denies normal people the potential joy of playing a video game where they can murder homosexuals, participate in a race war, or round up Jews for extermination but is that really a shame?  Is society worse for that loss?  I don't think so.

As for the consensus over what is bad behavior, one of the characteristics of psychopaths is that they can't distinguish between moral violations and conventional violations.  Moral violations are things that people consider wrong regardless of whether social rules permit them or not while conventional violations are considered wrong only because social rules say that they are wrong.  Psychopaths treat everything like a conventional violation because they lack the innate moral compass that normal people have.  

You seem to be assuming that we only consider things wrong out of convention and not because anything is actually morally wrong.  While I don't think that makes you a psychopath, I do think that's another example of buying into the psychopath perspective -- that the only thing that makes things wrong is a "consensus" that it's wrong, thus given the right context, anything might be acceptable.  That's exactly the argument psychopaths use to justify doing anything that they want because when nothing is universally right or wrong, you can make an argument that anything should be permissible.

You guys have way too much time on your hands.

Quote from: John MorrowI don't agree that, "'You think it, therefore you're suspect,' can not lead to anything good," especially when a person lacks the restraint to keep their opinions to themselves.  Are you honestly telling me that if a person told you he had fantasies of driving around at night murdering homosexuals or raping little children that you wouldn't have concerns about that or consider them suspect?  Would you trust a friend with child molestation fantasies with a child and, if not, why not if not because their fantasies make them suspect?

It completely depends on the context of the conversation. "Thinking about and/or describing" =/= "fantasizing about."

Quote from: John MorrowIf GTA encouraged you to engage killing homosexuals do you think that there wouldn't be an uproar over it?  Or how about GTA: Racial Holy War where you pick a race and drive around murdering members of another race?  Or how about a game where you play Nazis and get points for rounding up Jews?  Do you honestly think that such games wouldn't create an uproar?

They would now, but there are periods of time and places when they probably wouldn't have, and that's what I'm talking about when I say "consensus." These standards always change. It wasn't all that long ago that openly discussing beliefs in racial equality put you on the fringe, and advocating atheism still does. Or being openly gay and saying there isn't anything wrong with it. How about being a communist, or even not ardently disavowing communism? How about wanting marijuana for medical purposes? A lot of hysteria ends up looking very bad with time, and you'd think people would make an effort to not keep repeating this cycle.

Being in a rush to act outraged over what other people are thinking... *shrug* Yes, I do it too sometimes, concerning racially charged metal bands (whereas the gore-related stuff, especially directed towards women, just makes me yawn... google the lyrics to Necropedophile and realize that was written by the same band that made it into the Ace Ventura movie and got mentioned by Bob Dole in 1996).

I'm not saying "everything should be allowed" when it comes to people you talk to, or people posting here, or whatever. "Dude, that's not cool. Hush." And if they keep up, it's an issue of disrespect, not their thoughts.

If they actually harm someone, nail them to the fucking wall.

Otherwise... *shrug*

Quote from: John MorrowAs for the consensus over what is bad behavior, one of the characteristics of psychopaths is that they can't distinguish between moral violations and conventional violations.  Moral violations are things that people consider wrong regardless of whether social rules permit them or not while conventional violations are considered wrong only because social rules say that they are wrong.  Psychopaths treat everything like a conventional violation because they lack the innate moral compass that normal people have.

I think downloading music is morally wrong. Does that mean that I should treat everyone that does it like a psychopath?

Quote from: John MorrowYou seem to be assuming that we only consider things wrong out of convention and not because anything is actually morally wrong.

I believe morality is completely invented by people. I believe the only difference between your definitions of "morally wrong" and "conventionally wrong" is the amount of dissenters within the population, especially when it comes to sexual morality.

And I will say that "sex with children in real life" is a very, very different thing than "sex in a fictional setting with people that can give informed consent that are called children." If they can give actual consent (telepathically determined in whatever setting whatsisface wrote, as I recall), they're not really children in any meaningful way.

SO,.... What is this?

 You guys browse at extreme porn on the web and are hoping someone says thats "okay' or something?

Had violent thoughts toward your boss or co-workers?


- Ed C.

Quote from: JimLotFPIt completely depends on the context of the conversation. "Thinking about and/or describing" =/= "fantasizing about."

There is not a 1:1 correspondence, but the former can certainly be an instance of the latter.  

Quote from: JimLotFPThey would now, but there are periods of time and places when they probably wouldn't have, and that's what I'm talking about when I say "consensus."

And there were periods of time and places were actually going around and murdering homosexuals, members of another race, or Jews were socially condoned.  But if you look at how that's done and what the people really think about what was going on, the moral reasoning underneath is still there.  Have you ever seen pictures or movies of Germans forced to go on tours of concentration camps after WW2?

Quote from: JimLotFPThese standards always change. It wasn't all that long ago that openly discussing beliefs in racial equality put you on the fringe, and advocating atheism still does. Or being openly gay and saying there isn't anything wrong with it. How about being a communist, or even not ardently disavowing communism? How about wanting marijuana for medical purposes? A lot of hysteria ends up looking very bad with time, and you'd think people would make an effort to not keep repeating this cycle.

And you think all of those things are equivalent?  Being outraged over the idea of a video game where the players drive around killing homosexuals is the same as being outraged over the idea of a black person and white person getting married and having children?  

Quote from: JimLotFPI'm not saying "everything should be allowed" when it comes to people you talk to, or people posting here, or whatever. "Dude, that's not cool. Hush." And if they keep up, it's an issue of disrespect, not their thoughts.

And what if they tell you that they think it's cool and that you should mind your own business?  Then isn't it an issue of you disrespecting them?

Quote from: JimLotFPIf they actually harm someone, nail them to the fucking wall.

Lots of people drive legally drunk without ever getting into an accident yet we make drunk driving illegal, even though it punishes people who have never gotten into an accident and may accidentally be driving while legally intoxicated.  Do you think it's legitimate to make drunken driving illegal because of the risk that it poses to others or do you think we should wait until they actually get into an accident and hurt someone else before arresting them?

Quote from: JimLotFPOtherwise... *shrug*

So how do you believe that people develop their morality, if you don't believe there is some sort of innate or objective core to it?  Do you believe that people learn their morality?  If so, where do they learn it from?  If they learn it from their environment and the prevailing culture around them, how can you simultaneously argue that one should be indifferent to the quality of the environment or the elements of the culture that surrounds people?  

Quote from: JimLotFPI think downloading music is morally wrong. Does that mean that I should treat everyone that does it like a psychopath?

It's been my experience that the people who do oppose downloading music illegally do consider it a moral wrong because they see it as stealing while people who don't oppose downloading music illegally tend to see music, because of commercial radio and MTV, as something freely available.  A sense of fairness and value also comes into play.  And of course estimates are that around 4% of the population are psychopaths who are often intelligent, articulate, and like to justify their behavior so I wouldn't be surprised if they were over-represented on the side supporting illegal downloads.

The way a normal person frames a moral problem can change how they view a situation.  Brain scans of people making moral decisions show, for example, that people are more willing to throw a switch to sacrifice one person to save five (a pure impersonal rational decision) than to push one person to their death personally to save five (a personal emotional decision) because the problems are processed differently in most people's minds.  Thus if you see downloading music as denying a deserving artist of compensation for their work, it's my experience that you are more likely to consider illegal downloading wrong than if you see downloading music as casually copying something that you can get for free on the radio and that the only one who is getting hurt is a large faceless music company that abuses musicians and rips customers off, anyway.  

Yes, you can reframe the moral landscape all the way up to getting people to support murder and genocide, but the core morality is almost always there.  It was that common moral foundation that allowed people to convince other people that slavery was wrong, that women should have the right to vote, that enemies in times of war should be treated fairly, and so on.

Quote from: JimLotFPI believe morality is completely invented by people. I believe the only difference between your definitions of "morally wrong" and "conventionally wrong" is the amount of dissenters within the population, especially when it comes to sexual morality.

Brain scans suggest otherwise.  You can find a good basic overview of some of the research here (http://discovermagazine.com/2004/apr/whose-life-would-you-save).  And research on psychopaths, as I mentioned earlier, suggests that they don't react physiologically to moral issues as non-psychopaths do.

But assuming for the sake of argument that morality is completely invented by people, where do people get their morality from, then, in your opinion and what shapes a person's morality?

Quote from: JimLotFPAnd I will say that "sex with children in real life" is a very, very different thing than "sex in a fictional setting with people that can give informed consent that are called children." If they can give actual consent (telepathically determined in whatever setting whatsisface wrote, as I recall), they're not really children in any meaningful way.

The reasons why children are not considered able to give consent extends far beyond knowing what they truly want.  The problem is that children often do not understand the context and consequences of their choices, thus telepathy or something like it could not solve key problems.

But the reason why it's creepy is that it raises the question of why one would include children that are not children in the game.  it suggests an attraction to the physique of children and many pedophiles, in defense of their actions, make arguments that the child went along with it or that the relationship was good for the child.  It's like making feces and edible and nutritious delicacy in a game setting.  It makes people wonder why a game designer would possibly include something like that.  And I would argue that human beings have that sort of emotional response for a reason -- because it's useful.

Quote from: John MorrowThere is not a 1:1 correspondence, but the former can certainly be an instance of the latter.

So? I don't care if there is a 1:1 correspondence, the monitoring and attempted censorship of thought is always more evil than any thought that can be had. I believe that intellectual freedom must be absolute.

Quote from: John MorrowHave you ever seen pictures or movies of Germans forced to go on tours of concentration camps after WW2?

Were they the same ones running the place?

Quote from: John MorrowAnd you think all of those things are equivalent?  Being outraged over the idea of a video game where the players drive around killing homosexuals is the same as being outraged over the idea of a black person and white person getting married and having children?

Being upset over interracial marriage strikes me as being more sensible than being upset over a video game. At least it's real. And to be clear - I have no problem with interracial relationships whatsoever.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd what if they tell you that they think it's cool and that you should mind your own business?  Then isn't it an issue of you disrespecting them?

I've disassociated myself from people for sillier reasons than that. People don't have any obligation to get along and be friendly.

Quote from: John MorrowLots of people drive legally drunk without ever getting into an accident yet we make drunk driving illegal, even though it punishes people who have never gotten into an accident and may accidentally be driving while legally intoxicated.  Do you think it's legitimate to make drunken driving illegal because of the risk that it poses to others or do you think we should wait until they actually get into an accident and hurt someone else before arresting them?

This isn't the same thing at all - these people are physically impaired.

Quote from: John MorrowSo how do you believe that people develop their morality, if you don't believe there is some sort of innate or objective core to it?  Do you believe that people learn their morality?  If so, where do they learn it from?  If they learn it from their environment and the prevailing culture around them, how can you simultaneously argue that one should be indifferent to the quality of the environment or the elements of the culture that surrounds people?

I do believe that people learn their morality. And we shouldn't be indifferent, and we should express our opinions about what is right and wrong, but the bottom line is you can't have freedom and liberty without the ability to think of and express even the most revolting thoughts.

Quote from: John MorrowThe way a normal person frames a moral problem can change how they view a situation.  Brain scans of people making moral decisions...

I really don't care what happens in people's brains. I mean, it's interesting, but it's completely irrelevant to the topic.

Quote from: John MorrowIt was that common moral foundation that allowed people to convince other people that slavery was wrong, that women should have the right to vote, that enemies in times of war should be treated fairly, and so on.

So where was this common moral foundation for the thousands of years in history when women were politically inferior and slave-holding was the norm?

Quote from: John MorrowBut assuming for the sake of argument that morality is completely invented by people, where do people get their morality from, then, in your opinion and what shapes a person's morality?

Ultima IV. (that'll sound snarky, but...)

Really, I have no idea. You can feed the same input into different people and get different results. People are different. When we figure out why we're different, and come up with effective ways to influence that on an internal, immutable level (genetic engineering?), then being human will be meaningless and being free will be impossible.

Quote from: John MorrowBut the reason why it's creepy is that it raises the question of why one would include children that are not children in the game.

Maybe he enjoys pissing people off. Who cares? I think it's pretty dodgy myself, but there's a world of difference in saying "Well that's pretty icky" and engaging in a crusade to make sure everyone else thinks it's icky too and convince people that Something Should Be Done.

I'd like to answer  a small section of John's post, out of context slightly. John should feel in no way obligated to reply-as this is simply something I'm posting for my own edification.

Quote from: John MorrowSo how do you believe that people develop their morality, if you don't believe there is some sort of innate or objective core to it?

Well obviously the answer varies, after we don't all grow up the same way, under the same circumstances, or with the same inherent abilities, or genetics-or whatever you'd like to use as your particular yard stick in this case.

I do not believe in morality as innate or objective thing. You, quite obviously, do. I suspect that in the end neither of us will agree with each other on how people develop morality, or where the lines should be drawn. However keep in mind that I'm okay with you drawing your lines in a different spot, and a different fashion than i do my own.

QuoteDo you believe that people learn their morality?

In part, I do. I am certainly not a scientist-nor am I particularly educated man (I read, I have two years of college, I have military and law enforcement training. But Aristotle I am not.)-so I may not be able to provide you with pages of empirical data at a moments notice, however I will endeavor to be clear in my opinions, and logic. As clear as I can. However in the end we're debating about something that is subjective, and there will be no real concrete conclusion.

Now that said I say in part, because I do believe that some people-for whatever reason-are genetically predisposed towards certain behaviors.

QuoteIf so, where do they learn it from?

I think that people learn morality from a variety of sources, almost all fo them environmental.

QuoteIf they learn it from their environment and the prevailing culture around them, how can you simultaneously argue that one should be indifferent to the quality of the environment or the elements of the culture that surrounds people?  

I think this is a valid point. I agree that you cannot ignore or be indifferent to the quality of the environment that surrounds people-I'm taking a more altruistic stand point/point of view here than I might normally give at any given moment.

If you do care about how other people act, then yes you do have to be concerned about what they are exposed to and why. I don't think anyone here is arguing for, or pushing for a society devoid of limits-but I think JimLotFP would agree with me that some of us don't think all of the limits are in the right spots for the right reasons. (Does that make sense?)

At any rate I'm enjoying reading this.

Quote from: KoltarHad violent thoughts toward your boss or co-workers?

I'm pretty sure that John is telling me that I'm morally forbidden to talk about such things.  It would be suspect, and permitting discussion of suspect material will let the Nazis come back.

Which is to say:  John, you've officially hit the "unless and until you take it further" point I discussed earlier.  I have gone from agreeing with your original posting (squicky subjects make people feel squicky) to thinking that your extension of it into a push for the moral necessity of conformity and self-censoring is complete ass.

Can't you just leave it at "If you squick people out then they won't want to hang around with you" without saying "It is a SIN to squick people out"?  Is that honestly so hard?

I think there are several questions that are potentially being tangled up here. To my mind some of the issues include

• Is it okay to think less of someone for talking about taboo subject material?
• What about considering them dangerous? What about considering them dangerous enough to take legal action against?
• Is it morally wrong to talk about taboo subject material?
• Should it be illegal to talk about taboo subject material?
• Does the quality of the discourse change any of the above?

I'm probably missing some. These are all very different answers for me. My answers would be that I apply a couple of principles, most of which deal with intent (which cannot necessarily be known, but can be inferred):

• Do I think they morally endorse hurting other people?
• Do I think they intend to incite others take harmful action?
• Do I think they are planning to take harmful action (E.g. the fantasies they are indulging in are an ideation stage for actual, real-world harm)?

If I think the answer is 'yes' to any of these then I would consider it a sever moral and possibly psychological character defect on the part of the writer, I would advise caution in dealing with them personally.

I stop short of thinking people should be locked up for having nasty fantasies -- although in some cases it might be indicated (where the fantasy is, essentially, a threat).

Now, this has very little to do with subject matter -- A Clockwork Orange is full of violence and degradation but I don't think less of Anthony Burgess. My assessment is based on my subjective reaction to the work in question.

Now, I don't think the Poison'd Actual Play falls into any of those categories. I don't know about the pedo stuff (I didn't read it) but it might. Things like the Turner Diaries or RaHoWa probably does.

If the work doesn't fall into the above categories, but appears to be transgressive for shock value and without other redeeming qualities I would probably think a bit less of the writer (this is where I find the Poison'd AP falling), but I wouldn't necessarily call it a serious moral failing.

It's just... not-classy.

Transgressive, with redeeming quality (in my opinion) is fine, and would encompass some works I really dig.

I realize this opens up a whole set of quality-of-art issues -- but getting agreement on what constitutes redeeming quality seems to be asking a bit much for these conversations.

Finally I would look at subject material that deals with real-life atrocities in (more or less) living memory. I think it's very hard to do these things justice and the result is likely to be not-classy...

I'm a bit disappointed in highly judgmental folks who think it's wrong to judge others based on the content of the work they publish. It seems, if not hypocritical, then at least philosophically asymmetric.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: JimLotFPSo? I don't care if there is a 1:1 correspondence, the monitoring and attempted censorship of thought is always more evil than any thought that can be had. I believe that intellectual freedom must be absolute.

Do you believe that teachers and professors should have the freedom to lie to their students to deceive them?  Do you believe that activists should have the freedom to incite others to violence?  Do you believe that people should have the right to slander and libel other people without repercussions?  Do you honestly believe that it should be absolute, with no boundaries?

Quote from: JimLotFPWere they the same ones running the place?

No.  They were the people living nearby who often insisted that they had no idea what was going on in the camps.

Quote from: JimLotFPBeing upset over interracial marriage strikes me as being more sensible than being upset over a video game. At least it's real. And to be clear - I have no problem with interracial relationships whatsoever.

The people upset about violence in video games believe that the connection between the games and real violence is real.  That's every bit as real as the basis upon which many people opposed "miscongenation".  All of these things generally seem rational in some way to the people who support them.

Quote from: JimLotFPI've disassociated myself from people for sillier reasons than that. People don't have any obligation to get along and be friendly.

So you believe in individual shunning but not any official legislation, then?

Quote from: JimLotFPThis isn't the same thing at all - these people are physically impaired.

Why is the physical impairment relevant?

Quote from: JimLotFPI do believe that people learn their morality. And we shouldn't be indifferent, and we should express our opinions about what is right and wrong, but the bottom line is you can't have freedom and liberty without the ability to think of and express even the most revolting thoughts.

I suppose I should point out that I think that freedom and liberty are means to and end rather than an end and that freedom and liberty are never absolute.  Once you prohibit people from hurting each other, stealing from each other, trespassing, verbally sexually harassing their employees and so on you've stepped onto the slippery slope of limiting liberty and freedom and have turned it from a discussion of absolutes to a discussion of what grounds freedom and liberty can legitimately be limited.  

Quote from: JimLotFPI really don't care what happens in people's brains. I mean, it's interesting, but it's completely irrelevant to the topic.

It's not irrelevant because it helps illustrate how morality works and why.

Quote from: JimLotFPSo where was this common moral foundation for the thousands of years in history when women were politically inferior and slave-holding was the norm?

Take a good look at the history of women and slavery (and infanticide and pillaging, and so on) and what contemporaries said about it.  The way to condone doing horrible things to others is to (A) emotionally distance them, (B) dehumanize them (an extreme form of emotional distancing), (C) clouding the issue with other strong emotions (e.g., using envy and revenge to deaden empathy), or (D) providing an unavoidable pragmatic incentive (e.g., threatening to kill a soldier as a traitor if he refuses to kill enemy civilians).  And estimates suggest that 4% of the modern population are psychopaths and we have no way of knowing if that's always been true, since they aren't entirely sure if it's caused by nature or nurture (thus the use of psychopath and sociopath almost interchangeably).

You can certainly make people do all sorts of terrible things that should conflict with common morality.  But the reason why the treatment of slaves and women was often moderated and not as awful as it could have been was that the core moral foundation can only be stretched so far.  It's also why people are able to make moral arguments that can change the ideas and behavior of people.

For example, if you have three people and each one gives you a dollar and you give two of them a piece of bread and the third one a cake, the two who got the piece of bread are going to feel cheated.  You can do the same study with chimpanzees and get the same result.  This is not a rational reaction and game theorists have long been confused about why people will choose nothing over an unfair deal that nets them some small benefit or why they will seek revenge even at a net loss to themselves in response to unfairness or being cheated and the reason is that it's a visceral reaction that even chimpanzees seem to experience.  

This is why the brain studies are relevant.

Quote from: JimLotFPReally, I have no idea. You can feed the same input into different people and get different results. People are different. When we figure out why we're different, and come up with effective ways to influence that on an internal, immutable level (genetic engineering?), then being human will be meaningless and being free will be impossible.

What do you think free will is?

Here (http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/web_material/latimes050204.htm) is another article about studies on how human brains make decisions:

   The experiments with monkeys and MRI technology have largely evolved from the clinical observations in the 1990s by a single neurologist, Antonio Damasio of the University of Iowa. By studying people who suffered damage to parts of the brain, Damasio found that feelings can be a shortcut message system, drawing on our lifetime of experiences to prod us in a direction before the slower process of reasoning produces an answer. Fear, delight, dread and other emotions arise as what Damasio terms "somatic markers" that grab our attention. They are often felt as a physical sensation—that hollow feeling in the pit of the stomach that signals dread based on our many experiences. They help whittle down the range of choices we face when making a decision.

Good illustrations of this process abound in daily life. Did you jump checkout lines at the supermarket because the cashier in your line seemed too chatty? Why do we give erratic drivers on the freeway extra room to merge? Why do we go back and doublecheck whether we locked our front doors?

To back up his hypothesis, Damasio showed how people who suffered damage to the feeling centers of the brain—areas such as the amygdala and prefrontal cortices, which are near the brain stem—found it difficult, if not impossible, to make even the simplest choices. Without access to somatic markers, setting the time for a doctor's appointment or choosing a restaurant for dinner became a torturous process.

Quote from: JimLotFPMaybe he enjoys pissing people off. Who cares? I think it's pretty dodgy myself, but there's a world of difference in saying "Well that's pretty icky" and engaging in a crusade to make sure everyone else thinks it's icky too and convince people that Something Should Be Done.

The problem is that if you look at the discussion of pedophilia here as well as the discussion of Poison'd on RPGnet, people are being told that they are wrong for saying that certain things are icky saying that they think it reflects badly on the person doing the icky thing.  In other words, the crusaders here are just as often those that try to convince everyone else that these things aren't really icky and that nothing should be done about it, not even criticism.

Quote from: TonyLBI'm pretty sure that John is telling me that I'm morally forbidden to talk about such things.  It would be suspect, and permitting discussion of suspect material will let the Nazis come back.

I suspect that if you have violent fantasies about your boss and talked about them with your co-workers and it got back to your boss, it would have an impact on your employment of some sort.  Do you think it's OK for a boss to do something if they find out that one of their employees is sharing violent or sexual fantasies about them with co-workers?

Quote from: TonyLBWhich is to say:  John, you've officially hit the "unless and until you take it further" point I discussed earlier.  I have gone from agreeing with your original posting (squicky subjects make people feel squicky) to thinking that your extension of it into a push for the moral necessity of conformity and self-censoring is complete ass.

Well, what do you think is a legitimate response to something that makes you feel squicky?  

Quote from: TonyLBCan't you just leave it at "If you squick people out then they won't want to hang around with you" without saying "It is a SIN to squick people out"?  Is that honestly so hard?

I never said it was a sin.  My main problem is that there are people who seem to want to argue that it's illegitimate to judge people by the fantasies that they have.  Do you agree that it's legitimate to judge people by the fantasies that they have and share with others or not?  If you do (and it sounds like you do), why do you think it's OK?

Quote from: Serious PaulI do not believe in morality as innate or objective thing. You, quite obviously, do.

I believe that it's a combination of nature and nurture.  The nature forms the common foundation (which is what's broken in psychopaths) and the nurture can determine how elements are interpreted by that foundation.  

Quote from: Serious PaulHowever in the end we're debating about something that is subjective, and there will be no real concrete conclusion.

There are numerous articles out there on psychopaths and law enforcement.  If you are still involved in law enforcement, you should probably take a look at them.  Psychopaths don't respond to normal police techniques and there is some evidence that conventional programs to reform criminals actually make psychopaths more likely to commit more crimes.

Quote from: Serious PaulIf you do care about how other people act, then yes you do have to be concerned about what they are exposed to and why. I don't think anyone here is arguing for, or pushing for a society devoid of limits-but I think JimLotFP would agree with me that some of us don't think all of the limits are in the right spots for the right reasons. (Does that make sense?)

I think many people would like to draw the line at when something causes actual harm to another person, and that makes a certain amount of sense.  The reason why I brought up drunk driving is that it illustrates why society might want to do something before someone actually gets hurt.  I think there is a valid interest in preventing people from hurting other people rather than punishing them after the fact.  But of course that has to be balanced against other interests, with anarchy at one end of the spectrum and Big Brother at the other.  Somewhere between those extremes, we need to sort out a reasonable balance.

Quote from: -E.I'm probably missing some. These are all very different answers for me. My answers would be that I apply a couple of principles, most of which deal with intent (which cannot necessarily be known, but can be inferred):

• Do I think they morally endorse hurting other people?
• Do I think they intend to incite others take harmful action?
• Do I think they are planning to take harmful action (E.g. the fantasies they are indulging in are an ideation stage for actual, real-world harm)?

I think that's a pretty good list.  

Quote from: -E.If I think the answer is 'yes' to any of these then I would consider it a sever moral and possibly psychological character defect on the part of the writer, I would advise caution in dealing with them personally.

And that's where I think the problem is.  Often, we don't know if the fantasy is a harmless thought exercise or an expression of actual beliefs that a person might act on.  So my question is this.  Should we err on the side of assuming that the fantasies are harmless or should we err on the side of caution and assume that they aren't?  Especially when we are dealing with relative strangers on the Internet?

Quote from: -E.I stop short of thinking people should be locked up for having nasty fantasies -- although in some cases it might be indicated (where the fantasy is, essentially, a threat).

How do you tell?

Quote from: -E.Now, this has very little to do with subject matter -- A Clockwork Orange is full of violence and degradation but I don't think less of Anthony Burgess. My assessment is based on my subjective reaction to the work in question.

A Clockwork Orange ultimately doesn't glorify violence.  It illustrates the horrors of it, though it also makes a statement in favor of free moral agency.

Quote from: -E.Now, I don't think the Poison'd Actual Play falls into any of those categories. I don't know about the pedo stuff (I didn't read it) but it might. Things like the Turner Diaries or RaHoWa probably does.

I think the way that the Poison'd Actual Play was introduced on RPGnet was problematic.  It's like talking to someone who starts telling you about how cool the rape scenes are in A Clockwork Orange but leaves out their impressions of the parts where Alex is abused or the overall theme.  

It's like the people in theaters who laughed about Edward II's gay lover being tossed out of the window by Edward I in Braveheart.  Laughing at the deadpan approach of Edward I and the stunned pathetic response from his son, or laughing about a gay man being murdered?  If you know the person who laughed, you might know the answer to that but how to you judge a stranger who laughs?

Quote from: -E.If the work doesn't fall into the above categories, but appears to be transgressive for shock value and without other redeeming qualities I would probably think a bit less of the writer (this is where I find the Poison'd AP falling), but I wouldn't necessarily call it a serious moral failing.

It's just... not-classy.

OK.  So how is it legitimate to react to something that's not classy?  And like having a neighbor that leaves a half-assembled car on the front lawn, and old couch on their porch, and never cuts their lawn isn't classy, what does it do to the quality of the environment for those around them?  This comes back to RPGPundit's point about lawn crapping, despite the fact that he spends a lot of time on his lawn with his pants around his knees himself.

Quote from: -E.Transgressive, with redeeming quality (in my opinion) is fine, and would encompass some works I really dig.

What's a redeeming quality of a transgressive work?

For example, Paul Czege wrote in this blog's replies section (http://attacksofopportunity.blogspot.com/2006/01/whats-your-most-dangerous-gaming-idea.html):

   But the thing about ritual is that it taps way into the human reptilian brain, and makes you feel comfortable when you're not. If I ritualized Bacchanal I could temporarily make players feel comfortable about entering seriously transgressive territory. But they'd wake from it the next day, and regret having revealed their innermost secrets, or of betraying illicit desires.

Do you think that sort of thing is good or bad?

Quote from: -E.I'm a bit disappointed in highly judgmental folks who think it's wrong to judge others based on the content of the work they publish. It seems, if not hypocritical, then at least philosophically asymmetric.

Beyond the fairness issue (fairness being one of those innate moral concepts), I also want to know why people don't think its legitimate to judge people by the content of their ideas and expressions of those ideas when so clearly people find it legitimate to do so in other areas of life.

I don't think we need a detailed philosophical or psychological analysis to know that some shit is just stinky.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI don't think we need a detailed philosophical or psychological analysis to know that some shit is just stinky.

No, but you might need a detailed criminological analysis to determine the best method in which to clean up aforesaid offal.

Quote from: JimLotFPThis just seems so... thought police to me. And just because there's a consensus of what the bad behavior is now, in this instance, doesn't mean this is a good way to approach things.

I'll see your "thought police" and raise you a "power corrupts."

If thought police - or any police -- could be kept incorruptible, fewer people would object to them.

But power attracts the corruptible, and absolute power is absolutely delightful to the absolutely corruptible.

Quote from: John MorrowAre you honestly telling me that if a person told you he had fantasies of driving around at night murdering homosexuals or raping little children that you wouldn't have concerns about that or consider them suspect?  

What about the people who know for a fact that some homosexuals *are* child molesters?  Do they have a right to fantasize about killing the child molesters?  Do they have the right to actually kill in order to prevent more children from being molested?  Are such rights to be regulated by the state, or only by God?

These are really productive questions, when debated with a team of professional ethics professors.  

An Internet forum is not likely to rise to the required level of professionalism.

IMO, people can think what they like. Once they start disseminating their fantasies, though, then society at large is permitted to intervene. If you talk about that shit with me, I will ask you to shut up. If you produce and disseminate "Child Sex Murder Weekly", then it's the right of society at large to say, through the courts, usually, "You know what? Please don't produce and sell that crap. It's horrible."

Now, of course, the fantasy fiddler has options open to them to claim, eg, artistic rights or that their kink is harmless or some such, and if - after due consideration - society expresses its opinions (through the courts again) that - you know? - they've got a point, then fair enough, the rest of us have to put up with it. However, the right of society at large to say "Uh, no thanks." is an important one.

This is how this dialogue has been going on for the last century or so, and it seems to have worked so far. The good stuff survives (Lolita, Naked Lunch, Ulysses etc), relatively harmless stuff continues to appear (99.9% of porn, eg, and likely the enormous majority of crap that Nambla peddles) and occasional sick shit gets hit with the ban stick. I'm more or less happy with the situation as it stands.

I've course I'm not a professional ethics professor, so I'm sure that lacks the required level of professionalism.

Ned

Quote from: John MorrowI suspect that if you have violent fantasies about your boss and talked about them with your co-workers and it got back to your boss, it would have an impact on your employment of some sort.  Do you think it's OK for a boss to do something if they find out that one of their employees is sharing violent or sexual fantasies about them with co-workers?

Of course it's alright for them to do something.  Dude.  At what point did I ever say "You're not allowed to react to being squicked out"?

Quote from: John MorrowWell, what do you think is a legitimate response to something that makes you feel squicky?

There's all sorts of legitimate responses.  You can throw up on their shoes.  You can refuse to associate with them ever again.  EDIT:  You can even say, loudly, that they're morally reprehensible for doing such a thing.  I'd disagree with you, but saying it is a legitimate response.

Under the law, you cannot (for instance) hit them in the face or burn down their My Little Pony collection.  But any legal and ethical thing you can do?  Sure.  Whatever.  I might think you're over-reacting, but that's your prerogative.

There's this whole rich field of human behavior that has nothing to do with who is right, and who is wrong ... yeah?

Quote from: John MorrowI never said it was a sin.  My main problem is that there are people who seem to want to argue that it's illegitimate to judge people by the fantasies that they have.

I get the feeling that you're using a different sense of the word "judge" than I am.  'cuz your sentence above sorta reads like this:  "I never said it was wrong to do X, I just have a problem when people argue that it's not legitimate to say that it's wrong to do X."  I suppose that's technically correct, but you're saying it in a really odd way.

If you're using "judge" as "I judge that Malcolm is a gross, tasteless person" then we're back to agreement.  But I don't think that's honestly what you're trying to get across.  I judge that you're being disingenuous, because you're doing every damn thing in your power to walk right up to the edge of "This is morally wrong" with your rhetoric.

Really, man, you aren't comparing this kind of suspect discussion to (say) dead-baby jokes or MILF emails ... you're comparing to queer-bashing, school-killings and the holocaust.  Godwin's law is there for a reason:  Using this kind of emotionally loaded material in an argument shows a bias that people will judge you upon :D

Quote from: riprockWhat about the people who know for a fact that some homosexuals *are* child molesters?  Do they have a right to fantasize about killing the child molesters?

I think there is a distinct difference between having fantasies about killing the bad guys to stop them from doing horrible things to good people or the avenge the bad things that they've done and fantasies about being the bad guys doing horrible things to good people.

Quote from: riprockDo they have the right to actually kill in order to prevent more children from being molested?  Are such rights to be regulated by the state, or only by God?

I think that's a bit off the topic, though you can start another thread about vigilante justice, if you want.  Being vigilantes is a common theme in role-playing games and the related genres that they cover so it might be worth a look.

Quote from: riprockAn Internet forum is not likely to rise to the required level of professionalism.

I think we're doing pretty good so far.

Quote from: John MorrowI think there is a distinct difference between having fantasies about killing the bad guys to stop them from doing horrible things to good people or the avenge the bad things that they've done and fantasies about being the bad guys doing horrible things to good people.

Creatively, don't you have to do the latter before you can do the former?

Quote from: riprockThese are really productive questions, when debated with a team of professional ethics professors.  

An Internet forum is not likely to rise to the required level of professionalism.

So we should only discuss things if we have a professorship in it? Otherwise we must be silent and simply accept the wisdom of our betters?

While it's an idea that I'm sure has great appeal to professors of all kinds, my considered response to that would be, "fuck off, you stupid git."

Quote from: TonyLBOf course it's alright for them to do something.  Dude.  At what point did I ever say "You're not allowed to react to being squicked out"?

Do you think a boss can react by firing an employee for fantasizing about killing them or having sex with them and then sharing it with co-workers?  If so, isn't that fairly punitive?  Would it be OK for them to get a restraining order?  How about filing harassment charges in court?  I'm looking for some detail on what you consider a legitimate response vs. an illegitimate response.

Quote from: TonyLBThere's this whole rich field of human behavior that has nothing to do with who is right, and who is wrong ... yeah?

Correct, but I'm not sure that field is as expansive as some people argue that it is.

Quote from: TonyLBI get the feeling that you're using a different sense of the word "judge" than I am.  'cuz your sentence above sorta reads like this:  "I never said it was wrong to do X, I just have a problem when people argue that it's not legitimate to say that it's wrong to do X."

I think that's part of the problem, yes.

Quote from: TonyLBIf you're using "judge" as "I judge that Malcolm is a gross, tasteless person" then we're back to agreement.  But I don't think that's honestly what you're trying to get across.  I judge that you're being disingenuous, because you're doing every damn thing in your power to walk right up to the edge of "This is morally wrong" with your rhetoric.

Well, that's the edge I want to explore -- why people react to certain ideas as moral wrongs and whether that's legitimate or not.  I would agree that aesthetics are simply matters of personal opinion (at least part of what you refer to above as a "whole rich field of human behavior that has nothing to do with who is right, and who is wrong") but I think there are legitimate reasons why large numbers of people react to certain ideas and fantasies as moral wrongs and I think there are legitimate reasons for that reaction.  

People react to certain ideas with varying degrees of disgust, there is a pattern to it that scientists are starting to understand, and there is likely a good reason why that behavior is built into the human psyche (whether via evolution or deity).  And the question of what happens when a human being lacks that visceral moral response is not merely academic.  We can see the sorts of behavior it produces in psychopaths who do, in fact, lack those responses.  A lot of the parts of the human psyche that we take for granted such as empathy, fear, and so on are visceral, not rational, and we can know what happens if a person is lacking many of those visceral responses because we often can find examples of such people (e.g., there is a small number of people who lack a sense of fear and don't viscerally know that it's dangerous to step out in front of a moving car -- they need to think through the likely result if they do so).  So I don't think it's a good idea to totally ignore those visceral feelings, though moderation might be warranted.

But beyond that, the arguments used in defense gross and tasteless ideas are often the same sorts of arguments that psychopaths use to rationalize their behavior and to argue that they should be left to do what they want.  As such, I wonder if society embracing the morality of a psychopath doesn't encourage society to move in a direction that leads no place good.  

The natural back-pressure against gross, tasteless, and disturbing ideas is social pressure through shunning.  In such an environment, normal people are discouraged to express such ideas through disincentive and the psychopaths stick out like a sore thumb.  But by arguing that such ideas should never be condemned or controlled and protecting their encroachment in the public space, the encourage of such liberty can actually lead to it being taken away legally, because that's what happens when the liberty of a few becomes a liability for the many.  I think moderation is in everyone's best interest because extremes lead to extremes.

Quote from: TonyLBReally, man, you aren't comparing this kind of suspect discussion to (say) dead-baby jokes or MILF emails ... you're comparing to queer-bashing, school-killings and the holocaust.  Godwin's law is there for a reason:  Using this kind of emotionally loaded material in an argument shows a bias that people will judge you upon :D

Part of why I'm using emotionally loaded material to point out that the sort of emotional detachment that people seem to call for as a matter of principle has limits.  The reason why a person might want to ban a violent video game is because they believe it has the potential to trigger real violence, which is at a root  level the same reason why another person might want to ban verbal  bashing of gays and lesbians.  If you really believe that the free expression of ideas is absolute, then it should cover verbally insulting gays and lesbians and making sexually crass comments about members of a particular sex or even talking about torturing and killing people that they don't like to their face.  But as with yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, I doubt most people are the free speech absolutists that they claim to be.  And once we get past simplistic statements of principle to the more pragmatic issue of how we separate the dead baby jokes from sexual harassment, then I think we can have a discussion about what the real principles at work are.

But I'm also not talking about actual violence but talking about it.  Not beating up gays and lesbians, killing others at school, or perpetuating a holocaust but about talking about beating up or killing gays and lesbians, talking about killing your teachers and or classmates in a school, or denying the Holocaust or arguing that there should be another one.  This is not simple idle speculation or straw men on my part.  These are very real areas where people are not only regularly judged on moral grounds for what they say but where policies and even legislation have been passed to punish the expression of those ideas.

Casually fantasize about the killing of gays and lesbians with your co-workers and I don't think anyone would be surprised if you were fired, which is far more punitive than simply shunning a person.  Casually fantasize about murdering your teachers or other students at school and you might not only be expelled but might wind up being arrested.  Deny the Holocaust in many countries and you can be censored or even arrested.  

And for all the talk about free speech absolutism on the Internet, there are plenty of limits on it in Europe, Canada, and elsewhere that few people seem very interested in.  Look at the case of Oriana Fallaci (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriana_Fallaci) in Italy, France, and Switzerland or Mark Steyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn) in Canada, for example.  Or if you want someone less defensible, how about British historian David Irving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving) being arrested in Austria, where it's illegal to deny the Holocaust or glorify and identify with the German Nazi Party?  Why do the Austrians (among others) feel it's necessary to make Holocaust denial a crime?  How exactly did the Nazis win elections and take control of Germany?  Godwin aside, I think that's a legitimate issue when discussing free speech.

Quote from: JimLotFPCreatively, don't you have to do the latter before you can do the former?

I think that's a legitimate point, and part of the reason why I found the articles on psychopaths was trying to understand how and why a person can be casually evil so I could better emulate it in my games.  But I think the level of identification is often different.  I don't build villains in my game hoping that they'll win or to share their joy if they succeed the way I might for a PC or a good guy NPC.  And when I've created characters with moral flaws (e.g., bigotry), it's generally to have the character grow beyond it during play or to let it play out as a tragedy, not to cheer it on.

Quote from: John MorrowI think that's a legitimate point, and part of the reason why I found the articles on psychopaths was trying to understand how and why a person can be casually evil so I could better emulate it in my games.  But I think the level of identification is often different.  I don't build villains in my game hoping that they'll win or to share their joy if they succeed the way I might for a PC or a good guy NPC.  And when I've created characters with moral flaws (e.g., bigotry), it's generally to have the character grow beyond it during play or to let it play out as a tragedy, not to cheer it on.

Fair enough. What do you think of the television show Dexter? And what do you think of its fans?

Quote from: JimLotFPFair enough. What do you think of the television show Dexter? And what do you think of its fans?

I don't know enough about it to comment in any detail but the summary I found suggest that it's about a psychopath who kills bad guys and seems to have at least some attachment to his family to humanize him.  It basically sounds like they humanized him and made him just enough of a good guy to turn it into, as I describe, a fantasy "about killing the bad guys to stop them from doing horrible things to good people" rather than being a bad guy doing horrible things to good people.  So let me toss this back at you.  How do you think the show would fare if Dexter were a serial killer preying on innocent people and getting away with it, leaving a trail if corpses as he travels the country?  What would you think of fans of such a hypothetical series?

Quote from: John MorrowThere are numerous articles out there on psychopaths and law enforcement.  If you are still involved in law enforcement, you should probably take a look at them.

I think I'm pretty well versed on the subject-I'm not claiming to be the Stephen Hawkings of Psychology here, but I read professional literature at a reasonable rate, receive regular updates in training, etc...and pretty much everyone I've dealt with, who trains, agrees. There is no one magic formula for pyschopath. Sure you can identify common elements of criminals-lack of education, families that were broken or dysfunctional, etc...but not all of those indicators always means a person will end up in jail or prison.

For instance in Michigan most prisoners have an education level of eight grade or less, but not everyone with an eight grade education or less is a prisoner.

 

QuoteI think many people would like to draw the line at when something causes actual harm to another person, and that makes a certain amount of sense.

While I agree that is where most people would draw the line, just so we know that is not where I draw the line. I do not assume all violence is bad-but I get what you're saying here, so I'll move on.

QuoteThe reason why I brought up drunk driving is that it illustrates why society might want to do something before someone actually gets hurt.  I think there is a valid interest in preventing people from hurting other people rather than punishing them after the fact.  But of course that has to be balanced against other interests, with anarchy at one end of the spectrum and Big Brother at the other.  Somewhere between those extremes, we need to sort out a reasonable balance.

I agree, I just think we'd draw the lines in different places.

Quote from: John MorrowSo let me toss this back at you.  How do you think the show would fare if Dexter were a serial killer preying on innocent people and getting away with it, leaving a trail if corpses as he travels the country?  What would you think of fans of such a hypothetical series?

I'd potentially enjoy watching it. The subject matter doesn't make me shy away. However until I saw this I couldn't say for sure whether I'd enjoy it, or not. But for me I am less worried about the violence displayed on Dexter-which is actually not too bad compared to some of the stuff you can get in a rap video, let alone a movie-and more concerned about a tale of a socially disconnected individual.

Quote from: John MorrowDo you think a boss can react by firing an employee for fantasizing about killing them or having sex with them and then sharing it with co-workers?  If so, isn't that fairly punitive?  Would it be OK for them to get a restraining order?  How about filing harassment charges in court?

There's a whole field of law about this, which mostly boils down to "Can these words do real harm to someone's ability to work there."  Words, themselves, can definitely do harm and when that's the case then that's pretty well where freedom of speech is curtailed.  But, of course, you can't just pick a topic and say "Discussing this, no matter the context, will always cause harm."  If I were to discuss (oh, heck, to pick an example) violent fantasies that I've had, in a fairly anonymous setting like this, without mentioning any information that could cause anyone to be afraid in the real world, there's zero chance of my words doing harm to anyone.  Yes?

Quote from: John MorrowI'm looking for some detail on what you consider a legitimate response vs. an illegitimate response.

John, I think you're using the term "legitimate" here in a way that tends to conflate two concepts:

• Legitimate response:  I do X, you respond in way Y ... Y is a legitimate response if it's not, like, crazy or unethical.  I can say "Let's go for ice cream" and you can respond "Oh, so you think I'm fat, is that it?" and that's a legitimate response (though barely).  Responding by punching me in the face is not.
  
• Legitimate opinion:  I do X, you form opinion Y about me ... Y is a legitimate opinion if it is a reasonable thing to think.  Note that whether something is a legitimate opinion is, of course, subjective.  You may think your opinion is legitimate, while I think it's hogwash.

So:  Examples (since you've asked for details)

• #1:  Employee discusses violent fantasies, even when people say "Gross, stop it!"  Boss decides he's a bad egg, and starts giving him crap assignments.  Clearly a legitimate response (assignments being within his purview), also clearly a legitimate opinion (at the least, the employee is disrupting the workplace).
  
• #2:  Employee discusses violent fantasies while drunk at the office christmas party ("Break his head open like a ... hic! ... cantaloupe!  That's what I oughta do!  Heh ... I gotta go pee").  Boss decides that she's a psychopath, installs an elaborate security system at his house and buys several guns for home defense.  Clearly a legitimate response (he can protect himself however he wants) almost certainly not a legitimate opinion (she was plastered, in the best tradition of the season ... doesn't mean she's gonna puree his pet bunny).
  
• #3:  Employee discusses his political convictions.  Boss decides that the guy's not in the same political party as him, and fires him.  Clearly not a legitimate response.  Clearly a legitimate opinion.
  
• #4:  Employee, when asked, reluctantly discloses violent incidents from his past as a veteran.  Boss decides that the guy's going to go postal and fires him.  Neither a legitimate response nor a legitimate opinion.

You get how the word "legitimate" can be confusing here?  I don't think anyone has proposed that saying "Wow, that's morally reprehensible!" is not a legitimate response.  You can say and think what you want, so long as saying it doesn't harm anyone.  It's just that many people are going to take issue with whether you have a legitimate opinion.  Make sense?

Quote from: John MorrowWell, that's the edge I want to explore -- why people react to certain ideas as moral wrongs and whether that's legitimate or not.

Well, you need some better words then.  Your arguments about "Reacting negatively to these things is a survival mechanism" are good for showing how it's a legitimate response, but very poor for showing that it's a legitimate opinion.  Reacting negatively to people of different skin colors is an evolutionarily reinforced survival mechanism, but that doesn't mean that racists have a legitimate opinion, right?

Quote from: John MorrowI think there are legitimate reasons why large numbers of people react to certain ideas and fantasies as moral wrongs and I think there are legitimate reasons for that reaction.

The ideas themselves, absent any particular context of them being harmfully disclosed?  Legitimate response, not a legitimate opinion.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd the question of what happens when a human being lacks that visceral moral response is not merely academic.

"If you don't find this disgusting then you might well be dangerous, and something should be done about you."

I find that line of reasoning disgusting.  The fact that you don't worries me.  There is a pretty big part of me that, based on your inability to see how appalling what you're saying is, wants to write you off as a bad person.

But I recognize that as a legitimate response which is not a legitimate opinion.  I don't feel ashamed of thinking it, but I also know that it's not reality, it's just my visceral reaction.  I balance it with my deep commitment to letting people speak their minds especially when I disagree with them.  I rationally analyze:  Is John actually going to cause harm to anyone by discussing this on a forum?  Clearly not.  And, despite my visceral reaction, I whole-heartedly support you in expressing your opinions, while simultaneously explaining how I disagree.

You see how that works?

Quote from: John MorrowAnd once we get past simplistic statements of principle to the more pragmatic issue of how we separate the dead baby jokes from sexual harassment, then I think we can have a discussion about what the real principles at work are.

"Is harm done?"  For my money, that's the principle.  Sexual harassment is controlled when it provably harms someone's ability to do their work and earn a living.  That's real harm, done by words.

It is virtually impossible for one person to harm another by posting something on an RPG forum on the internet.  I mean ... really.  It's been tried, in just about every conceivable variation.

Given that, I don't think there's much that should be controlled here.  You?

Quote from: John MorrowAnd for all the talk about free speech absolutism on the Internet, there are plenty of limits on it in Europe, Canada, and elsewhere that few people seem very interested in.

I suspect that people are more absolutist about free speech on the Internet because there is so much smaller risk of words on the internet doing harm than words face-to-face.  Context is king.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd for all the talk about free speech absolutism on the Internet, there are plenty of limits on it in Europe, Canada, and elsewhere that few people seem very interested in.  Look at the case of Oriana Fallaci (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriana_Fallaci) in Italy, France, and Switzerland or Mark Steyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn) in Canada, for example.  Or if you want someone less defensible, how about British historian David Irving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving) being arrested in Austria, where it's illegal to deny the Holocaust or glorify and identify with the German Nazi Party?  Why do the Austrians (among others) feel it's necessary to make Holocaust denial a crime?  How exactly did the Nazis win elections and take control of Germany?  Godwin aside, I think that's a legitimate issue when discussing free speech.

I think all of these examples are disgusting. As in, these people should be free to say and publish what they'd like, as racist or revisionist as they'd like, with no civil or criminal penalties whatsoever.

Just read the first page before posting this, so it may be outdated. I'll side with John Morrow on this subject.

I've watched debates like this evolve. Back a mere decade ago on rpg.net, it would be between one or two lone trolls saying rape is cool in rpgs against the entire board telling them they were asshats.

Today, we're seeing at best a near even numeric match. Often, even reversed. That same decade saw torture porn go from a cult following on video shelves to significant main-stream earnings at the local theater.

When the acceptable fantasies of culture changes to such an extent, one can only wonder what impact it will have on the culture as a whole.

It may not be the obvious one. Rather than growing a generation prone to mindless violence and other evils, it may instead grow a generation unable to defend themselves- as they view anything as acceptable.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSo far I see three possibilities.

1) It's entirely an issue of what I like, and I don't really care about the offensiveness issue at all.

2) It's a question of good art justifying the offensiveness in some way. As if Very Bad Things would annoy me less if it was just a bad movie instead of a bad movie that revels in grossness.

3) It's a question of honesty vs. self-indulgent hypocrisy. Then again the honesty I'd expect to find in RaHoWa isn't something I'd enjoy. Truth be told I can't help but read the grosser underground comics, or Troma films, as basically self-parodying. So maybe it's "good" irony vs. "bad" earnestness that turns me off.

All those are rather negative self-judgements...


There's a fourth possibility, somewhat related to the second.

You live in a culture where there is growing acceptance of amoral activities, you post on boards with the same growing acceptance. You're left with either joining or becoming an ever more excluded outsider.

You still object at your core, but can give in with the flow and join your peers when it's presented with enough of an 'art' covering that you feel you can justify your approval.

I don't think-and maybe I'm wrong-anyone here is advocating torture porn, or rape as fun activities, that are wholesome and enjoyable.

I do think some of us are saying that discussing rape (Or other adult topics of a serious nature.), whether it be a serious discussion (Like formal debates, and in many books.) or perhaps less serious mediums like South Park or the Boondocks (Which tackle issues like racism, sexuality, and more with a lighter tone.) should be allowed. Stifling free discussion doesn't necessarily equate to a better society. (I've never seen a law that stifles free speech that's made things better. Held the status quo?...Maybe. And even that's arguable.)

I'm not saying that John Morrow's, or even gleichman's morality is wrong-that's not my place. I am saying that there is no reason why we can't exist side by side, with out having to force our own morality on each other. Yes, that means occasionally we'll have to compromise.

But as I understand, society is built on compromise right? But numbers don't equate to righteousness to me, so I don't care if everyone else is a christian, or muslim, or whatever-that doesn't mean I have to follow suit. It does mean when dealing with them I have to understand where they are coming form (Or at least if I want to have a relationship with them that doesn't always end up in bottle throwing, and moltov cocktails anyways.)

People have an inalienable right to express their views, that's liberty.

People have a right to their own life.

People also have the right to do what they want with the private media they own, that's property (a.k.a. "the pursuit of happiness").

Thus, your right to say whatever the fuck you like extends as far as where you don't directly create physical harm, and up to the limit of what the owner of the media property wishes to allow you to say.

In a public venue, aside from the whole issue of "immediate harm", you can say whatever you want.  In, say, a website that is owned by someone (like this website, owned by me) the property owner has a right to limit speech as much or as little as he wants.

Are some views morally repugnant? Yes
Aside from the right of a property owner to limit speech within his property as much or as little as he likes, should people have a right to voice morally repugnant views? Yes.

The appropriate response here is to ostracize these people, to use property rights to trump their free speech so they don't, for example, ruin a perfectly good hobby.

Its not, however, to lock up these people for what they say; as some on this thread appear to be suggesting.

I'd suggest that not being able to understand why people would hold such a strong view of freedom of speech, or why people wouldn't care for the idea of having to somehow "get rid of" people on the basis of what they say alone, might itself be a sign of psychopathy.

Also, the argument that you are somehow justified in favoring the denial of free speech because you are trying to save western civilization from decadence is absurd. You cannot save western civilization by turning against one of its most fundamental values.
If the inculcation of moral values and civic virtues, and education, are not enough to keep western civilization from collapsing, then its doomed anyways. Whether it ends up being doomed by falling into hedonistic decadence and burying itself in its own filth, or doomed because people claiming to be its defenders end up stripping it of all the freedoms that make western civilization worth defending, turning it into despotism, is pretty fucking irrelevant.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThe appropriate response here is to ostracize these people, to use property rights to trump their free speech so they don't, for example, ruin a perfectly good hobby.

This, and your entire post, sounds great to me.

Quote from: Serious PaulStifling free discussion doesn't necessarily equate to a better society.

In that statement is found huge confusion, as is often the case in these threads.

Free discussion wasn't part of this thread to my knowledge. I know of no one asking for the repeal of the first amendment. Indeed, if anyone has asked for such a thing- it is those who wish the end of public criticisms of amoral games and entertainment.

What I'm speaking of here isn't a legal standard that would toss you into jail. It is rather the cultural refusal to reject and stigmatize those who partake and project such muck. These are two very different things.

It healthy for a culture to in general reject legal constrains upon free expression.

It is also healthy for a culture to reject socially certain types of free expression. And to see that some free expressions are by nature restrainable in specific even when one values the general.

Quote from: gleichmanIn that statement is found huge confusion, as is often the case in these threads.

I apologize for the confusion, or at least my part in it. I saw your posts, and John Morrows as implying that one of the things to get to this society that rejects "muck" was limits on free speech. I saw these limits as being more constraining than the ones I'd find acceptable. (Notice that I am fine with some limits-reality is that we'll never live in a society responsible enough to have no limits.)

QuoteFree discussion wasn't part of this thread to my knowledge.

I think it is and has to be. It is essential to the core issues being discussed here.

QuoteI know of no one asking for the repeal of the first amendment.

Agreed, in that in this thread no has called for something like that.

QuoteIndeed, if anyone has asked for such a thing- it is those who wish the end of public criticisms of amoral games and entertainment.

I find this hard to believe, but maybe you see news I don't-and even if some knuckle head is doing this, neither of us are taking them seriously.

QuoteWhat I'm speaking of here isn't a legal standard that would toss you into jail. It is rather the cultural refusal to reject and stigmatize those who partake and project such muck. These are two very different things.

It healthy for a culture to in general reject legal constrains upon free expression.

It is also healthy for a culture to reject socially certain types of free expression. And to see that some free expressions are by nature restrainable in specific even when one values the general.

I agree with you here. As someone who works in law enforcement I see a lot of this sort of thing. people who are afraid to stand up for what they believe in, and the results end up being tragic, and comic. (In the blackest sense of humor.)

I don't expect everyone to tolerate what I do. Or how I do it. That's a reality of living in the civilized world. I do think sometimes we inflate things that just aren't as dangerous as we think them to be, and we often end up glorifying something that should be marginalized, at best.

I just want to say that if gleichman ostracises me I will accept my punishment with grace.

The title of this thread is misleading. What Morrow is most fixated on, if I read him correctly, is not the acceptability of transgressive fantasy, but the defense of it over valid criticism of it's transgressive nature.

I don't mind, for one, if its socially acceptable to fantasize about neckraping cabin boys or not.  I DO mind when its not acceptable for me to point to said fantasizer and call them a sick fuck, and use said fantasies as a reason not to leave my cabin boys under the supervision of said fantasizer.

Transgressive fantasy does not deserve a free pass on critizism, perhaps even less so than conventional fantasizing.  I mean, its perfectly acceptable to dismiss or deride the Narnia books as blatent parable moralizing and somewhat boring. Its perfectly persmisable to dismiss The Golden Compass as blatant atheistic propaganda and bitterly cynical and unappatizing.

Why the fuck does neck raping cabin boys get a free pass as 'Art' or what have you?



Now that I've said that, however: While I'd appreciate you keeping your neck raping cabin boy fantasies to yourselves, I don't think I have any right to suggest you not have them, or even share them for whatever reason.  That appears to be my point of departure from John's general theme.

Quote from: gleichmanWhat I'm speaking of here isn't a legal standard that would toss you into jail. It is rather the cultural refusal to reject and stigmatize those who partake and project such muck.

I cannot speak to the rights of cultures, but all individuals within a culture, I believe, have the right to reject any value whatsoever. We buy that right with tolerance: you tolerate my muck, I tolerate yours. Whether or not you and I have the right to "stigmatize" each other depends on your definition, of course, of stigmatize, and the rights we've agreed on as a society.

Quote from: Serious PaulI think it is and has to be. It is essential to the core issues being discussed here.

I can't agree, there are to no reasonable standards any First Admendment rights involved in this thread.

Quote from: Serious PaulI do think sometimes we inflate things that just aren't as dangerous as we think them to be, and we often end up glorifying something that should be marginalized, at best.

I would agree, as long as one keeps the ability to marginalize. However that seems nearly completely lost in today's world of moral relativism and quite acceptance.

I'm a firm believer in holding the easy lines. Sure, it may only be an eye sore to have rampant graffiti- but holding the line there makes holding it against more dangerous trends much easier or even possible.

Quote from: SpikeI don't mind, for one, if its socially acceptable to fantasize about neckraping cabin boys or not.  I DO mind when its not acceptable for me to point to said fantasizer and call them a sick fuck, and use said fantasies as a reason not to leave my cabin boys under the supervision of said fantasizer.

So ... you're not being legally sanctioned, of course.  The "not acceptable" thing here is simply that someone has expressed their opinion that you are wrong, the same way that you called the fantasizer wrong.  Is that correct?

What, exactly, would your ideal scenario here be?  It sounds like what you want is for you to have the right to have the last word:  You dispense your "sick fuck" comment, and nobody's allowed to respond with "No, your intolerance is sick," or whatever.  Have I understood you correctly?

We have the right, I believe, to stigmatize people with verbal condemnation, and to restrict people within our own property (physical or intellectual).

Its like I've always said, for example: I can take issue with RPG.net's moderation practices, I can object to them or mock them; likewise I can mock their attempt to present themselves as something other than a private business. But in the end, they ARE a private business, and the business owners have the right (whether they are smart or boneheaded about their use of that right) to determine what can or cannot be discussed there.
Likewise, this place is NOT a business, but is a private venue.  As the owner, I have chosen to allow a relatively wide latitude of free speech. However, I have the right as the owner to restrict what speech goes where (as in, what topics are discussed on what forum) and to restrict any type of speech altogether based on my own personally judgment (for example, I would certainly restrict any speech which anyone attempted to make here advocating "white power" or sex with minors, or several other things; because I would judge them to be disruptive to this site).

RPGPundit

Quote from: gleichmanI can't agree, there are to no reasonable standards any First Amendment rights involved in this thread.

I think that's skirting the issue. The fundamental right to free speech is at the heart of this issue, and the first amendment, in this country (Which so far the topic has generally been about.), is the yard stick by which we measure the issue.

QuoteI would agree, as long as one keeps the ability to marginalize. However that seems nearly completely lost in today's world of moral relativism and quite acceptance.

I think that's subjective. It's what you feel, and I don't feel the same way. And we have no way of proving a majority of people in this country agree or disagree with you. Significant numbers? Yes. A majority? No.

Of course I am moral relativist who doesn't quietly accept things.

QuoteI'm a firm believer in holding the easy lines. Sure, it may only be an eye sore to have rampant graffiti- but holding the line there makes holding it against more dangerous trends much easier or even possible.

I am a firm believer that there are no easy lines, and that people who hold this to be true should not be allowed to be in charge of me. That doesn't mean I think you're a bad guy, or I am smarter than you. It's just what I feel. Luckily for both of us, neither of us in charge. And generally we're forced, by societies standards, to compromise on most of the important issues.

America may not be the greatest place on earth, or the cleanest or whatever...but it's far from being a child soldier in Chad.

Quote from: Serious PaulFor instance in Michigan most prisoners have an education level of eight grade or less, but not everyone with an eight grade education or less is a prisoner.

I always wondered if the low education and IQs of people in prison reflected not the background of criminals, but the background of criminals who get caught... I mean, when only half of homicides end in a conviction, something is determining who gets locked up and who gets away... it could just be random chance, but...

Quote from: TonyLBSo ... you're not being legally sanctioned, of course.  The "not acceptable" thing here is simply that someone has expressed their opinion that you are wrong, the same way that you called the fantasizer wrong.  Is that correct?

What, exactly, would your ideal scenario here be?  It sounds like what you want is for you to have the right to have the last word:  You dispense your "sick fuck" comment, and nobody's allowed to respond with "No, your intolerance is sick," or whatever.  Have I understood you correctly?

By all means they can tell me that they think I'm intolerant.  But the general tone here hasn't been just standard 'I disagree' but an actual movement to silence critizism of these points of view. Obviously with limited effect, true.

While its not much of a worry given the Pundit's control of the site, et cetera, I am concerned with that trend in general. I am allowed to express my dislike of something, and by extension I can't deny others the right to express their dislike of my dislike. That's a given. However, when they cast their dislike into certain expressions they create an environment of hostility to critisizm of the transgressions. How do I stop a potential movement towards denying me the right to criticize without crossing the line and and circumventing THEIR right to speak up?

The only way I can see that keeps me on the straight and narrow path, if you will forgive the conceit, is to simply call it like I see it, every time, as loudly as possible.

So: They can dislike what I say about their fantasies all they want. But when they suggest that their fantasies deserve special protection by casting my criticisms into socially unacceptable lights... that is, when being the more 'moral' person becomes wrong... though I am loathe to frame it so... then they have crossed a line and deserve a good kicking.

If I'm unclear I blame lack of sleep. I feel like I'm thinking through a fog here...

Quote from: Kyle AaronI always wondered if the low education and IQs of people in prison reflected not the background of criminals, but the background of criminals who get caught... I mean, when only half of homicides end in a conviction, something is determining who gets locked up and who gets away... it could just be random chance, but...

I think you have a point. Based on my experience, and that of my colleagues who work in other areas, and for other departments, much more crime is committed than is ever reported, let alone prosecuted.

Quote from: SpikeIf I'm unclear I blame lack of sleep. I feel like I'm thinking through a fog here...

You're clear enough, and I agree with you, broadly speaking.

IMO what this boils down to is, if you think someone's criticism of something is wrong, then defend the thing itself. Don't resort to a blanket repudiation of all criticism; that's just intellectually and morally bankrupt.

Quote from: SpikeBy all means they can tell me that they think I'm intolerant.  But the general tone here hasn't been just standard 'I disagree' but an actual movement to silence critizism of these points of view. Obviously with limited effect, true.

Oh.  "Tone."  

Okay.  No arguing with your perception of tone.  I don't know what people (other than myself) actually intend, and you don't either, which makes us equally ignorant.  But I can certainly see how the perception of a movement would make you feel persecuted.

Quote from: SpikeHow do I stop a potential movement towards denying me the right to criticize without crossing the line and and circumventing THEIR right to speak up?

I don't think there's a credible threat there that needs stopping.  You're not at any risk of losing your right to criticize.

If you were saying "How do I stop people from deciding that I'm a bad person, and portraying me as such?" then you'd be worrying about a credible threat ... but then the answer would be obvious:  You can't.  Sad, but true.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIMO what this boils down to is, if you think someone's criticism of something is wrong, then defend the thing itself. Don't resort to a blanket repudiation of all criticism; that's just intellectually and morally bankrupt.

But if you want to stick up for people's right to express themselves, surely the only way to do that without being a hypocrite is to stick up for the rights of people with whom you violently disagree, as well as for those with whom you agree.

Sometimes it is important to repudiate unfair criticism and restraint, even if the subject being criticized is one you abhor.  Jerry Fallwell wanted to have Hustler removed from store shelves.  A whole lot of good, tasteful people who thought Hustler was appalling filth stood up to speak against that attempt to control what could be printed, distributed and read ... and a good thing too.

I'm hard pressed to think of those folks as intellectually and morally bankrupt.  Want to make your case?

As far as I'm concerned, by the way, people can criticise anything and everything. Just try to do so with some taste, wit and intelligence and you can tell me whatever you like. I reserve the right to reject your points, of course, but that's civilised discourse.

When I see somebody jumping up and down on the virtual pavement and pointing their virtual fingers and screaming, I tend unfairly to dismiss their points without having heard them.

Quote from: TonyLBBut if you want to stick up for people's right to express themselves, surely the only way to do that without being a hypocrite is to stick up for the rights of people with whom you violently disagree, as well as for those with whom you agree.

Portraying this as a matter of rights is a load of crap.

QuoteJerry Fallwell wanted to have Hustler removed from store shelves.  A whole lot of good, tasteful people who thought Hustler was appalling filth stood up to speak against that attempt to control what could be printed, distributed and read ... and a good thing too.

There's no comparison. Falwell sued Hustler for libel and lost. Organized boycotts aren't censorship. Case closed.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI always wondered if the low education and IQs of people in prison reflected not the background of criminals, but the background of criminals who get caught... I mean, when only half of homicides end in a conviction, something is determining who gets locked up and who gets away... it could just be random chance, but...

I've read an article that suggest that the violent thuggish psychopaths who are easily caught are the ones who can't figure out how to blend in and fly under the radar.  There is also a theory (see this article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040311072248.htm)) that the unsuccessful psychopaths are particularly "insensitive to cues that predicted punishment and capture".

Serious Paul makes an important point when he says that just because a person fits all of the key indicators for a criminal does not mean that they'll be a criminal.  Even many psychopaths behave themselves or they act in ways that may hurt others but are not necessarily criminal or serious.  

Dr. Robert Hare claims that only 1 in 30,000 psychopaths will become a serial killer, though all have to potential to kill without qualms.  Curiously enough, one of the distinctions between Neutral and Evil in the D&D 3.5 alignment system is that Neutral characters "have compunctions against killing the innocent", and it's not uncommon to find articles linking psychopaths and evil, which is how I started looking into it.

Dr. Martha Stout claims that about 4% of the population are psychopaths while hare claims that about 1% of the population are hard core psychopaths, leaving 3% who may cause problems for others but who won't generally become criminal.  One of the keys to training psychopaths to not commit other crimes is to convince them that it's in their own best interest to avoid committing crimes and I suspect that a large number of intelligent psychopaths figure that out on their own.

Okay, I think I can infer what 'squicked' means from its context. It seems to be a synonym for 'disgusted', used by a sub-culture of internet geeks who abhor judgement of any kind and want to be disgusted without appearing to judge the material that disgusted them. Is that about right?

As for the social acceptability of shocking fantasies, people should be free to say what they like. That includes denouncing material they find repugnant and the people who author it. But for some reason, many people who want the freedom to express whatever they want to in public, feel their freedom should come with some sort of immunity to judgement and criticism.

I'm not sure where this sea change in attitudes came from. The growing consumption of shocking content is evidence of jaded or crude tastes - more people who need ever more transgressive images to glut their insatiable appetite for sensation. It's sobering to consider where people who get bored with play-acting sodomizing the corpses of children will have to go next to get that feeling of naughty transgression in their belly. This trend is converging with the maturation of a generation that has been shielded from criticism or judgement its entire lives, and considers anything less than polite toleration of anything they say to be a tyrannical assault on the essence of their person.

Sorry, but if you're adult enough to express those naughty things, then you should be adult enough to take disapproval and condemnation of your words without acting as though you're a child being picked on by a mean teacher.

Quote from: John MorrowDr. Robert Hare claims that only 1 in 30,000 psychopaths will become a serial killer, though all have to potential to kill without qualms.  

I've seen a study which says that a relatively small number of soldiers account for most of the kills in face-to-face combat, and that many of those soldiers are psychopaths. In other words, psychopaths make excellent front-line soldiers. However, they understandably have a tough time fitting in after they're discharged.

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyThe good stuff survives (Lolita, Naked Lunch, Ulysses etc), relatively harmless stuff continues to appear (99.9% of porn, eg, and likely the enormous majority of crap that Nambla peddles) and occasional sick shit gets hit with the ban stick. I'm more or less happy with the situation as it stands.

What kind of stuff do you think gets hit with the "ban stick" and what kind of stuff do you think should be hit with the "ban stick"?

Quote from: HaffrungI've seen a study which says that a relatively small number of soldiers account for most of the kills in face-to-face combat, and that many of those soldiers are psychopaths. In other words, psychopaths make excellent front-line soldiers. However, they understandably have a tough time fitting in after they're discharged.

That wouldn't surprise me.

Much of modern military training is based on the realization from studies during past wars that soldiers will often not want to kill other people in battle so they train soldiers to shoot first as a response and then think later.  This is one of the things that leads to soldiers suffering psychological trauma after combat.  They do things that they have trouble living with once they stop and think about it.

Quote from: John MorrowDr. Martha Stout claims that about 4% of the population are psychopaths while hare claims that about 1% of the population are hard core psychopaths, leaving 3% who may cause problems for others but who won't generally become criminal.

In Risk Dice I added a trait which PCs could have, "Psyche". I added it to be able to give the effect of a lot of the GURPS-style Dis/Advantages like being charitable, callous, and so on.

   Psyche: Your emotional nature, self-insight, and empathy

• 2, sociopath – other people aren't real to you, you may understand them (decent Pyshcology, Perception or Diplomacy), but only in the same way you understand a machine – you don't care. Note that it doesn't mean the person is cruel – children  begin this way, but most grow to understand others.
  
• 3, chronic depressive, or quite callous and indifferent.
  
• 4, a loner by intent or effect, perhaps considered annoying or self-absorbed
  
• 5, you only bother trying to get along with people you like, and most of your virtues and flaws are unknown to or denied by you.
  
• 6-8, ordinary, you get along with people and know most of your own virtues and flaws
  
• 9, good, you should definitely work with people.
  
• A-C, impressive, you can empathise with anybody, and could be a remarkable religious leader or psychotherapist

Since stats are rolled for with 2d6, that gives 1 in 36 (2.8%) characters being sociopaths, and another 2 in 36 (5.6%) people who are real pricks or people with severe emotional problems affecting their lives in some way. In all, 3 in 36 or 1 in 12 who are pretty messed up in some way. From work, social and hobby life, I would say that having 1 in 12 people being some combination of quite nasty or troubled is about right! It also gives us 10 in 36 or 27.8% of people who at least occasionally annoying and self-absorbed, and unaware of their own flaws... Which I think is also true.  

Quote from: John MorrowMuch of modern military training is based on the realization from studies during past wars that soldiers will often not want to kill other people in battle so they train soldiers to shoot first as a response and then think later.  This is one of the things that leads to soldiers suffering psychological trauma after combat.  They do things that they have trouble living with once they stop and think about it.

Spruik (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=18417&it=1)!

:D

Quote from: Serious PaulI'd potentially enjoy watching it. The subject matter doesn't make me shy away. However until I saw this I couldn't say for sure whether I'd enjoy it, or not.

I think most normal people wouldn't enjoy it, which is why you don't see many movies or shows like that and those that do generally draw small audiences.  At some point, watching the bad guys abuse good people will elicit a, "Jesus, Grandpa!  What did you read me this thing for?" response (how the kid react in The Princess Bride when he think Humperdinck wins).

Quote from: Kyle AaronSpruik (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=18417&it=1)!

If you haven't seen (and you may already have) this paper (http://web.archive.org/web/20051227184946/http://atlas.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE05/Kilner05.html) (via Wayback), you might find it interesting.

Quote from: Kyle AaronSince stats are rolled for with 2d6, that gives 1 in 36 (2.8%) characters being sociopaths, and another 2 in 36 (5.6%) people who are real pricks or people with severe emotional problems affecting their lives in some way. In all, 3 in 36 or 1 in 12 who are pretty messed up in some way. From work, social and hobby life, I would say that having 1 in 12 people being some combination of quite nasty or troubled is about right! It also gives us 10 in 36 or 27.8% of people who at least occasionally annoying and self-absorbed, and unaware of their own flaws... Which I think is also true.

Many psychopaths/sociopaths are quite charismatic and charming.  The mild form of being a psychopath seems to be narcissism.  Many narcissists are also quite charismatic.  I'm pointing this out because being empathic or genuinely interested in others is not necessarily tied to how charismatic a person is.  In fact, "glibness/superficial charm" and "cunning/manipulative" are key marker traits for psychopaths.

Quote from: RPGPunditIn, say, a website that is owned by someone (like this website, owned by me) the property owner has a right to limit speech as much or as little as he wants.

In addition to this, the domain name registrar, website hosting company, the ISP you use to connect to the Internet, the ISPs your readers use to connect to the internet, and the laws of all relevant countries limit speech to some degree or another.

This link is relevant to the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity_law

QuoteThe Miller test is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited.

The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[1] It has three parts:

    * Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
    * Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2] specifically defined by applicable state law,
    * Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific).

and in Canada:

QuoteSection 163 of the Canadian Criminal Code provides the country's legal definition of "obscenity". Officially termed as "Offences Tending to Corrupt Morals",[13] the Canadian prohibited class of articles which are to be legally included as "obscene things" is very broad, including text only written material, pictures, models (including statues), records or "any other thing whatsoever" -- that according to Section 163(8) -- has "a dominant characteristic of the publication is the undue exploitation of sex, or the combination of sex and at least one of crime, horror, cruelty or violence" is deemed to be "obscene" under the current law.

And in many places (like Canada):

QuoteEvery one commits an offense who

    (a) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or other thing whatever

Which means the owner of a website is legally responsible for the material posted there, even if it's on a forum and posted by someone else.

So you can argue that it is / isn't acceptable for people to play dark fantasy games behind closed doors, or if it's okay to judge them or not for telling you about them.

Publishing those fantasies on the internet is quite possibly illegal, or beyond the terms of service for you ISP, domain or website hosting provider.

I would imagine they'd be key markers for dangerous psychopaths. Surely with the whole range of human behaviours there must be socially inept and not at all charming psychopaths? But we just say, "what an arsehole!" and don't analyse them further, it's only the ones who seem nice then turn out nasty who we investigate and study...

But I don't really know about this stuff, I'm just speculating.

In my game's terms, Psyche just affects your empathy. If the player of a Psyche 2 guy wanted that superficial charm and glibness, traits like Confidence, Speech, Acting and so on would work well.

Luckily no-one's rolled one up yet :cool:

Quote from: TonyLBThere's a whole field of law about this, which mostly boils down to "Can these words do real harm to someone's ability to work there."  Words, themselves, can definitely do harm and when that's the case then that's pretty well where freedom of speech is curtailed.

What constitutes "real harm"?  While there is certainly a whole field of law about this, the results vary wildly.

Quote from: TonyLBBut, of course, you can't just pick a topic and say "Discussing this, no matter the context, will always cause harm."  If I were to discuss (oh, heck, to pick an example) violent fantasies that I've had, in a fairly anonymous setting like this, without mentioning any information that could cause anyone to be afraid in the real world, there's zero chance of my words doing harm to anyone.  Yes?

I don't think we can ever know that for certain.  Please note that I'm not saying that necessarily makes what you are talking about actionable.  I'm simply saying that people can be set off by all sorts of things, which is what causes problems defining "real harm" when it comes to workplace speech.  We live in a world where a person can be fired for innocently using the terms that simply sound like racial slurs.

Quote from: TonyLBJohn, I think you're using the term "legitimate" here in a way that tends to conflate two concepts:

• Legitimate response:  I do X, you respond in way Y ... Y is a legitimate response if it's not, like, crazy or unethical.  I can say "Let's go for ice cream" and you can respond "Oh, so you think I'm fat, is that it?" and that's a legitimate response (though barely).  Responding by punching me in the face is not.
  
• Legitimate opinion:  I do X, you form opinion Y about me ... Y is a legitimate opinion if it is a reasonable thing to think.  Note that whether something is a legitimate opinion is, of course, subjective.  You may think your opinion is legitimate, while I think it's hogwash.

I think you are making a distinction that's not a very useful one because I think your example of a legitimate response to an illegitimate opinion seems an unlikely combination for a sane person.  People's responses are a product of their visceral feelings and their rational thoughts, thus I don't see the clean detachment between the two that you are claiming.  What I'm arguing is that a visceral feeling can be as legitimate as a rational thought to inform a response and make it legitimate.  

Quote from: TonyLBWell, you need some better words then.  Your arguments about "Reacting negatively to these things is a survival mechanism" are good for showing how it's a legitimate response, but very poor for showing that it's a legitimate opinion.

The current research suggests that the visceral responses exist because they are faster and can often be more accurate than a pure rational response.  This is why this article (http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/web_material/latimes050204.htm), that I posted a link to and longer quote from earlier, mentions that, "To back up his hypothesis, Damasio showed how people who suffered damage to the feeling centers of the brain—areas such as the amygdala and prefrontal cortices, which are near the brain stem—found it difficult, if not impossible, to make even the simplest choices."  In one example I read in a related article, a person with damage to the feeling centers of their brains was asked when they wanted to schedule their next appointment and proceeded to spend the next half-hour rationally weighing the pros and cons of each possible day without actually coming up with a preference.  The problem with purely rational decisions is that we rarely have all of the information to make an entirely informed decision.

My point?  We have these emotional reactions as a useful alternative to rational opinions.  For that to work even reasonably well, those emotional reactions need to produce legitimate results roughly as well as the rational opinions do.  We probably wouldn't have emotions that trigger certain responses if they didn't serve some useful purpose.

Quote from: TonyLBReacting negatively to people of different skin colors is an evolutionarily reinforced survival mechanism, but that doesn't mean that racists have a legitimate opinion, right?

Do you have any evidence that people normally react negatively to other people simply because their skin color is different?  I've never heard of that before.

Quote from: TonyLBThe ideas themselves, absent any particular context of them being harmfully disclosed?  Legitimate response, not a legitimate opinion.

I don't think ideas are even absent of a context.  That's why psychologists use Rorschach tests and free association exercises in order to tap into what people are really thinking.

Quote from: TonyLB"If you don't find this disgusting then you might well be dangerous, and something should be done about you."

I find that line of reasoning disgusting.  The fact that you don't worries me.  There is a pretty big part of me that, based on your inability to see how appalling what you're saying is, wants to write you off as a bad person.

On what basis do you find that line of reasoning disgusting, especially as you worded it (qualified with "might be")?  What about it, specifically, makes you feel disgusted?

Does all of this hinge upon the fact that you think that what a person thinks and says don't reflect much about their psyche and personality and I think it does?

Quote from: TonyLBYou see how that works?

I think it may follow logically from what you believe but it does not flow logically from what I believe.

Quote from: TonyLB"Is harm done?"  For my money, that's the principle.  Sexual harassment is controlled when it provably harms someone's ability to do their work and earn a living.  That's real harm, done by words.

Do you think it's legitimate to stop someone from inciting a riot or do you only think it's legitimate to punish them if their words actually cause a riot?

Effect is often not immediately produced by the cause.  Are you saying that we should only punish the cause after it has caused a harmful effect?

This goes back to my drunken driving example.  Why do we punish people for driving while impaired by alcohol, even if they don't get into an accident?   Applying the principle of "Is harm done?" shouldn't we only punish people for driving drunk if they actually hurt someone?

Quote from: TonyLBIt is virtually impossible for one person to harm another by posting something on an RPG forum on the internet.  I mean ... really.  It's been tried, in just about every conceivable variation.

How about, "It is virtualy impossible for one person to harm another by posting something on an RPG forum on the internet"?

But that's not the only issue.

It's virtually impossible for a neighbor to harm me by not mowing their lawn, by leaving broken down cars on their front lawn, by sitting out front in their underwear scratching themselves, or (to use RPGPundit's example) by using their front lawn as a toilet.  But by doing so, they'll lower the cost of my property, drive nice people out of the neighborhood, and eventually turn where I live into a not very nice place to live.  

By the same measure, you can certainly drive certain people away from an RPG forum and degrade its quality by what you post in that forum.  You can also leave others who stumble upon the forum with a very bad opinion of the hobby and the people in it.  Is that harm or harmless, in your opinion?

Quote from: TonyLBGiven that, I don't think there's much that should be controlled here.  You?

As I've said in the past, I have no problem with ENWorld's "grandmother standard" for moderation.  In the absence of that, I prefer light moderation like we have here.  The worst case is what RPGnet does, which seems designed to prevent the freaks from being offended.  

Quote from: TonyLBI suspect that people are more absolutist about free speech on the Internet because there is so much smaller risk of words on the internet doing harm than words face-to-face.  Context is king.

We have recent cases in the news of teenaged girls beating up another girl because of what she said on MySpace and a woman under arrest for using a made-up persona to drive a girl to suicide.  And what drove Timothy McVeigh to bomb a government building if not ideas that the government was his enemy, spread by certain groups?

You can certainly argue that the benefits of free speech mean that we need to tolerate the occasional Timothy McVeigh but I don't think it's fair to argue that ideas, particularly shocking and transgressive ideas, can be assumed to be harmless and response free.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI would imagine they'd be key markers for dangerous psychopaths. Surely with the whole range of human behaviours there must be socially inept and not at all charming psychopaths?

Sure.  Those are the violent thugs who generally wind up in prison.  That's the guy who, when you ask him why he killed a family, answers, "Because they were home."

You can find the full checklist here (http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Hare-Psychopathy-Checklist.html).  Few people hit on every one and just because a person hits on a lot of them doesn't mean that they are a psychopath, though a few make it highly likely.

Quote from: Serious PaulI do think some of us are saying that discussing rape (Or other adult topics of a serious nature.), whether it be a serious discussion (Like formal debates, and in many books.) or perhaps less serious mediums like South Park or the Boondocks (Which tackle issues like racism, sexuality, and more with a lighter tone.) should be allowed.

But what about discussing torture porn or talking about rape as a fun activity?  Many female role-players seem to have shared the experience, if introduced to the hobby as a teenager, of having had their character raped or even gang-raped by NPCs or other PCs.  How should we react to a person who was responsible for creating those situations and insists that it was all good fun?  Shouldn't we be creeped out by that?  Shouldn't we want them to move on to another discussion board?

Quote from: Serious PaulI'm not saying that John Morrow's, or even gleichman's morality is wrong-that's not my place. I am saying that there is no reason why we can't exist side by side, with out having to force our own morality on each other. Yes, that means occasionally we'll have to compromise.

You can't have noise and silence exist side by side.  If a person wants to play their radio loudly at 3AM and another person wants silence to sleep, do we side with the person who wants the freedom to play their radio or the person who doesn't want to listen to it?

Quote from: Serious PaulBut as I understand, society is built on compromise right? But numbers don't equate to righteousness to me, so I don't care if everyone else is a christian, or muslim, or whatever-that doesn't mean I have to follow suit. It does mean when dealing with them I have to understand where they are coming form (Or at least if I want to have a relationship with them that doesn't always end up in bottle throwing, and moltov cocktails anyways.)

That's the problem.  You claim that society is built on compromise but then claim that numbers don't equate to righteousness.  The problem is that in many cases (and certainly in the United States) free speech isn't handled by compromise.  It's handled by the least democratic institutions, including the courts and the Constitution and is treated as an absolute right.  That limits the ability for people to reach a compromise and, instead, allows a noisy minority to thumb their noses at the majority.  

Yes, there are reasons to argue that the benefits outweigh the costs, particularly when the speech in question is political.  But the problem is that as the free speech gets more an more offensive and harder to avoid, the costs start to increase and will eventually exceed the benefits, and when that happens, you wind up with all sorts of limits on speech.  This is why colleges went from being bastions of free speech to having detailed and oppressive speech codes.   It's why even RPGPundit has had to exercise moderation and ban people here.  

As such, I think it's in the best interest of everyone to self-moderate and the problem is that I don't see a lot of self-moderation.  Eventually that leaves you with either a cesspool of people with no self-control or people creating rules to stop what they don't like.

I think the general mockery and scorn tend to drive the genuinely creepy away.

Judging by the experiences of having mythusmage and Dominus Nox here, it seems fair to say that if you mock and scorn them enough they go away. Each had extremely minimal restrictions put on their "free speech", the one not to discuss ages of consent, the other not to post in Off Topic; one was even protected by having it not allowed to bait him. Nonetheless, I don't think it was those restrictions which drove them away, but the scorn and mockery.

Those sorts of people - such as would post their play experiences of shocking fantasies in gaming - rely not on free speech, but restricted speech. That is, if they're free to say what they want and so is everyone else, the scorn and mockery drives them away; if they're free to say what they want and people aren't allowed to call them names (as on rpg.net or The Forge) then they really thrive and hang around for years.

Put another way, the best thing to do is that if people ask for trouble, they should get it.

Again, Boy's Club nonsense aside, this is the only rpg discussion forum I've seen where genuinely offensive people are simply driven away by the weight of scorn and mockery, but where also people give one another genuine and unasked for apologies for offensive things they've said.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThose sorts of people - such as would post their play experiences of shocking fantasies in gaming - rely not on free speech, but restricted speech. That is, if they're free to say what they want and so is everyone else, the scorn and mockery drives them away; if they're free to say what they want and people aren't allowed to call them names (as on rpg.net or The Forge) then they really thrive and hang around for years.

That's why I prefer a site to either have ENWorld's "grandmother standard" (meaning that the moderators are policing to make the site family friendly) or light moderation such as is maintained here.  RPGnet seems to have sort of an "anti-grandmother standard".

Of course, since you're allowed to say someone's grandmother is a dirty whore, and until she registers on rpg.net it won't be a "personal attack" whereas the natural response to that comment would be one :D

Quote from: John MorrowWhat kind of stuff do you think gets hit with the "ban stick" and what kind of stuff do you think should be hit with the "ban stick"?

In practice (in the UK & NZ, the only places I can speak for), rape, child sex and coprophilia are the ones that typically get banned. There's also stuff like "How to kidnap and murder someone" or "DIY suicide" books that occasionally fall foul of the law. Pretty much nothing political gets banned - the Nambla position is largely a political one, as are racist tracts and general loopy shit.

As for myself, I think the current system works well. Personally, I would probably be stricter than the law is - I have no time for Nambla-types or the BNP and *feel* that they should shut the fuck up, and I struggle to find any sympathy with people who enjoy violent sex fantasies. What I *think*, though is that if the many checks and balances in the system have allowed it, it's probably okay, while remembering the price of liberty.

Ned

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyAs for myself, I think the current system works well. Personally, I would probably be stricter than the law is - I have no time for Nambla-types or the BNP and *feel* that they should shut the fuck up,

Here Down Under we used to have a Paedophile's Association that campaigned to reduce the age of consent to 10 or so. There were calls for it to be banned, and the police went to the government and asked them not to.

You see, the police would go to the meetings, note down the number plates of all the cars at the place, photograph the members and so on. So then if the man's family ever had a domestic violence complaint, or if some local kid disappeared or had a stranger expose himself to them, the police knew whose doors to knock on... didn't always catch people, but it was a start to their investigations, and besides... it's amazing what people won't do when they know they're being watched.

Which is why I believe in freedom of speech for freaks and nutters, so you can keep an eye on the fuckers.

Quote from: John MorrowI don't think we can ever know that for certain.

Yes, John, we will.

Someone who can cop to ... God, I don't even know what you're imagining ... "emotional harm"?  Someone who can cop to emotional harm because they went out and read anonymous violent thoughts on the internet is emotionally broken in the first place.  Trying to draw a cause and effect between what a nutjob focusses on and what their actual problem is ... that's just crazy and stupid.  That's like blaming Jodie Foster for the Reagan assassination attempt.

Quote from: John MorrowWhat I'm arguing is that a visceral feeling can be as legitimate as a rational thought to inform a response and make it legitimate.

My visceral reaction is that that's a crock of shit.  Of course, I could marshall a rational argument, but as you just pointed out, I don't have to.  You'll accept my visceral reaction as legitimate, right?

Quote from: John MorrowDo you have any evidence that people normally react negatively to other people simply because their skin color is different?  I've never heard of that before.

You haven't?  Okay.  I'll refer you to The Ethnic Phenomenon, by Pierre L. van den Berghe and Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing, by James Waller.  I've only got a cocktail-party understanding of the theories myself, but if you want a deeper insight, Wikipedia suggest that those books are good places to start.

Quote from: John MorrowOn what basis do you find that line of reasoning disgusting, especially as you worded it (qualified with "might be")?  What about it, specifically, makes you feel disgusted?

Does all of this hinge upon the fact that you think that what a person thinks and says don't reflect much about their psyche and personality and I think it does?

On the contrary ... it comes from my intense belief that what a person thinks about does both reflect and inform their psyche and personality.  I just don't think it's as easy as "Thinking about bad things makes you a bad boy."  The attitude you are espousing leads inevitably to silencing dissenting opinions, which leads to impoverishing our field of ideas.  You are championing ignorance, and all it implies.

Is ignorance a verdant field of innate virtue, which needs only to be kept free of the weeds of evil thoughts?  You seem to be arguing so:  If we keep people from being exposed to unpleasant or controversial things then they will grow straight and true and right.

By contrast, I think that ignorance makes a person weak, and twisted.  I think that human character is confirmed and strengthened by knowing about both good and evil, and choosing good.

The way to help a person understand heroism is not to prevent them from ever learning of villains.  Teach them, in detail, the truth about Hitler and Roosevelt, Mussolini and Churchill.  If a young man wants to read Mein Kampf, you don't forbid him, for fear that his mind is too weak to face evil without becoming evil itself.  You give him that experience and others as well ... listen to the radio broadcasts of the time, talk about the beaches at Normandy and the greatest generation.

Ignorance is toxic.  You are championing it in no uncertain terms.  That is what disgusts me.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd what drove Timothy McVeigh to bomb a government building if not ideas that the government was his enemy, spread by certain groups?

Jesus.  Christ.  On.  A.  Crutch.

John, your cheap theatrics are getting worse and worse.  Are you seriously blaming society for Timothy McVeigh?  If only he'd been kept ignorant of the idea of acting against the government, he'd have been a good boy?

QuoteI just don't think it's as easy as "Thinking about bad things makes you a bad boy."

It's only when you take the step to sharing those thoughts broadly with the general public that it falls under laws governing publishing and obscenity.  Publishing bad things makes you a bad boy.

QuoteIgnorance is toxic. You are championing it in no uncertain terms. That is what disgusts me.

I don't think he is.  And I don't think you're championing studying and learning about reprehensible acts -- you're championing playing and promoting games about reprehensible acts, which cheapens the subject and "taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

Write a book, perform a play, make a movie about dark subject matter to deal with it seriously, and shed insight and / or educate.  There's merit in that.

Playing games about who can say the most shocking thing, and then publishing stories from those games online... that has so little value... and could come with legal consequences.

Morrow said, "certain groups", not "society".

Timothy McVeigh had read The Turner Diaries, a white supremacist book advocating genocide and terrorist acts against the government, and travelled around selling copies. In an envelope in his car when he was arrested were torn-out copies of a few pages describing a mortar attack on the US Capitol. He may have been associated with the Christian Identity group and the Aryan Nations at Elohim City, more white supremacists, which groups include many bank robbers and racist murderers.

Words certainly inspired Timothy McVeigh.

"Acting against the government" isn't a problem. Blowing up a couple of hundred civilians is a problem. The books McVeigh read and the people he very probably associated with advocated killing hundreds, thousands or even millions of civilians based merely on their race or membership of government bureaucracy.

Quote from: Serious PaulI think that's skirting the issue. The fundamental right to free speech is at the heart of this issue, and the first amendment, in this country (Which so far the topic has generally been about.), is the yard stick by which we measure the issue.

That use of the First Amendment has only come into being since the last half of the 20th century, for three-quarters of the life of the nation including it rise to superpower status- no one would have thought for even moment that the First Amendment covered things it has in recent times been misapplied to.

The First Amendment covered only legal restrictions, not social. Indeed, it was intended to protect political speech foremost. It was in turn counter-balanced by things such as property rights and right to assemble.

To view it as an unlimited rule that applies outside those constraints is if anything deconstructionist of US law and tradition. A movement that has landed us in a state of affairs that in my life time has seen a huge increase not only in online threads of amoral gaming activity- but in games designed to appeal to that very market. To say nothing of wider social impact.

Quote from: Serious PaulI am a firm believer that there are no easy lines, and that people who hold this to be true should not be allowed to be in charge of me.

Someone is always in charge, if it was not the NYPD (as was the case before the easy line of graffiti enforcement was taken up), it will be the criminal- i.e., those large problems you've allowed to come into being by ignoring the small ones.

The simple things- manners, courtesy, family ties, respect, etc . is the social glue that allows a culture to exist in a state of safety and peace. Remove them, and the culture falls apart- to be replaced by one of more conviction.

You'll get to see this in your lifetime with Europe unless we see drastic change (and soon).

Quote from: Serious PaulAnd generally we're forced, by societies standards, to compromise on most of the important issues.

Compromise? By what means? The Courts declare many results, often against the wildly and strongly held desires of the population in general?

I wish there was compromise, but all I see is slow erosion with the occasional drastic shift. We are teaching this generation of Americans that the nation's traditions and ideas cannot be defended, indeed that they must be attacked and dismantled by the very laws they originally enacted to protect themselves.

Therefore when the day comes when no one does defend it and it passes from the the world, we shouldn't be surprised.

Quote from: gleichmanA movement that has landed us in a state of affairs that in my life time has seen a huge increase not only in online threads of amoral gaming activity- but in games designed to appeal to that very market.

And what a state of affairs it is!  Dogs and cats living together, etc.

:eek:

Quote from: Kyle AaronHere Down Under we used to have a Paedophile's Association that campaigned to reduce the age of consent to 10 or so. There were calls for it to be banned, and the police went to the government and asked them not to.

You see, the police would go to the meetings, note down the number plates of all the cars at the place, photograph the members and so on. So then if the man's family ever had a domestic violence complaint, or if some local kid disappeared or had a stranger expose himself to them, the police knew whose doors to knock on... didn't always catch people, but it was a start to their investigations, and besides... it's amazing what people won't do when they know they're being watched.

Which is why I believe in freedom of speech for freaks and nutters, so you can keep an eye on the fuckers.

That's a pretty brilliant fucking argument.
Conversely, if these people's very speech is already a crime, there will be no difference in their mind (or indeed, the law) between talking about an act and committing it. They're already criminals just for what they think, so what will they have to lose?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Kyle AaronWords certainly inspired Timothy McVeigh.

Yes, but that is a very long way from saying that in the absence of those words, McVeigh would have been okay.

Apart from being pretty appalling math, the idea "These deaths are the price of free speech" assumes that people don't flip their lids and do horrid things in societies with restricted speech.  I'm skeptical.

Quote from: TonyLBThe attitude you are espousing leads inevitably to silencing dissenting opinions, which leads to impoverishing our field of ideas.  

Why does criticism inevitably lead to silencing? Isn't criticism itself a form of speech that should be protected?

Quote from: TonyLBYou are championing ignorance, and all it implies. Is ignorance a verdant field of innate virtue, which needs only to be kept free of the weeds of evil thoughts?  You seem to be arguing so:  If we keep people from being exposed to unpleasant or controversial things then they will grow straight and true and right.

By contrast, I think that ignorance makes a person weak, and twisted.  I think that human character is confirmed and strengthened by knowing about both good and evil, and choosing good.

There's a difference between knowing about evil, and revelling in the sensation of evil. There's a difference between knowing about the depravities carried out by pirates, and taking on personas that enact those depravities in a grotesque and gratuitious fashion.

In my opinion, disgust and horror are rarely sought out for any sort of intellectual enlightenment; they're pursued to give people a jolt of vicarious sensation. And when that sensation is pursued to ever-greater intensity, it's evidence of crude or jaded tastes. There's nothing against the law about having crude or jaded tastes. But I don't have to accept the claims of people who revel in shocking fantasies that they're broadening their intellectual horizons. They're no more sophisticated in their habits than someone who habitually gluts himself on KFC chicken smothered in gravy until he becomes obese and sickly.

Quote from: TonyLBthe idea "These deaths are the price of free speech" assumes that people don't flip their lids and do horrid things in societies with restricted speech. I'm skeptical.

Actually one of the great ironies of domestic terrorism is that it occurs far more frequently in free and open societies than in oppresive dictatorships. Moreever most terrorists tend to be well educated upper-middle class young adults.

Just sayin....

Quote from: HaffrungThey're no more sophisticated in their habits than someone who habitually gluts himself on KFC chicken smothered in gravy until he becomes obese and sickly.

But how else are the Morgan Spurlocks of the world to know that being obese and sickly from overeating fast food is unhealthy but to try it for themselves?

Quote from: SpikeActually one of the great ironies of domestic terrorism is that it occurs far more frequently in free and open societies than in oppresive dictatorships. Moreever most terrorists tend to be well educated upper-middle class young adults.

Just sayin....

So psychopaths in power kill less people than psychopaths from the common citizenry?  I suppose the argument could be made.

I gotta say, though, about the nicest closed society I can think of in history is victorian england, and I suspect that even there you could track down more loss of life (and much more general misery) as a consequence of people's inability to effectively speak out (against economic and class injustice, for instance) than you're likely to find as a consequence of our freedoms.  That said, I'm not a sociologist, so all this is supposition on my part.

Quote from: HaffrungWhy does criticism inevitably lead to silencing? Isn't criticism itself a form of speech that should be protected?

It doesn't lead to silence, and it totally is a form of speech that should be protected.  I have no problem with folks criticizing ideas.  Indeed, the first reply of this thread was mine, agreeing with John in supporting the right to criticize (and be grossed out by) taboo subjects.

John asked me why I objected to where he took the argument from there (for which he accepted my paraphrase of "If you don't find X disgusting then you might be dangerous, and something should be done about you,").  To my mind, that's going beyond criticizing someone, and saying that society has a vested interest in stopping them from speaking (or, indeed, thinking as they do) in the first place.

With so many threads of conversation, though, it does get very hard to keep track of who's saying and defending what.  Quite the little brouhaha we've got going here. :D

Quote from: HaffrungBut I don't have to accept the claims of people who revel in shocking fantasies that they're broadening their intellectual horizons.

Of course you don't.  Has someone in this thread said that you are obligated to accept those claims?  Or is this your reading between the lines?

Quote from: SpikeActually one of the great ironies of domestic terrorism is that it occurs far more frequently in free and open societies than in oppresive dictatorships. Moreever most terrorists tend to be well educated upper-middle class young adults.

Just sayin....

Well, to some degree this is definitional.  There is often plenty of violence against the people in oppressive dictatorships -- it's just called "counter-terrorism" (or just "government") instead of "terrorism".  

As far as education and affluence, terrorism usually indicates a stealthy, organized approach to violence against civilian targets.  There are violent riots and revolts by poor folk, but they are generally not called "terrorism".

Quote from: Kyle AaronMorrow said, "certain groups", not "society".

Indeed, however I think we are seeing two parties to this argument are really mirror images founded on a common basis: that "society" = "the government". Therefore either (a) "social disapproval leads inevitably to censorship", or (b) "failure to support censorship constitutes lack of social disapproval".

(I disagree very strongly with the premise, so the conclusions are equally wrong from my perspective.)

Quote from: TonyLBSo psychopaths in power kill less people than psychopaths from the common citizenry?  I suppose the argument could be made.

I gotta say, though, about the nicest closed society I can think of in history is victorian england, and I suspect that even there you could track down more loss of life (and much more general misery) as a consequence of people's inability to effectively speak out (against economic and class injustice, for instance) than you're likely to find as a consequence of our freedoms.  That said, I'm not a sociologist, so all this is supposition on my part.

I made no judgement calls about open vs oppressive societies, I only pointed out that Timothy McVeigh's really only exist in open societies.

Even still it is debateable to a large degree. Anecdotally, of course, we can point to groups like the Weathermen and the Symbionese Liberation Army to demonstrate what I'm talking about (well off, well educated people chosing to attack the society that granted them the freedom to be assholes...), while the counteranecdote can be brought up that many people point to the birth of modern terrorism in Czarist Russia a little over a century ago, one of them more brutally oppressive regimes by most accounts.  This brings us into shady discussions about when rebellion and guerrilla warfare becomes terrorism and vice versa.... though to be honest the original bomb throwers of the Rodina weren't really any different than the SLA or the Weathermen... they just tended to die ugly deaths instead of retire as semi-celebrities and political hobknobs....

To bring it back on track however: The free and open exchange of ideas does tend to lead, for whatever reason, into violent action. This is much like driving cars leads to highway deaths. Its an apparently unavoidable consequence... some people will just use those freedoms irresponsibly.

Like Cars, however, simply acknowledging that people will use the free exchange of ideas irresponsibly to the detriment of others does not mean that we should simply do away with the concept.

I imagine some caveman ten thousand years ago looking at his neighbors who had just domesticated the horse and bitching about where it would all lead...

Quote from: TonyLBOf course you don't.  Has someone in this thread said that you are obligated to accept those claims?  Or is this your reading between the lines?

The AARs of the shocking fantasy RPG sessions that I've come across have put on the mantle of sophisticated exploration of human experience. Setting aside the pretentiousness of such claims, these delusions suggest that the participants are uncomfortable with the nature of what they're really doing.

Quote from: SpikeLike Cars, however, simply acknowledging that people will use the free exchange of ideas irresponsibly to the detriment of others does not mean that we should simply do away with the concept.

I imagine some caveman ten thousand years ago looking at his neighbors who had just domesticated the horse and bitching about where it would all lead...

I'm with ya there, and plus I love the imagery.  "Ugggh ... meat that obeys?  Why nobody value tradition any more?  And now he say 'You no eat this meat yet,' when me very hungry.  Me tell you ... this end ugly."

Quote from: HaffrungThe AARs of the shocking fantasy RPG sessions that I've come across have put on the mantle of sophisticated exploration of human experience.

Yeah, but you're free to think (and say) that's bunk.

I know that I, for one, would feel very restricted if I thought that people didn't feel comfortable objecting to my ideas.  Paradoxically, I'd feel obliged to be much more restrained about what I said.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIndeed, however I think we are seeing two parties to this argument are really mirror images founded on a common basis: that "society" = "the government".

I disagree, at least if you're attempting to lump me in with that. The two are quite different at least in the traditional America viewpoint. Indeed, much of the effort that went into the Constitution was to insure that they were different.

There is however a connection when government attempts to overturn the rules of society, which is what we've seen in the US over the last few decades. And it can be seen when society pushes back asking for laws to protect that which has been taken away.

These however are effectively side effects. If the society was strong enough in its convictions- government would have never acted as it lack the legal authority to act. Society would have continue, and the legal battles would never have been engaged.

However society now doubts itself too much, is too willing to question and overturn its traditions and existing rules. So Goverment takes charge because the door was held open for them to do just that.

Yes, I am lumping you in with that, Brian, but I am trying to understand how you see the expansion of First Amendment protections as "the government attempting to overturn the rules of society". From a strict legal perspective, the expansion of First Amendment protections since Roth v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States) (1957) can be seen as the government reducing its role in society, rather than overturning society's rules. On the other hand from a political perspective it can be seen, in combination with the incorporation principle derived from the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to the First Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York) (1925), as gutting the principles of federalism and the ability of the people to govern themselves locally.

There's an interesting discussion to be had here, but I'm short of time at the moment. I will say, though, that I believe we'd still be having this discussion even if it weren't for the Roth and Gitlow cases. That is no matter the jurisdiction, there is and IMO should be a well-understood distinction between censorship and social disapproval.

Quote from: gleichmanThere is however a connection when government attempts to overturn the rules of society, which is what we've seen in the US over the last few decades. And it can be seen when society pushes back asking for laws to protect that which has been taken away.

Sadly, that is indeed the reaction: "Legislation has taken our freedoms! Let's introduce legislation to protect them!" Absence of legislation is very difficult to achieve, even though it's what's actually needed.

Quote from: gleichmanIf the society was strong enough in its convictions- government would have never acted as it lack the legal authority to act.

I think history has shown that government will act contrary to the wishes of its society even in cases in which the overwhelming majority of that society has very strong convictions.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIndeed, however I think we are seeing two parties to this argument are really mirror images founded on a common basis: that "society" = "the government". Therefore either (a) "social disapproval leads inevitably to censorship", or (b) "failure to support censorship constitutes lack of social disapproval".

(I disagree very strongly with the premise, so the conclusions are equally wrong from my perspective.)

Huh.  So you've figured out what we secretly think, in marked contrast to what we're saying ... and it turns out that what we secretly think is (a) something that doesn't make any sense and (b) exactly what you'd like to argue against, rather than our actual opinions.

Wow.  What a coincidence.

Tony, do try if possible not to be a complete idiot.

QuoteBut if you want to stick up for people's right to express themselves, surely the only way to do that without being a hypocrite is to stick up for the rights of people with whom you violently disagree, as well as for those with whom you agree.

Framing this in terms of rights is totally stupid, Tony.

QuoteThe attitude you are espousing leads inevitably to silencing dissenting opinions

No one is being silenced when others call them names.

Quote from: TonyLBSomeone who can cop to ... God, I don't even know what you're imagining ... "emotional harm"?  Someone who can cop to emotional harm because they went out and read anonymous violent thoughts on the internet is emotionally broken in the first place.

Why do you say that?  Are you claiming that an emotionally healthy person should be able to read anything, no matter how vile, and just let it slide off of them without effect?  A big part of my point is that I think that attitude is unhealthy.  Going back to my first post in this thread, that's exactly how psychopaths react to shocking words like "rape" or "murder", with the same emotional detachment that they react to words like "tree" and "ball".  You seem to be claiming that the psychopaths are emotionally healthiest of all, because nothing they read will shock them or emotionally harm them, and that seems backward to me for obvious reasons.

Quote from: TonyLBTrying to draw a cause and effect between what a nutjob focusses on and what their actual problem is ... that's just crazy and stupid.  That's like blaming Jodie Foster for the Reagan assassination attempt.

No.  It's like saying that someone with an unhealthy obsession of Jodie Foster might be worth keeping an eye on and at a certain point, their behavior might become actionable.  Let's not forget that Hinckley got his parents to send him to New Haven, Connecticut, where he called her repeatedly over four days.  Had that odd behavior sent up some red flags as creepy behavior and made more people keep an eye on him, perhaps he wouldn't have gotten to the point of shooting a President successfully.  In other words, Hinckley's creepy behavior sent out warning signs well before he actually acted on them, but nobody did anything about it.

Quote from: TonyLBMy visceral reaction is that that's a crock of shit.  Of course, I could marshall a rational argument, but as you just pointed out, I don't have to.  You'll accept my visceral reaction as legitimate, right?

I'll accept your visceral reaction as reflective of and as informing of your rational arguments which, of course, it is.  One simply reflects through emotions what the other reflects through reasoning.  What's more interesting to me is when people suppress their visceral response with an intellectual response, which what you claim you are doing by tolerating my right to say what I'm saying here even though you claim to find the ideas I'm advocating disgusting.

Quote from: TonyLBYou haven't?  Okay.  I'll refer you to The Ethnic Phenomenon, by Pierre L. van den Berghe and Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing, by James Waller.  I've only got a cocktail-party understanding of the theories myself, but if you want a deeper insight, Wikipedia suggest that those books are good places to start.

A summary I read on van der Berghe summarizes his theory as, "The more genes we share with another individual, the more altruistic we are toward him."  I think there are enough counter-examples to not only question that theory but question how relevant race or "skin color" is, but the idea that humans separate other humans into "in groups" and "out groups" and often determine membership by similarities (not simply race but also culture, religion, nationality, and so on) is not surprising.  It's why I said earlier, "you can reframe the moral landscape all the way up to getting people to support murder and genocide".  That's done by moral closeness or distancing.

The Wikipedia summary of Waller's work under Xenophobia sums up his theory as being that all human beings "have an innate, evolution-produced tendency to seek proximity to familiar faces because what is unfamiliar is probably dangerous and should be avoided. More than two hundred social psychological experiments have confirmed the intimate connection between familiarity and fondness. This universal human tendency is the foundation for the behavioral expressions of ethnocentrism and xenophobia"  Again, I would argue that "familiarity" is not necessarily defined by any one trait like skin color or race.  

For example, the multiple sources genetic composition of the Japanese is fairly apparent looking around Japan.  Even though Koreans are clearly one of the components and even though you can't tell many Japanese from Koreans by appearance, the Japanese will maintain that they are very different from the Koreans and more like other Japanese who clearly have non-Korean ancestry.  

Similarly, Barack Obama doesn't share a great deal of genetic heritage with most African Americans because they are largely a mixture of West African, American Indian, and European ancestry while Barack Obama's father was East African and his mother was white.  Vin Diesel, on the other hand, often gets seen as white, even though he probably has more genetically in common with most African Americans than Barack Obama.  I would argue that not only is that cultural as well as a matter of skin color but also that Americans have a fairly unsophisticated perception of race and ethnicity based on the predominantly white perspective.  

Americans will make a distinction between Irish-Americans, German-American, Italian-Americans, and Polish-Americans but not between Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Thais or East Africans, West Africans, North Africans, and South Africans, even though the genetic differences within Africa are greater than the genetic differences between Northeastern Africans and the rest of the world.  A Kenyan friend, on the other hand, makes it very clear that she's Kikuyu and not Massai, Luhya, Luo, Kalenjin, etc. even though an American would see them all as "black" and as with the difference between Muslim and Hindu Indians or Arabs and Persians or any number of other ethnic distinctions, skin color is often not the issue.

Further, I would argue that whether certain groups of Hispanics, Middle Easterners, Indians, and even East Asians are essentially considered "white" by white Americans varies by the group of people in question (and, going in the other direction, some white people don't consider Mediterranean Europeans to be "white", either) and is often cultural rather than racial (e.g., the Irish were at times considered "not white" by various groups of white people, in large part because of their social class, culture, and Catholicism and not appearance).  In a Geraldo Rivera interview with William Shatner over the weekend, Shatner told Geraldo that they were "two white guys" when he asked him a question about race, to which Geraldo argued he was "brown".  So I see plenty of examples of this not being clear-cut.

While searching for summaries of Waller's theories, I did find this article (http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/04/05/rwanda_media_struggle_with_press_curbs/) while looking that illustrates the pros and cons of free speech pretty well looking at pre- and post- genocide Rwanda.

On the one hand, "some Rwandan journalists and many international observers say media restrictions [put into place after the genocide] look less like a means to avoid a repeat of the events of 1994 and more like a way for politicians to dodge criticism."  That suggests limits on free speech are being used to squash legitimate criticism of the government.  

On other hand, before the genocide, "A magazine called Kangura, or Wake Him Up!, published screeds denigrating Tutsis as a subhuman race that aimed to destroy Rwanda, and urged Hutus to arm themselves." and "Confirming the media's murderous role, the UN war crimes tribunal for Rwanda in December convicted key figures from the magazine and the radio station of incitement to genocide."  That suggests that free speech and ideas actually can incite people to do horrible things.

Finally here, I do think there are good reasons why we divide people into "in groups" and "out groups" and I think we may see some examples in the not so distant future of how a group that makes such distinctions fares against a group that refuses to.  Not making such distinctions only really works when everyone goes along with it but seems to put the side not making "in group" and "out group" distinctions at a severe disadvantage in the face of groups that do because they treat their opponents as friends while their opponents treat them as enemies.  Where I think it goes overboard and breaks down is when the humanity of the "out group" is denied, which again leads us back to thinking about other human beings like a psychopath.

Quote from: TonyLBOn the contrary ... it comes from my intense belief that what a person thinks about does both reflect and inform their psyche and personality.  I just don't think it's as easy as "Thinking about bad things makes you a bad boy."  The attitude you are espousing leads inevitably to silencing dissenting opinions, which leads to impoverishing our field of ideas.  You are championing ignorance, and all it implies.

I don't think it's as easy as,  "Thinking about bad things makes you a bad boy," either.  But I do think that how you express those ideas and your restraint (or lack of restraint) with respect to sharing those ideas or acting on aspects of those ideas can say a great deal.  Having an erotic dream about Jodie Foster may be entirely harmless.  Sharing it with a friend or spouse is fairly normal.  Writing out it on a public message board will depend on form and context.  Traveling to where Jodie Foster is and spending four days calling her on the telephone is probably a loud warning sign that something is not right.  I haven't actually advocated any particular line, yet you are assuming any line must be all or nothing.

By framing that "leads inevitably to silencing dissenting opinions" and is "championing ignorance, and all it implies", you are using a slippery slope to make an excluded middle argument.  In fact, I would argue that claiming that we can't make distinctions or draw lines is a form of "championing ignorance", insisting that we remain indifferent to content and form regardless of what it is.  I presume this means that you don't agree with the Miller test or laws against obscene material, either?

Quote from: TonyLBIs ignorance a verdant field of innate virtue, which needs only to be kept free of the weeds of evil thoughts?  You seem to be arguing so:  If we keep people from being exposed to unpleasant or controversial things then they will grow straight and true and right.

Not at all.  See, the game you are playing by generalizing everything into "unpleasant or controversial things" is the game of erasing important distinctions to claim that two things are the same.  Can you really not see any distinction between The Bell Curve and The Turner Diaries or between a soft-porn adult movie and torture porn?  Is there some reason why we are not allowed to draw any distinctions between "unpleasant or controversial things" based on content, value, degree, and so on?  Is it only out of fear that because it's impossible to draw an objective line that everyone can agree on, that if we ban torture porn it's only a matter of time before we wind up banning Winnie the Pooh?  

Quote from: TonyLBBy contrast, I think that ignorance makes a person weak, and twisted.  I think that human character is confirmed and strengthened by knowing about both good and evil, and choosing good.

But if they are exposed to evil in a value-neutral way, where evil is glamorized and encouraged, don't you think that makes it more likely for people to turn out evil?  In what way do we communicate that evil is bad and not the right choice?

Quote from: TonyLBThe way to help a person understand heroism is not to prevent them from ever learning of villains.  Teach them, in detail, the truth about Hitler and Roosevelt, Mussolini and Churchill.  If a young man wants to read Mein Kampf, you don't forbid him, for fear that his mind is too weak to face evil without becoming evil itself.  You give him that experience and others as well ... listen to the radio broadcasts of the time, talk about the beaches at Normandy and the greatest generation.

What makes you think that people are guaranteed to learn the truth if we allow books full of lies and propaganda to fill bookstore shelves and libraries?  Are they going to learn the truth about Hitler from a book that lionizes him and makes him out as a hero who was right?  If not, then what's the value of allowing such books to sit on the bookshelf?  Do you honestly believe that books lionizing Hitler won't exist or that everyone will be discerning enough to tell the difference?  

Quote from: TonyLBIgnorance is toxic.  You are championing it in no uncertain terms.  That is what disgusts me.

Yet you apparently arn't concerned that books full of lies and distortions are peddling ignorance and think they should be freely available or perhaps you simply expect everyone to be smart enough to tell the difference?

Quote from: TonyLBJohn, your cheap theatrics are getting worse and worse.  Are you seriously blaming society for Timothy McVeigh?  If only he'd been kept ignorant of the idea of acting against the government, he'd have been a good boy?

Kyle's response to this is better than anything I could have written.  That includes when he says:

Quote from: Kyle AaronOf course, you may argue that a few hundred deaths every few years is the price we pay for freedom of speech. And why not? The world has 1.2 million deaths a year just from car accidents, over a million dead is the price we pay for... um... mobility, I suppose. And we've decided that being able to drive five hundred yards to the shops when we feel like is worth 1.2 million dead a year.

Likewise, we may decide that the dead of Oklahoma City, the frightened black families with crosses burning in their yards, and James Byrd beaten to death - well, that's the price we pay for freedom of speech.

But we should not deny that there is a price to pay, and pretend there's no connection between words and actions. Just as 1.2 million dead is the inevitable consequence of using a tonne of steel to move 70kg of person, so too with freedom of speech.

Once we acknowledge the price, the discussion becomes one of costs and benefits and perhaps that discussion will come down on the side of absolute free speech or perhaps something a bit short of that but still pretty open (which is what we find in practice).  But you seem to want to argue that there is no cost for free speech and I don't agree with that.  Do you really want to argue that books and ideas and words have no influence on what people think and believe?  And if that is what you believe, then where do you think people get their beliefs and ideas from?

Quote from: Elliot WilenTony, do try if possible not to be a complete idiot.

Well, y'know, that's a lot of effort.  I guess I could try.

Hrm ... bothering to engage you at all would be pretty idiotic, wouldn't it?

Okay, since I've taken Tony to task, I might as well as his partner in this...discussion.

John, what exactly do you propose to do? What is your goal in all this? Are you trying to justify a social response that you believe is under attack? Question the sanity of people who disagree with your "reaction"? Establish principles for forum policy? Propose government action?

Quote from: TonyLBYes, but that is a very long way from saying that in the absence of those words, McVeigh would have been okay.

So do you want to argue that propaganda is irrelevant and that Timothy McVeigh would have done something horrible like that regardless of his choice of reading material?

Quote from: TonyLBApart from being pretty appalling math, the idea "These deaths are the price of free speech" assumes that people don't flip their lids and do horrid things in societies with restricted speech.  I'm skeptical.

Just because people flip their lids and do horrid things in societies with restricted speech does not mean that free speech has no cost.  Correlation does not equal causation.

Again, you seem to want to argue that the ideas, words, writings, films, and so on that a person is exposed to has no bearing on what they believe and how they act.  If you really believe that, then what do you believe does influence a person's beliefs and actions?  Do you think Timothy McVeigh was born to bomb the Murrah Building?

QuoteSo you've figured out what we secretly think, in marked contrast to what we're saying

If the shoe fits, man. I didn't even identify you, so you had plenty of opportunity to clarify and state your position.

Quote from: John MorrowThat suggests that free speech and ideas actually can incite people to do horrible things.

It absolutely can, and I don't think anyone would contradict that. The issue is whether the overall effects of freedom of speech are more positive than negative, whatever your criteria for positive and negative my be.

Quote from: John MorrowCan you really not see any distinction between The Bell Curve and The Turner Diaries or between a soft-porn adult movie and torture porn?

Various distinctions may be drawn, but they will all be subjective.

Quote from: John MorrowBut if they are exposed to evil in a value-neutral way, where evil is glamorized and encouraged, don't you think that makes it more likely for people to turn out evil?  In what way do we communicate that evil is bad and not the right choice?

I cannot promise that a value-neutral education won't produce more people you would consider "evil," but that consideration is yours and not mine at any rate. If we substitute "what John Morrow likes" for "good" and "what John Morrow doesn't like" for evil, the way to express the difference in value-neutral terms is to discuss which sort of world they personally would prefer to live in. Do you want to live in a world where everyone is a thief, where people do not share, where people are cruel to each other? You can always teach them game theory.

There are plenty of ways to produce a lawful, ordered society - which is, presumably, what you like - without resorting to the human invention of morality.

[Edit: It took me a second read to pick up this: "if they are exposed to evil in a value-neutral way, where evil is glamorized and encouraged..." Those two things are not necessarily the same thing! One can be value-neutral and still not glamorize or encourage evil, or "what John Morrow thinks is evil," at any rate. If you teach your children stealing is not wrong, but counter-productive, you've taught them a value-neutral lesson without encouraging evil. It's actually a long walk from, "Morality is subjective," to, "Killing people is good for you!"]

Quote from: John MorrowWhat makes you think that people are guaranteed to learn the truth if we allow books full of lies and propaganda to fill bookstore shelves and libraries?

If all information is available, people are free to make their own choices regarding what is true. There are no guarantees, however, that they will make the correct choices, or the choices you'd like.

Quote from: John MorrowAre they going to learn the truth about Hitler from a book that lionizes him and makes him out as a hero who was right? If not, then what's the value of allowing such books to sit on the bookshelf?

If you only read that book, you will not learn the facts or interpretation of fact about Hitler which are not in that book, but the value of allowing all books is that we do not know in all cases which facts or interpretation thereof are correct. I agree the Hitler case is well-founded, but that's not really the issue, globally: the issue is access to all information, and allowing people to make their own choices regarding what to believe. That's the world I prefer.

Quote from: Elliot WilenJohn, what exactly do you propose to do? What is your goal in all this? Are you trying to justify a social response that you believe is under attack? Question the sanity of people who disagree with your "reaction"? Establish principles for forum policy? Propose government action?

That's part of what I'm trying to work out here.  

The core point that I made with my first message was that I think the visceral response that people have toward creepy material is legitimate and at the very least, they should be able to call creepy material creepy.  I think even Tony agrees with me on that point.

Another point I was making was that, in practice, no government allows speech to be as free as many of the free speech advocates here would apparently prefer, including the nations that most of the people participating in this debate probably come from.  In some cases in Europe and Canada, I think the restrictions are going too far (e.g., the Falacci and Steyn cases) and in others, I have mixed feelings (e.g., the David Irving case).  On the other hand, I have no problem with restrictions on obscenity, such as that pointed out by Stuart earlier in the thread, and his point on that (and my opinion, as well) is that such restrictions are almost ubiquitous around the world.

Yet another point I was making was what Kyle quite eloquently pointed out in terms of costs and benefits.  Free speech has a cost, both in terms of setting the tone for discussion and selecting the participants (as Brian Gleichman pointed out) and in a more real sense such as the propaganda that helped fuel the Rwandan genocide and the violence committed in the name of the Turner Diaries.

And then there is the issue of what to do about it?  Public condemnation?  Social ostracizing?  Government action?  Other levels of punishment ranging from message board censorship and banning to being expelled from school or fired from a job?  I left that somewhat open.

To tie it all together, I think the cost vs. benefit equation is the foundation upon which the discussion needs to be built and that we need to make distinctions more fine than all or nothing that would group Doonsbury with the Turner Diaries or a web site arguing that Roe v. Wade was an unconstitutional Supreme Court decision with a web site listing the home addresses of abortionists with a gun target superimposed over their pictures.  Yes, it's true that the line between acceptable and unacceptable isn't clear, but I don't think that means that we need to throw our hands up in the air and refuse to make any distinction.

Thus I think we should make distinctions between content and respond to it accordingly, to be determined by prevailing values and balanced with safeguards to discourage abuse.  Do I have specific details?  I would by saying that I think the Miller Test is a decent test for obscenity and am fine with the idea of government restricting obscene material.  At the other end, I think that public condemnation is a good tool for dealing with material that is not obscene but is creepy or offensive.  And I'm not really sure if overt lies for the purpose of propaganda should be protected speech any more than libel or slander is.  Should people be free to claim that the Holocaust never happened?  I'm not really sure what constructive purpose that serves (what's the benefit)?  So to at least some degree, I'm still trying to sort this out.

Finally, a part of my point is that advocates of free speech argue often go to the point of arguing that one can not or should not be emotionally harmed by any words or ideas, no matter how vile.  That is exactly how psychopaths react to vile words and ideas and not how normally people naturally react to them.  I don't think it's a good think to encourage or demand that society respond to things like psychopaths.  Cool indifference to vile content does not make the world a better place.

Quote from: John Morrowis a decent test for obscenity .

Oh... you sly dog you... I see what you did there....:rolleyes:

Quote from: John MorrowWhy do you say that?  Are you claiming that an emotionally healthy person should be able to read anything, no matter how vile, and just let it slide off of them without effect?

Uh ... yeah, actually.  "Sticks and stones," and all that.  I think an emotionally healthy person ought to have the strength to say "Well, that was disgusting, but I've got other things to think about.  Yuck, and moving on."

Quote from: John MorrowIn other words, Hinckley's creepy behavior sent out warning signs well before he actually acted on them, but nobody did anything about it.

Y'know what, it's possible I'm misinterpreting you.  I'm going to stop reading anything between the lines.  Please be specific.  What kind of thing should be done to people who express opinions or engage in behaviors that other people find uncomfortable?

Should it be limited to public scorn ("Oh John, give it up, Jodie Foster has no interest in you ... sheesh!") or do you envision something more?

Quote from: John MorrowI'll accept your visceral reaction as reflective of and as informing of your rational arguments which, of course, it is.

Do you accept my visceral reaction as legitimate? :D

Quote from: John MorrowBy framing that "leads inevitably to silencing dissenting opinions" and is "championing ignorance, and all it implies", you are using a slippery slope to make an excluded middle argument.  In fact, I would argue that claiming that we can't make distinctions or draw lines is a form of "championing ignorance", insisting that we remain indifferent to content and form regardless of what it is.  I presume this means that you don't agree with the Miller test or laws against obscene material, either?

Now that's really not fair:  You're referring to something entirely different from what I was complaining about.  What I find appalling is not the idea that some material shouldn't find wide publication:  It's the idea that if a person can think certain things, they're a danger and need to be dealt with.

You're labelling people who aren't disgusted by the same things you're disgusted by as psychopaths, and saying that something ought to be done about them before they endanger people.  THAT attitude leads to silencing dissenting opinions.

Quote from: John MorrowBut if they are exposed to evil in a value-neutral way, where evil is glamorized and encouraged, don't you think that makes it more likely for people to turn out evil?  In what way do we communicate that evil is bad and not the right choice?

By glorifying good.

This is sorta like how we keep the RPGSite on-track ... post RPG threads that are worth doing.  You really don't get anywhere by subtracting the material you don't like.  Add.

Quote from: John MorrowDo you honestly believe that books lionizing Hitler won't exist or that everyone will be discerning enough to tell the difference?

There is no question that some people are going to read such a book and fail to discern that it's a pack of lies.  Giving people a chance to make up their own minds means giving them a chance to do so poorly.  But the option, of course, is not giving them a chance at all.

Quote from: John MorrowBut you seem to want to argue that there is no cost for free speech and I don't agree with that.

I actually answered this one already (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=207456&postcount=84).  Big thread though, so it's easy for things to get lost.  Long-story-short:  Yeah, there's a cost.  I just think that the cost is still the best deal going.

Quote from: EngineIt absolutely can, and I don't think anyone would contradict that. The issue is whether the overall effects of freedom of speech are more positive than negative, whatever your criteria for positive and negative my be.

Correct, but I do think people argue against that.

Quote from: EngineVarious distinctions may be drawn, but they will all be subjective.

Just because something is subjective or has subjective components does not mean it is arbitrary or that it's not valid to make the distinction.  The meaning that we give every distinction is ultimately subjective and it fascinates me, for example, that libertarians argue for restraining the liberty of others to prevent them from attacking others or stealing from others without understanding that their decisions that those are legitimate limits while others limits on liberty are not are based entirely on subjective values.  But that doesn't mean it's illegitimate for them to argue for those lines to be drawn.

Quote from: EngineI cannot promise that a value-neutral education won't produce more people you would consider "evil," but that consideration is yours and not mine at any rate. If we substitute "what John Morrow likes" for "good" and "what John Morrow doesn't like" for evil, the way to express the difference in value-neutral terms is to discuss which sort of world they personally would prefer to live in.

I don't think it's that simple.  I don't think that good and evil are entirely subjective, which goes back to my point about base morality and the apparently physiological differences between the way malicious psychopaths and non-psychopaths process moral decisions.  There are, for example, certain moral or quasi-moral responses that chimpanzees and other animals have in common with human beings that make it difficult to argue that morality is simply cultural and subjective or that good and evil are infinitely malleable concepts (many criminal psychopaths understand and recognize that they are evil by the standards of conventional morality and that they don't care is part of what makes them capable of such great evil).

Quote from: EngineDo you want to live in a world where everyone is a thief, where people do not share, where people are cruel to each other? You can always teach them game theory.

That is yet another illustration of base morality.  You will notice that wholly utilitarian game theory often fails to describe how people actually behave.  That's because game theory is flawed, not because people are.  Most people will resist not sharing, being cruel, and so on because their base morality will them that it's wrong, yet psychopaths behave in exactly that way.  They can be casually cruel, selfish, manipulative, and so on, often to great benefit to themselves.  But we're left back at the same point.  Do we really want to defend the idea that psychopaths are better than normal people, that their perspective is superior, and that people should be more like psychopaths?  Does that really lead any place good, even for psychopaths?

Quote from: EngineThere are plenty of ways to produce a lawful, ordered society - which is, presumably, what you like - without resorting to the human invention of morality.

I reject the idea that morality is a human invention.  I think the evidence suggests that it's not true.

Quote from: Engine[Edit: It took me a second read to pick up this: "if they are exposed to evil in a value-neutral way, where evil is glamorized and encouraged..." Those two things are not necessarily the same thing! One can be value-neutral and still not glamorize or encourage evil, or "what John Morrow thinks is evil," at any rate. If you teach your children stealing is not wrong, but counter-productive, you've taught them a value-neutral lesson without encouraging evil. It's actually a long walk from, "Morality is subjective," to, "Killing people is good for you!"]

Again, if you teach yoru children that "stealing is not wrong but counter-productive", you are teaching them to look at the world like a psychopath.

Quote from: EngineIf all information is available, people are free to make their own choices regarding what is true. There are no guarantees, however, that they will make the correct choices, or the choices you'd like.

So should we be utterly indifferent to the choices that they make or the direction in which society trends?

Quote from: EngineIf you only read that book, you will not learn the facts or interpretation of fact about Hitler which are not in that book, but the value of allowing all books is that we do not know in all cases which facts or interpretation thereof are correct. I agree the Hitler case is well-founded, but that's not really the issue, globally: the issue is access to all information, and allowing people to make their own choices regarding what to believe. That's the world I prefer.

Why?  (I'm not necessarily saying you are wrong but I'm curious about your reasoning.)

Quote from: John MorrowI don't think that good and evil are entirely subjective, which goes back to my point about base morality and the apparently physiological differences between the way malicious psychopaths and non-psychopaths process moral decisions.

Oh, wait, I get it!

You're saying that people who aren't too disgusted to talk about certain topics must be brain damaged.  Yes?

Quote from: TonyLBUh ... yeah, actually.  "Sticks and stones," and all that.  I think an emotionally healthy person ought to have the strength to say "Well, that was disgusting, but I've got other things to think about.  Yuck, and moving on."

If they witness a crime, should they report it?

Quote from: TonyLBOh, wait, I get it!

You're saying that people who aren't too disgusted to talk about certain topics must be brain damaged.  Yes?

As numberless threads on Gaming have long since proven, Godwin's law is fundamentally flawed when applied to a Gaming Forum discussion. Not because it is wrong, but because it does not reflect the certain cultural values of the community. Talking about Nazi's and Hitler does not spell certain doom for gaming communities, however once someone brings Brain Damage into the conversation the thread is effectively over...

Quote from: StuartIf they witness a crime, should they report it?

Yes.

Quote from: John MorrowMost people will resist not sharing, being cruel, and so on because their base morality will them that it's wrong

Are you serious?

Working Law Enforcement has taught me one thing I really believe in, and that's that people will do whatever they can especially when people aren't looking or they think they can get away with it. People will be cruel, selfish and down right rotten as they think they can get away with. And that's just people-not the true psychopaths , which you've clearly never come face to face with.(Because if you had there'd be no doubt, trust me.)

You quite obviously view the world around in an entirely different fashion than I do. People will boil and beat their kids. They will kill their buddies over slices of pizza. They will rape old men in wheel chairs because they can. They'll keep the change even though the clerk overpaid them. They will do whatever they want, and blame everyone but themselves. And that's just the normal everyday people.

QuoteI reject the idea that morality is a human invention.  I think the evidence suggests that it's not true.

Where as, as a counter point, I reject this statement and truly believe morality to be an entirely human invention, admittedly influenced somewhat by genetic imperatives that we sometimes carry.

QuoteAgain, if you teach yoru children that "stealing is not wrong but counter-productive", you are teaching them to look at the world like a psychopath.

Except the world isn't that cut and dried. A mother who steals to feed her children is breaking the law, but is she morally wrong? If your answer is yes it's possible you're the worst kind of person in my book-the self righteously smug, who think they know best for everyone else.

Quote from: TonyLBUh ... yeah, actually.  "Sticks and stones," and all that.  I think an emotionally healthy person ought to have the strength to say "Well, that was disgusting, but I've got other things to think about.  Yuck, and moving on."

Why is the appropriate response to turn away and move on?

Quote from: TonyLBY'know what, it's possible I'm misinterpreting you.  I'm going to stop reading anything between the lines.  Please be specific.  What kind of thing should be done to people who express opinions or engage in behaviors that other people find uncomfortable?

I think it depends on the opinions and behavior.  The problem is that you keep trying to eliminate degree by, for example, talking about it simply in terms of making other people feel uncomfortable, as if feeling uncomfortable is simply an on or off issue with no degree.  In fact, the degree of the emotional response plays a critical role in moral decision making.  So it depends on the opinions and behavior by way of the level of the emotional response that they trigger.  And some of that will then depend on how likely it seems that a person might act on their ideas or fantasies if they are likely to hurt others or if there is any possible positive value to what they are saying when compared to the disruption it might be causing.

Quote from: TonyLBShould it be limited to public scorn ("Oh John, give it up, Jodie Foster has no interest in you ... sheesh!") or do you envision something more?

It depends.  A person talking about their kinky fantasies with Jodie Foster?  Maybe public scorn or even ignoring them is warranted.  Kinky fantasies of Jodie Foster combined with an admiration for Hinckley and talking about tracking her down in person?  That could warrant a significantly stronger reaction.

The same goes with with a kid talking about killing their classmates.  A kid pointing his finger at another kid and going, "Bang!  You're dead!" as part of a game?  Not a big concern.  An otherwise well-adjusted kid saying that he wants to kill a classmate who has wronged him in the heat of the moment?  Maybe a talking to.  A kid with a history of self-control problems threatening a classmate with death during the heat of the moment or refusing to back down from it or say it was wrong after they've cooled down?  Maybe an evaluation.  A kid who has been keeping a journal of the classmates he wants to kill in detail and who has been asking other kids how to get some guns?  Call the police.

It's a matter of context and degree.  You, yourself, mentioned the importance of context earlier.

Quote from: TonyLBDo you accept my visceral reaction as legitimate? :D

In the sense that I'm talking about, yes.

Quote from: TonyLBNow that's really not fair:  You're referring to something entirely different from what I was complaining about.  What I find appalling is not the idea that some material shouldn't find wide publication:  It's the idea that if a person can think certain things, they're a danger and need to be dealt with.

I believe that I've been pretty clear and, in fact, have a paragraph about that in my initial post.  In that paragraph, I stated:

Quote from: John MorrowWhen we hear things like that, we're supposed to be shocked and feel revulsion and the reason why we're supposed to be creeped out by people who have such fantasies is that it's safer to assume that they are psychopaths than to assume that they aren't. Yes, normal people can have such fantasies and never harm anyone but treating such fantasies as normal makes it harder to sort out the dangerous psychopaths from normal people. If you don't want people to think you are a psychopath, don't talk and act like one rather that telling me there is something wrong with me for being shocked by such fantasies and finding them unpleasant. Such fantasies are a warning sign that there is something that's not right about a person and if you don't want people to think there is something wrong with you, find something else more normal and less shocking to fantasize about. In fact, I think a big part of the reason why society used to demand a certain amount of restraint and conformity from people is that people who do have something wrong with them find it difficult to exercise restraint and to conform.

My point is that normal people can have such fantasies but they can generally control themselves and not talk about them in public or find something else to fantasize about.  Regardless, I don't think we can control what a person things unless you are able to read minds.  I do think we can respond to what they express and do.  

Normal people might have some twisted fantasies from time to time but they should also realize that they are twisted and have some restraint when it comes to sharing them with others.  In cases where that's the prevailing social expectation, it becomes much easier to tell the normal people from the nuts because the normal people will exercise restraint while the nuts won't.  

To use Kyle's example, normal people aren't going to show up to a meeting of people advocating the age of consent be dropped to 10.  But if they were to become a rallying point of free speech advocates who started showing up to their meetings in large numbers despite not being pedophiles, then the utility of such meetings as a way for the police to find real pedophiles would disappear.  

Similarly, in an environment where sharing disturbing fantasies is discouraged, the people with problems will stick out because they'll share their fantasies anyway, while the normal people won't, even if they have them.  But in an environment where everyone is encouraged to share their most vile fantasies and where it is even considered a positive, the problem people will be able to fly under the radar and look normal.  Thus I think there is a social benefit to encouraging restraint and moderation while I see little benefit in encouraging people to share their vile fantasies in public, which also has the side-effect of driving away the people bothered by such fantasies and making the people who enjoy them feel at home.  This is why I'm thinking about it as making spaces psychopath-friendly.

Quote from: TonyLBYou're labelling people who aren't disgusted by the same things you're disgusted by as psychopaths, and saying that something ought to be done about them before they endanger people.  THAT attitude leads to silencing dissenting opinions.

Not exactly.  And if you go back and read the articles that I posted links to in my first message, this has nothing to do with being disgusted by the same things I'm disgusted by (nice attempt at injecting moral relativism in there, by the way) but something that shows up pretty clearly in studies that have been done on psychopaths and normal people.  Given that I wasn't a part of those studies, it has nothing to do with what shocks me.

Quote from: TonyLBThis is sorta like how we keep the RPGSite on-track ... post RPG threads that are worth doing.  You really don't get anywhere by subtracting the material you don't like.  Add.

While I think that's a legitimate suggestion, I don't agree that you'll never get anywhere subtracting material that you don't like.  One of the triggers for this thread was the dredging up of an old thread that got locked and that led to another thread getting locked.  First, the locking of both of those threads was essentially cutting the discussion off.  Do you disagree with the locking?  Second, that the old thread that was locked was never deleted allowed it to be dredged up yet again to get another thread locked.  Do you think it's useful to keep that old thread around and, if so, why?

Quote from: TonyLBThere is no question that some people are going to read such a book and fail to discern that it's a pack of lies.  Giving people a chance to make up their own minds means giving them a chance to do so poorly.  But the option, of course, is not giving them a chance at all.

Does your opinion on that change if the pack of lies start persuading large numbers of people who start supporting doing horrible things?  Or do you believe that false propaganda can never get that powerful and that something else is to blame when things like that happen?

(fixed attribution problem)

Quote from: Elliot WilenYes, I am lumping you in with that, Brian, but I am trying to understand how you see the expansion of First Amendment protections as "the government attempting to overturn the rules of society".

Removing the ten commandants from public spaces, removal of school prayer and other actions undertaken by the courts were without doubt the overturning of social rules for new legal ones.

One can extend the argument further based upon the concept of federalism, which you note in your reply.


Further I find the history of Free speech in the 1st admendment interesting by itself, as it transformed from:

"''The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity."

to

"Full acceptance of the theory that the Amendment operates not only to bar most prior restraints of expression but subsequent punishment of all but a narrow range of expression, in political discourse and indeed in all fields of expression, dates from a quite recent period, although the Court's movement toward that position began in its consideration of limitations on speech and press in the period following World War I."


Link to the full article: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html#1

Quote from: Elliot WilenI will say, though, that I believe we'd still be having this discussion even if it weren't for the Roth and Gitlow cases. That is no matter the jurisdiction, there is and IMO should be a well-understood distinction between censorship and social disapproval.

Censorship is prior restraint- the old version of the 1st admendment where social disapproval of the result could carry serious weight- including legal action.

The new view of the 1st admendment after it's 20th century expansions limits social disapproval- to the point of near ineffectiveness in some cases IMO.

Quote from: Serious PaulAre you serious?

Yes.

Quote from: Serious PaulWorking Law Enforcement has taught me one thing I really believe in, and that's that people will do whatever they can especially when people aren't looking or they think they can get away with it. People will be cruel, selfish and down right rotten as they think they can get away with. And that's just people-not the true psychopaths , which you've clearly never come face to face with.(Because if you had there'd be no doubt, trust me.)

Psychopaths, narcissists, and people with related morality issues are over-represented among criminals.  Some estimates are that 50% of violent criminals are psychopaths, not all of whom are easy to spot (some do an excellent job of fooling the police, parole boards, and so on).  So without being there, I don't know how many psychopaths you've run into or exactly but I get the suspicion that from a psychological standpoint, it's probably higher than your assessment.  That doesn't mean that normal people can't do some vile and nutty things (they can, for a variety of reasons) but when you start talking about people who kill their friends over a slice of pizza and then claim they were justified and feel no remorse, you are generally dealing with a psychopath or someone with an impaired sense of empathy and concern over consequences.

You might find this article (http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/54831) interesting.  In it, Dr. Hare points out that on his 20 point checklist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_Checklist-Revised_(PCL-R)) (scored on a 0-40 scale), the mean scores for offenders in general and for noncriminals typically are around 22 and 5, respectively.  In other words, even a person who is not a full blown psychopath may exhibit the traits of a psychopath, and those who commit crimes are more like a full-blown psychopath (a score of 30) than the general population.

In fact, at the end of that article, Hare says a large part of what I was trying to say in my first message here:

   In my book, Without Conscience, I argued that we live in a "camouflage society," a society in which some psychopathic traits- egocentricity, lack of concern for others, superficiality, style over substance, being "cool," manipulativeness, and so forth- increasingly are tolerated and even valued. With respect to the topic of this article, it is easy to see how both psychopaths and those with ASPD could blend in readily with groups holding antisocial or criminal values. It is more difficult to envisage how those with ASPD could hide out among more prosocial segments of society. Yet psychopaths have little difficulty infiltrating the domains of business, politics, law enforcement, government, academia and other social structures (Babiak). It is the egocentric, cold-blooded and remorseless psychopaths who blend into all aspects of society and have such devastating impacts on people around them who send chills down the spines of law enforcement officers.

Basically, the more normal people act like psychopaths or the people who think a lot like them, the harder it is to spot them among normal people.

Quote from: Serious PaulYou quite obviously view the world around in an entirely different fashion than I do. People will boil and beat their kids. They will kill their buddies over slices of pizza. They will rape old men in wheel chairs because they can.

What percentage of the population actually ever does something horrible like that and why?  Remember that psychopaths make up 4% (maybe more) of the population and the people who do those really horrible things are, for the most part, are psychopaths or people led by psychopaths (e.g., at Columbine, Harris was the psychopath and Klebold followed him (http://www.slate.com/id/2099203/)).  Psychopaths can convince others to behave like psychopaths and you can talk normal people into thinking that behaving like a psychopath is normal.  That's part of my concern -- the normalization of psychopathic thinking.

Quote from: Serious PaulThey'll keep the change even though the clerk overpaid them. They will do whatever they want, and blame everyone but themselves. And that's just the normal everyday people.

The reason why many normal people keep the change is that they don't think of it as stealing from an individual but as stealing from a faceless company that rips them off, thus it seems like a conventional violation rather than a moral one because of emotional distancing and other factors.  Like I said, you can control the context in which moral judgments are made, which is how you can get a non-psychopathic population to go along with genocide.  The more emotionally detached a person is from the people and society around them, the weaker their emotional disgust and doing immoral things will be.  Again, that is why I don't think it's healthy to make detached indifference the norm.

Quote from: Serious PaulExcept the world isn't that cut and dried. A mother who steals to feed her children is breaking the law, but is she morally wrong? If your answer is yes it's possible you're the worst kind of person in my book-the self righteously smug, who think they know best for everyone else.

Of course some moral decisions are complex.  And, again, I'm also arguing that people should not be heartlessly dispassionate, which is what self-righteously smug people often are.

Quote from: TonyLBYou're saying that people who aren't too disgusted to talk about certain topics must be brain damaged.  Yes?

No, I'm saying that they may be psychopaths.  But I like the way you turn "may" into "must".  Have fun skipping down the Yellow Brick Road with that straw man, Dorothy.

Quote from: SpikeOh... you sly dog you... I see what you did there....:rolleyes:

Huh?

Quote from: John Morrowis a decent test for obscenity .

There. I've highlighted the most relevant words, does that help?

Quote from: EngineI think history has shown that government will act contrary to the wishes of its society even in cases in which the overwhelming majority of that society has very strong convictions.

I was speaking of the US, not all governments of history. Here all that was needed was dismissal of the elected officials who supported unpopular changes. An act of will, which I noted as missing.

Despite this, if you wish we can look elsewhere. We see the limits of the power of government against strong convictions- be it our own revolution, that of the Soviets, or even that of Iran's former government. Yes act against the overwhelming majority of their people they can, and they will doom themselves as a result. All it takes is enough time for the pressure to build.

Quote from: SpikeThere. I've highlighted the most relevant words, does that help?

Yes, I got the unintended pun but I couldn't see why it warranted rolly eyes.

Quote from: TonyLB

Quote from: StuartIf they witness a crime, should they report it?

Yes.

Publishing obscenity is a criminal offence.  

If it's merely harmless legal fantasy you don't personally enjoy (eg. Stories about Kirk and Spock in Love) you were right the first time:

Quote from: TonyLBI think an emotionally healthy person ought to have the strength to say "Well, that was disgusting, but I've got other things to think about. Yuck, and moving on."

If it's stories that cross the line into obscenity (the legal definition), publishing them is a crime.  So it looks like we're in agreement that an emotionally healthy person would not only react negatively to it -- but report it to the authorities (ranging from forum moderators, to hosting companies, to law enforcement).  This is especially true if it's being posted on a public forum without any sort of disclaimers about content (eg. RPG.net)

Quote from: StuartIf they witness a crime, should they report it?

Well, free speech absolutists don't always think so (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-library26mar26,1,3211325.story) (also here (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-greene9apr09,0,305948.story)).

Quote from: John MorrowWhy is the appropriate response to turn away and move on?

To eventually move on?  Surely that's the appropriate response at some point.  You were asking whether people should be able to shrug off disgusting things that they read on the internet without injury.  I'm saying, yes, they should be able to do that.

That doesn't mean that they can't respond to them.  By all means.  Respond away.  But at some point, you put it behind you and move on.  That's all.  Do you disagree?

Quote from: John MorrowIt's a matter of context and degree.  You, yourself, mentioned the importance of context earlier.

Okay, I'll buy that.  I think you've got a hard row to hoe, in terms of making a sensible system of that, but whatever.  Enjoy.

Quote from: John MorrowSo it depends on the opinions and behavior by way of the level of the emotional response that they trigger.

Honest question:  You mean to say that if I discuss Disgusting Thing A with a salty dock worker, and he says "That's sick.  Let's have some beers and forget about it," my action should be treated differently than if I say the exact same Disgusting Thing A to a dock worker who turns out to be a wilting little flower, and takes grievous offense?

Quote from: John MorrowNormal people might have some twisted fantasies from time to time but they should also realize that they are twisted and have some restraint when it comes to sharing them with others.  In cases where that's the prevailing social expectation, it becomes much easier to tell the normal people from the nuts because the normal people will exercise restraint while the nuts won't.

Yes or no:  If somebody discusses sick, twisted material (and, honestly, make it as sick as you want) in a way that defies prevailing social expectation, that action is enough to indicate (to you) that they are mentally unbalanced ... not merely tasteless, but clinically deranged.  Y/N?

Quote from: John MorrowWhile I think that's a legitimate suggestion, I don't agree that you'll never get anywhere subtracting material that you don't like.  One of the triggers for this thread was the dredging up of an old thread that got locked and that led to another thread getting locked.  First, the locking of both of those threads was essentially cutting the discussion off.  Do you disagree with the locking?

Yeah, it's not what I think should have happened.  Mind you, I'm fine with whatever Pundit wants to do with his board (it being his board) but if consulted I would have suggested just letting the thing fizzle out under the weight of public distaste.

Quote from: John MorrowSecond, that the old thread that was locked was never deleted allowed it to be dredged up yet again to get another thread locked.  Do you think it's useful to keep that old thread around and, if so, why?

Oh hell yes.  Much better a thread that people can find and read than the rumors of a thread to start "he said, she said" bicker-fests over.

Quote from: John MorrowDoes your opinion on that change if the pack of lies start persuading large numbers of people who start supporting doing horrible things?

No.  I still believe that truth is a better tool than censorship, even when it doesn't do the job anywhere near as quickly as I'd like.

Quote from: John MorrowOr do you believe that false propaganda can never get that powerful and that something else is to blame when things like that happen?

Oh, there's no question that it can and does happen.  Still ... truth is better than censorship.  It's not easy, but it's better.

Tony, it's important to recognize that right now none of us are talking.  We're all publishing text on the internet.  This is not an actual conversation, and the laws that apply to a private conversation with a salty dockworker are not the same as those that apply to publishing material online.

Quote from: StuartTony, it's important to recognize that right now none of us are talking.  We're all publishing text on the internet.  This is not an actual conversation, and the laws that apply to a private conversation with a salty dockworker are not the same as those that apply to publishing material online.

Stuart:  If you think Playboy can be on news-stands, but text-discussions on internet fora cross the line into illegal obscenity then it sounds to me like you've got a really skewed version of both common law and common sense.

I am not a lawyer, but it sounds to me like you're popping crazy-pills with this whole "publishing obscenity" line of reasoning.  But hey, maybe I'm wrong.  Wouldn't be the first time.

Quote from: TonyLBTo eventually move on?  Surely that's the appropriate response at some point.  You were asking whether people should be able to shrug off disgusting things that they read on the internet without injury.  I'm saying, yes, they should be able to do that.

What do you mean by "injury" and "shrug off"?  Does your opinion change if, instead of talking about a fantasy, a person talks about real disturbing incidents?

Quote from: TonyLBThat doesn't mean that they can't respond to them.  By all means.  Respond away.  But at some point, you put it behind you and move on.  That's all.  Do you disagree?

What does it mean to put it behind you?  Does that mean that if the person keeps posting that I should give up at some point if I continue to feel strongly about what they are saying?  Does it mean I shouldn't hold past messages against a person in the future?  

Quote from: TonyLBOkay, I'll buy that.  I think you've got a hard row to hoe, in terms of making a sensible system of that, but whatever.  Enjoy.

Absolutely.  And turning it into a pragmatic system that could be applied will likely have to err one way or another.

Quote from: TonyLBHonest question:  You mean to say that if I discuss Disgusting Thing A with a salty dock worker, and he says "That's sick.  Let's have some beers and forget about it," my action should be treated differently than if I say the exact same Disgusting Thing A to a dock worker who turns out to be a wilting little flower, and takes grievous offense?

Not really, because the point I'm talking about is more of a group response issue.  What I mean is that if you post a disgusting thing to a message board, the way people in general react to it.  Now you can certainly argue that a particularly sensitive crowd will react differently than a cold hearted crowd but I think people should have some sense of that before posting to a message board and if they mistakenly run afoul of the prevailing social values, how a person reacts to that can be telling.  

As for salty dock workers, that's another consideration.  If you tell a disgusting joke to a salty dock worker, you might reasonably expect them to laugh along with you and not be shocked by it but it's probably not appropriate to share the joke with your elderly grandmother during Thanksgiving dinner.  

What I guess I'm saying is that a person should have some sense of social propriety and moderate what they talk about accordingly.  The inability to moderate what a person talks about suggests either a lack of social skills or a lack of compassion, either of which is problematic.  What bothers me about the content of both this site and RPGnet is that they are essentially open forums that the public can read, thus even though dropping your pants and taking a crap on the front lawn might not be shocking in this neighborhood or that one, it's certainly going to leave a bad impression on anyone who drives by not knowing what they are in for.

Quote from: TonyLBYes or no:  If somebody discusses sick, twisted material (and, honestly, make it as sick as you want) in a way that defies prevailing social expectation, that action is enough to indicate (to you) that they are mentally unbalanced ... not merely tasteless, but clinically deranged.  Y/N?

I think it depends on how sick it is, whether it's an individual instance or a pattern, and how they react to people who call it sick and twisted.  To my earlier point about "may" and "must", I think it "may" indicate that they are a psychopath, which does not necessarily mean that they are clinically deranged any more than autism means that a person is clinically deranged.  I'll again give a link to Hare's 20 point checklist here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_Checklist-Revised_(PCL-R)).  To the extent that elements of that list can be divined from the messages a person posts (which will never be 100% perfect), I think you can build a suspicion that they are a psychopath.  And back to my original message and the quote from Dr. Hare pointed out earlier, the further the social norms are from normalizing the psychopathic perspective, the more clearly they will likely stick out.  

In more simple terms, just as you think a person who can't move on from a disgusting internet post has issues, I think a person who can't exhibit self-restraint and refrain from saying vile disgusting things where it's socially inappropriate has problems.

Quote from: TonyLBNo.  I still believe that truth is a better tool than censorship, even when it doesn't do the job anywhere near as quickly as I'd like.

What if it's not doing the job at all and the lies are winning?  It's happened in the past so I don't think one can reasonably dismiss that possibility.

Quote from: TonyLBOh, there's no question that it can and does happen.  Still ... truth is better than censorship.  It's not easy, but it's better.

It's better because you doubt our ability to discern the harmful from the harmless and deal with the former without infringing on the latter or because you think the harmful actually serves some positive value?

Quote from: TonyLBStuart:  If you think Playboy can be on news-stands, but text-discussions on internet fora cross the line into illegal obscenity then it sounds to me like you've got a really skewed version of both common law and common sense.

As he pointed out earlier in the thread, Canadian obscenity laws include the written word, which he bolded in his post.

Quote from: TonyLBI am not a lawyer, but it sounds to me like you're popping crazy-pills with this whole "publishing obscenity" line of reasoning.  But hey, maybe I'm wrong.  Wouldn't be the first time.

When publishers first started publishing in Canada when it was very cheap after NAFTA, I heard warnings to be careful about content after several book runs were held at the border on suspicion of obscenity.  Yeah, surprise, America isn't always the most uptight country in the world.

Quote from: TonyLBStuart:  If you think Playboy can be on news-stands, but text-discussions on internet fora cross the line into illegal obscenity then it sounds to me like you've got a really skewed version of both common law and common sense.

Or that you do.  Photos of naked ladies can be legally published.  Stories of extreme "shocking" depravity can be illegal obscenity.

QuoteI am not a lawyer, but it sounds to me like you're popping crazy-pills with this whole "publishing obscenity" line of reasoning.  But hey, maybe I'm wrong.  Wouldn't be the first time.

You're wrong again.  NY Times article on Red Rose Stories (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/us/28obscene.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin)

Quote from: John MorrowAs he pointed out earlier in the thread, Canadian obscenity laws include the written word, which he bolded in his post.

Also in America.  See the Red Rose story I posted above.

Here's a link to the story on BoingBoing.net (where I first heard about it):
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/10/10/more-obscenity-crack.html

QuoteThe website, red-rose-stories.com, posted a notice on its home page announcing the raid and warning customers that the FBI now has access to all past customer information.

"I am sorry to inform all interested parties that Red Rose Stories is a DEAD site," read a statement posted on the website by operator Rosie. "The FBI has suceeded [sic] in closing me down. I am being charged with 'OBSCENITIES' and face charges for having posted such stories. Our stories are NOT protected speech. Please, please, be careful out there."

And as I mentioned earlier, most hosting companies, domain name registrars and ISPs have even more restrictive policies on what you can use their services to publish.

Quote from: gleichmanRemoving the ten commandants from public spaces, removal of school prayer and other actions undertaken by the courts were without doubt the overturning of social rules for new legal ones.

I see your point here, but I disagree with the thrust of what you're saying. That is, first, while it can reasonably be seen as government intervention in the rules of society (technically, it's one layer of government intervening in what society can do via other layers/branches of government), it's not something I, personally, regard as a negative. But more to the point, I don't think it amounts to a failure of nerve, a failure to defend principles of society. It's not an invitation for creeps to insinuate themselves into the public sphere with impunity; quite the contrary, provided the principle of separation of church and state is defended and extended, it's a bulwark against the organs of state being taken over by creeps of any stripe. In short this is a limitation on pure democracy that I welcome without much reservation. My only real concern is the backlash it's brought about and which has been exploited politically.

QuoteFurther I find the history of Free speech in the 1st admendment interesting by itself, as it transformed from:

This is very interesting stuff which I hadn't been aware of before. However, I'm not sure that one can accurately speak of a 20th century expansion of the 1st amendment from "preventing prior restraint on speech" to "disallowing punishment of speech". I realize that Footnote 7 of the page you linked suggests that "prior restraint" was the prevailing view at the time. But the history of the Alien & Sedition Acts (1798) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts_of_1798) suggests that a counter argument would have been made, if judicial review had existed--it didn't, until 1803--and if political means hadn't been an obvious tool for nullifying the gravest effect of the Acts (i.e. Jefferson pardoned everyone who'd been convicted). After that, there were (according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Sedition)) no cases testing either the "prior restraint" principle or the "punishment" principle.

In fact on researching the main source for that footnote, Legacy of Suppression, I found that Levy, the author, had arrived at much the same conclusion: the political fallout of the Alien and Sedition Acts was such as to transform the 1st Amendment protection into the "libertarian" principle of freedom from punishment. Not only that, but in both a chapter of his book Seasoned Judgments (http://books.google.com/books?id=-7lKq0dfs54C&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=%22legacy+of+suppression%22&source=web&ots=0EFiNfWfU7&sig=evRsi3vgU9Me0LJ8xEp9LFDYbHo&hl=en#PPA86,M1), and in the revised edition of his earlier book, Emergence of a Free Press, he produced a more nuanced view that recognizes the importance of 18th-century practice in interpreting the meaning of the 1st Amendment as framed.

Therefore I think there's at least as strong an argument for seeing the first half of the 20th century as an aberration, as for seeing the second half as a revolution. Of course this only applies to the prior restraint vs. punishment issue; notions of obscenity are another matter.

Latest news on the Red Rose story:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08138/882650-85.stm

Brief: author pleads guilty due to stress of standing trial, avoids jail term.

Conclusion: in principle you can still be prosecuted for obscenity even if you're just writing. But, read the articles--it's not a routine case, and could easily have led to tossing out the whole idea of obscene text.

Quote from: John MorrowWhat does it mean to put it behind you?

John ... I've been trying to answer your original question, but it seems to just create more questions.

Let me say again:  Yes, I think that most people should be (and are) pretty much immune to being emotionally damaged by something some stranger says on an internet forum.  They may be temporarily disgusted, but then I was temporarily disgusted when I saw a roadkilled chipmunk on my afternoon walk today.  It's not going to stick with me, though.  Yuck, and moving on.

I suspect (without any training to back it up) that someone who reads an internet post and walks away emotionally brutalized by the words of a stranger ... well, they probably came to the post with emotional baggage from real life, all ready to be tweaked and just looking for a focal point.

Quote from: John MorrowDoes that mean that if the person keeps posting that I should give up at some point if I continue to feel strongly about what they are saying?  Does it mean I shouldn't hold past messages against a person in the future?

No, John, what I was saying doesn't have anything to do with any of that.

Quote from: John MorrowWhat if it's not doing the job at all and the lies are winning?  It's happened in the past so I don't think one can reasonably dismiss that possibility.

I have faith in the long-term trend.  I don't have much of a rational argument for that.  Just faith.

Quote from: John MorrowIt's better because you doubt our ability to discern the harmful from the harmless and deal with the former without infringing on the latter or because you think the harmful actually serves some positive value?

I think being able to face, acknowledge and understand darkness, depravity and evil definitely serves a positive value.

As for harmful and harmless thoughts ... you're the one who believes in that division, not me.  I'm with Spike:  It's like cars.  People can use them to do harm, mostly to themselves, but thoughts (even sick, yucky, make-me-throw-up thoughts) are just tools.  It's what you do with them that counts.

Quote from: Serious PaulWorking Law Enforcement has taught me one thing I really believe in, and that's that people will do whatever they can especially when people aren't looking or they think they can get away with it. People will be cruel, selfish and down right rotten as they think they can get away with.

We could be looking at a case of what in science they call "sample selection bias". I mean, you're just not going to meet as many altruistic compassionate people working in a prison as you would in (say) a hospital.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI see your point here, but I disagree with the thrust of what you're saying. That is, first, while it can reasonably be seen as government intervention in the rules of society (technically, it's one layer of government intervening in what society can do via other layers/branches of government)

No such thing in most cases. In many areas there were no laws on the books requiring the posting of the commandments, nor school prayer. Often these were just how things were done.

And the verdicts not only removed what laws there were on the matter, but removed the choice completely as an option even outside the law books. Thus it was new law where no such law had existed before.

Additionally I would argue that any law that creates new protections, even if it is by overturning existing law (which seems to be your major point here) is still extension of government control over society- even more so than new law, as the goal is by definition to *change* that society.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIt's not an invitation for creeps to insinuate themselves into the public sphere with impunity; quite the contrary, provided the principle of separation of church and state is defended and extended

No where in the 1st amendment (or anywhere else in the Constitution) does the term "separation of church and state) appear. This too has been greatly extended in the second half of the 20th century.

Quote from: Elliot WilenHowever, I'm not sure that one can accurately speak of a 20th century expansion of the 1st amendment from "preventing prior restraint on speech" to "disallowing punishment of speech".

I feel that one can indeed reach that determination, as do many others who study Constitution law. From my simple layman's PoV, the fact that later court decisions *changed* how US law was applied is enough to tell me that. As is the fact that the prevailing law before those decisions wasn't challenged for most of the life of the nation.

One can of course find opposing opinions, the degree of difference between a Roberts and a Ginsburg is enough to prove that and I find it indicative that nearly all of those who disagree with my stance also believe that the Constitution is a 'living document'.

I prefer my Constitutions very dead indeed. If widespread cultural changes are to be undertaken, it should be through the processes designed for such changes- and not the courts.

I don't know if this link has ever been published here before (John Morrow may have if any did).

It's a bit dated (from 1995), but I find it a excellent summary of my viewpoint in this thread:

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/BorkCultureWar.php

Quote from: Elliot WilenConclusion: in principle you can still be prosecuted for obscenity even if you're just writing. But, read the articles--it's not a routine case, and could easily have led to tossing out the whole idea of obscene text.

I think it could easily have led to a conviction and more clear legality around obscenity and text.  It's not the only case either -- there are more in the works.

It's interesting that some people believe that The Turner Diaries didn't cause McVeigh's bombing, or that they weren't at least a key part of it all.

In other words, speech has no effect.

If speech has no effect, why do we need freedom of speech? Isn't the motivation for freedom of speech that speech matters?

If speech does have an effect, then we get into what Morrow was saying, weighing up the costs and benefits.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIf speech has no effect, why do we need freedom of speech? Isn't the motivation for freedom of speech that speech matters?

If speech does have an effect, then we get into what Morrow was saying, weighing up the costs and benefits.

This is from the article I just linked:


"Can there be any doubt that as pornography and violence become increasingly popular and accessible entertainment, attitudes about marriage, fidelity, divorce, obligations to children, the use of force, and permissible public behavior and language will change, and with the change of attitudes will come changes in conduct, both public and private? The contrary view must assume that people are unaffected by what they see and hear. Advertisers bet billions the other way. Advocates of liberal arts education assure us those studies improve character; it is not very likely that only uplifting culture affects attitudes and behavior. "Don't buy it" and "Change the channel" are simply advice to accept a degenerating culture and its consequences."

Quote from: StuartAlso in America.  See the Red Rose story I posted above.

I'm not sure how I feel about the Red Rose case, which might depend on the truth of her explanation for the stories, but I feel no sympathies for Extreme Associates, one of the pornography companies indicted by the Bush Administration.  This PBS Frontline Documentary, which you can watch online, (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/) features a telling interview with the Extreme Associates people which includes this bit concerning their reaction to attending the shoot of one of the films the Bush Administration cited them for:

   We were here because this is one of the places where porn is now regularly pushing the limits. But this was more than we bargained for. And while it appeared that what was happening was legally consensual, we left. The incident, though, caused us to wonder not just about the content but about the human cost, a cost that even porn producers see every day.

The documentary and related material on the website illustrate what happens when there are no obscenity prosecutions at all.  I also think the above quote illustrates the detached "walk away" perspective when the more appropriate response might have been to ask them to or even make them stop abusing the woman in question.

Quote from: TonyLBLet me say again:  Yes, I think that most people should be (and are) pretty much immune to being emotionally damaged by something some stranger says on an internet forum.  They may be temporarily disgusted, but then I was temporarily disgusted when I saw a roadkilled chipmunk on my afternoon walk today.  It's not going to stick with me, though.  Yuck, and moving on.

OK.  I don't entirely agree but I think that's clear enough.  I can think of a number of cases where people being told things have rocked their world and that it was a good thing.

Quote from: TonyLBI suspect (without any training to back it up) that someone who reads an internet post and walks away emotionally brutalized by the words of a stranger ... well, they probably came to the post with emotional baggage from real life, all ready to be tweaked and just looking for a focal point.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

Quote from: TonyLBI have faith in the long-term trend.  I don't have much of a rational argument for that.  Just faith.

Why do you have faith in the long term trend when there is ample evidence of the long term trend failing to do the trick in many times and places?

Quote from: TonyLBI think being able to face, acknowledge and understand darkness, depravity and evil definitely serves a positive value.

I do, too.  But I think being indifferent to or constantly immersed in darkness, depravity, and evil often does not.  I think it can normalize evil.  If you really think that facing, acknowledging, and understanding darkness, depravity, and evil serves a positive purpose, I invite you to take a close look at how women are recruited for hardcore and violent pornography, how children are recruited for molestation, how gang members are recruited into violence, how people get caught up into genocide, and in general how normal people are taught to do things that they wouldn't have originally done.  It either occurs as a startling undermining of the person's worldview (a sudden shock) or a process of tearing down barriers and inhibitions by convincing the person that they are wrong, taken one step at a time so the person doesn't notice the shift.  What that can certainly be done through actions, it can also be done through words and ideas.

Quote from: TonyLBAs for harmful and harmless thoughts ... you're the one who believes in that division, not me.  I'm with Spike:  It's like cars.  People can use them to do harm, mostly to themselves, but thoughts (even sick, yucky, make-me-throw-up thoughts) are just tools.  It's what you do with them that counts.

You'll notice that those tools (cars) are heavily policed.  Not only are you told where you can drive and how fast but you can be stopped from diving without ever hurting anyone if you drive drunk.  The police can also stop you if your driving behavior indicates that you are a danger to others, again, even if you don't actually hurt anyone else.  You also need to be trained, tested, and licensed to show that you know what you are doing before you can legally use them.

Do you really want to use that as an analogy?  Would you really like to see words and thoughts regulated as tools the same way that cars are?

Quote from: Kyle AaronIf speech does have an effect, then we get into what Morrow was saying, weighing up the costs and benefits.

The reason why I think people want to avoid that is that it's clear that certain forms of speech has little or no artistic or educational benefit (the definition of "obscenity" is generally designed to take that into account), has a social cost, and would fail the benefit to cost test.

Well, I think it's a shift in values. They're treating free speech not as a means to an end - to political freedom, freedom of expression of ideas to improve life, and so on - but as an end in itself.

That is, they see free speech as an innate good, and thus anything which infringes it must be bad, rather than seeing it as something which is a tool to get us good things, and thus some infringements may be needed, like a safety guard on a power saw.

Which is sort of like the free market fanatics; they fail to recognise that these things have lots of restrictions already. We can believe in a basically free market yet still want to prohibit people selling LSD to twelve year olds; likewise, we can believe in basically free speech but still want to prohibit people's incitement to genocide, and so on. As well as restrictions, we have promotions; we may subsidise corn farmers and public broadcasting.

So with both markets and speech we can and do have restrictions and promotions. That's because these things do affect people's lives. If they didn't affect people's lives, not only wouldn't we need restrictions and promotions, we wouldn't need these things at all. The question then is only exactly what we'll restrict, and what we'll promote.

I'm pretty happy with restricting expression of ideas about "all niggers must die", and that sort of thing. We already have laws about conspiracy to commit a crime - and "conspiracy" can be just speech - and incitement to commit a crime - "go kill that guy!" or "burn down the town hall, wild crowd!" - so we've already accepted that speech does affect behaviour. Speech becomes criminal when it advocates crime.  

The distinction between conspiracy/incitement and stuff like The Turner Diaries is that conspiracy and incitement are directed at specific individuals encouraging crime against other specific individuals, while Turner is about groups against groups.

"Let's kill that nigger" is conspiracy, or part of one. "You go kill that nigger!" is incitement. But what we've got here is people defending others' rights to say, "Kill all niggers!" I'm not convinced that restricting that inevitably leads to an intolerably oppressive society. And it may just lead to a few less blown-up federal buildings and World Trade Centres.

Allowing violently racist, sexist etc speech leads to a climate where people think that violent fantasies are socially acceptable. As I said, not everyone who has nasty thoughts does nasty things, but everyone who does nasty things has nasty thoughts first. Timothy McVeigh was a methamphetamine addict, and a troubled drifter, so he was bound to do something nasty and end up in prison or dead. But there's a difference between the typical aimless drug addict who knifes someone in an argument, and a guy who fills his truck with a few hundred pounds of fertiliser and nitro and blows up a federal building.

So we can fairly say that The Turner Diaries didn't turn McVeigh into a nasty bastard. But they took his nastiness and gave it a direction and purpose, and ultimately made it cause more bloodshed than it otherwise would have. That people bought his copies of those books made him think that its ideas were approved of by him. That he was able to circulate with people who talked about violent rebellion against the government and mass murder of blacks and Jews, again that encouraged him. Thus we can say that freedom of speech (and of assembly) amplified his dangerousness, it encouraged him.

On the other hand, as I said earlier, if we let them say what they want, we can keep an eye on the dangerous fuckers. But too much freedom to say what they want encourages them and makes them more dangerous. So there's a balance in there somewhere.

I mean, freedom of speech, like free markets, it's not an either/or thing. We're not faced with the choice between utter anarchy and North Korea. There's a sane middle ground.

Exactly where that is, that's open to debate and discussion, of course. There's a wide middle ground to walk over and look at, and a lot of ways to do things.

QuoteTimothy McVeigh was a methamphetamine addict, and a troubled drifter, so he was bound to do something nasty and end up in prison or dead. But there's a difference between the typical aimless drug addict who knifes someone in an argument, and a guy who fills his truck with a few hundred pounds of fertiliser and nitro and blows up a federal building.

That's right, gentlemen! And the difference is that McVeigh was trained in the finest institution on God's earth--the US Army.

I bet that did a lot more to him than reading The Turner Diaries.

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhich is sort of like the free market fanatics; they fail to recognise that these things have lots of restrictions already. We can believe in a basically free market yet still want to prohibit people selling LSD to twelve year olds

The comparsion is good, but you've made a common mistake in defintion. Free Markets, like Free Speech does not mean that restricting LSD is a restriction on the Free Market concept

Again from the article I linked:


"There are economists who confuse the idea that markets should be free with the idea that everything should be on the market. The first idea rests on the efficiency of the free market in satisfying wants; the second raises the question of which wants it is moral to satisfy. The latter question brings up the topic of externalities: you are free not to make steel, but you will be affected by the air pollution of those who do make it."

Quote from: John MorrowWhy do you have faith in the long term trend when there is ample evidence of the long term trend failing to do the trick in many times and places?

Why do I have faith in the long term trend, when there are so many examples of short-term reverses?  Well ... because of the long term trend.

Quote from: John MorrowDo you really want to use that as an analogy?  Would you really like to see words and thoughts regulated as tools the same way that cars are?

If I were trying to win an argument, I probably wouldn't want that kind of analogy.  But for expressing how I feel?  Yeah, it'll do.  If you set aside your desire to score points and reinforce your position, you can understand what I'm saying, right?  If so then it's a fine analogy.

Quote from: John MorrowJust because something is subjective or has subjective components does not mean it is arbitrary or that it's not valid to make the distinction.

"Valid" is also subjective, of course. But no, being subjective doesn't make something arbitrary, nor does it mean there are no objective differences between any two things.

Quote from: John MorrowI don't think that good and evil are entirely subjective...

Okay, then what is objectively evil, and from whence does that judgment come if it is not from humans?

Quote from: John MorrowThere are, for example, certain moral or quasi-moral responses that chimpanzees and other animals have in common with human beings that make it difficult to argue that morality is simply cultural and subjective or that good and evil are infinitely malleable concepts...

There are certain behaviors of other animals which appear moral to us, absolutely, because our moral responses are based on our versions of their behaviors. For instance, altruism in humans isn't "good" simply because altruism exists in birds; altruistic behavior has sound evolutionary reasons to exist. That in no way imparts altruism with goodness or rightness in any absolute or objective sense.

Besides, killing is a behavior of other species, as well; how are we to tell the good from the evil?

Quote from: John MorrowThat is yet another illustration of base morality.  You will notice that wholly utilitarian game theory often fails to describe how people actually behave.  That's because game theory is flawed, not because people are.

In what way is game theory flawed due to not accurately predicting human behavior? It's not intended as a predictor of behavior, or even an analysis of human behavior.

Quote from: John MorrowDo we really want to defend the idea that psychopaths are better than normal people, that their perspective is superior, and that people should be more like psychopaths?  Does that really lead any place good, even for psychopaths?

I'm not sure who is arguing that psychopaths are better than normal people, and I'm not sure which perspectives of psychopaths that person is claiming are superior, but it's not me, so I'll let them respond.

Quote from: John MorrowI reject the idea that morality is a human invention.  I think the evidence suggests that it's not true.

I think we mean two different things. "Behavior which benefits one of my kind" is not a human invention, but "altruism" is. We assign value judgments to the things we see around us; we did not invent the things we see around us, and which are part of us, but we did assign the values to them. Those values are not inherent - killing is not "bad" in some sense beyond that assigned by humans; there's nothing written into the laws of the universe that makes it so - but rather assigned by humans based on our responses to those things, as informed by a few billion years of natural selection.

Quote from: John MorrowAgain, if you teach yoru children that "stealing is not wrong but counter-productive", you are teaching them to look at the world like a psychopath.

That's not a dispute, only a sort of denial-by-association. Just because psychopaths believe something doesn't mean it isn't true, and it certainly doesn't mean anyone who believes that is or will behave like a psychopath.

Quote from: John MorrowSo should we be utterly indifferent to the choices that they make or the direction in which society trends?

Certainly not! We should discern the society we desire and take all actions to achieve that society, each and every one of us. But deluding ourselves into believing our preferences are absolutely correct in some way external to ourselves is not only incorrect, but often self-defeating.

Quote from: John MorrowWhy?  (I'm not necessarily saying you are wrong but I'm curious about your reasoning.)

I prefer a world in which access to information is as open as possible because this is the sort of world in which self-correction is most readily possible, which I like because it allows us to most accurately map our perceptions to reality. That makes me happy, and I like being happy.

Quote from: Kyle AaronSo we should only discuss things if we have a professorship in it? Otherwise we must be silent and simply accept the wisdom of our betters?

While it's an idea that I'm sure has great appeal to professors of all kinds, my considered response to that would be, "fuck off, you stupid git."

Or you could try to reproduce the skillset required and exercise it, but you're not going to, because this is not the kind of forum that rewards productivity.

Quote from: John MorrowI think that's a legitimate point, and part of the reason why I found the articles on psychopaths was trying to understand how and why a person can be casually evil so I could better emulate it in my games.  But I think the level of identification is often different.  I don't build villains in my game hoping that they'll win or to share their joy if they succeed the way I might for a PC or a good guy NPC.  And when I've created characters with moral flaws (e.g., bigotry), it's generally to have the character grow beyond it during play or to let it play out as a tragedy, not to cheer it on.

So the level of identification is the sticking point.

Anyone who personally dislikes you can claim that your level of identification is toxic.

You can accuse anyone whom you personally dislike of having level of identification that is toxic.

It's like a witch hunt of all against all, with everyone citing spectral evidence.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI think the general mockery and scorn tend to drive the genuinely creepy away.

Actually, I think the general mockery and scorn tend to undermine what little empathy remains on the Internet and make previously non-creepy people into creeps.

Ironically, I *do* agree with you on a lot of your points.  E.g.:

QuoteOriginally Posted by John Morrow
And what drove Timothy McVeigh to bomb a government building if not ideas that the government was his enemy, spread by certain groups?

This cuts to the heart of an important issue, namely that free will can't be assumed and the causation of human actions is murkier than most people would like to believe.


So, when TonyLB writes:

Quoteesus. Christ. On. A. Crutch.

John, your cheap theatrics are getting worse and worse. Are you seriously blaming society for Timothy McVeigh? If only he'd been kept ignorant of the idea of acting against the government, he'd have been a good boy?

I disagree with him.  

That is exactly the kind of grandstanding that will prevent productive outcomes.

Quote from: John MorrowWhy do you say that?  Are you claiming that an emotionally healthy person should be able to read anything, no matter how vile, and just let it slide off of them without effect?  A big part of my point is that I think that attitude is unhealthy.  

In order to deal with crime in a modern society, a fairly sophisticated level of criminology is required.

Yes, criminologists *do* need to be able to read anything, no matter how vile, and deal with it.

This does not imply that the process is easy or free of side effects.  But at some point, some segment of society has to be able to transcend emotional reactions and study vileness without becoming corrupted.

The converse claim seems to be that some vileness is so vile that it can corrupt anyone.  That's defeatism.

I think the far more useful and interesting question in this context isn't "why did McVeigh do it" but "why the hell haven't there been many, many more Oklahoma city bombings?"

You see, there are supposedly THOUSANDS of people, perhaps as much as hundreds of thousands, who are part of the militia movement, the "identity" movement, who have read and claim to be true believers in the Turner Diaries.  

So the real question is: why aren't these people, most of whom directly claim that they really believe in the message of the book, going out and bombing buildings the way McVeigh did?

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBWhy do I have faith in the long term trend, when there are so many examples of short-term reverses?  Well ... because of the long term trend.

I think we've both said our point here and unless one of us can pull out a time machine to prove that their speculation is correct, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, too.

Quote from: TonyLBIf I were trying to win an argument, I probably wouldn't want that kind of analogy.  But for expressing how I feel?  Yeah, it'll do.  If you set aside your desire to score points and reinforce your position, you can understand what I'm saying, right?  If so then it's a fine analogy.

I understand what you are saying and I think my response really does illustrate what I'm saying.  Yes, cars are tools that can be good or bad depending on who is driving them.  But because it's a dangerous tool, the government regulates who can use it and how they can use it.  Similarly, the government monitors fertilizer and might flag large bulk sales to someone who doesn't seem to have a need for it because in the past, that's been a sign of someone making a bomb.  That doesn't mean that anyone who buys a lot of fertilizer is making a bomb but suspicious purchases of fertilizer can concern the government enough to investigate.  So just because the tool isn't inherently harmful or bad doesn't mean that the government or others can't take an interest in who uses it and how it is used, which will depend on, again, the benefits vs. the risks.

Quote from: John MorrowI think we've both said our point here and unless one of us can pull out a time machine to prove that their speculation is correct, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, too.

But you do agree with the long-term trend, do you not? You simply believe that at certain times and places, that long-term trend has been defied, correct?

Quote from: RPGPunditSo the real question is: why aren't these people, most of whom directly claim that they really believe in the message of the book, going out and bombing buildings the way McVeigh did?

I think this is an excellent question. I don't have the answer, but I know that part of it is statistical: some subset of the population has no conscience*; some subset of that population has read the Turner Diaries; some subset of that population will be so motivated by them as to commit violent acts; some subset of that population will be willing to do so given the penalties for doing so.

*Which is how the word "psychopath" is being used in this context, for reasons which aren't entirely clear to me. Such usage is inaccurate and perhaps inflammatory as well; I caution against its usage, particularly given its widely differing usages in various contexts, and recommend instead more precise or at least better defined terms be used.

Quote from: EngineBut you do agree with the long-term trend, do you not? You simply believe that at certain times and places, that long-term trend has been defied, correct?

I had difficulty in identifying what long term trend you and John seem to be speaking of. The best idea I can gather is that you think over the long term, the best ideas win.

If so, I disagree.

Quote from: Serious PaulWorking Law Enforcement has taught me one thing I really believe in, and that's that people will do whatever they can especially when people aren't looking or they think they can get away with it. People will be cruel, selfish and down right rotten as they think they can get away with. And that's just people-not the true psychopaths , which you've clearly never come face to face with.(Because if you had there'd be no doubt, trust me.)

You quite obviously view the world around in an entirely different fashion than I do. People will boil and beat their kids. They will kill their buddies over slices of pizza. They will rape old men in wheel chairs because they can. They'll keep the change even though the clerk overpaid them. They will do whatever they want, and blame everyone but themselves. And that's just the normal everyday people.

[talking into his watch] "We have one who can see!" [/talking]

More evidence for the walkerist movement here.

Quote from: EngineBut you do agree with the long-term trend, do you not? You simply believe that at certain times and places, that long-term trend has been defied, correct?

I believe that we can not count on the truth and goodness to win out against lies and badness if we insist on treating lies and propaganda promoting badness with respect and credibility.  That's not necessarily what many people here are advocating but I do think that's the current long-term trend is going.

Quote from: RPGPunditI think the far more useful and interesting question in this context isn't "why did McVeigh do it" but "why the hell haven't there been many, many more Oklahoma city bombings?"

And for that matter, what about all the muslim extremists infiltrating our porous borders?

Quote from: RPGPunditI think the far more useful and interesting question in this context isn't "why did McVeigh do it" but "why the hell haven't there been many, many more Oklahoma city bombings?"

A combination of factors including the fact that the vast majority people have a properly functioning conscience, consideration of the consequences, cowardice, a feeling that the time isn't right, waiting for someone else to start it, lack of knowlege or understanding, and finally government monitoring of certain activities and groups.  

Quote from: RPGPunditSo the real question is: why aren't these people, most of whom directly claim that they really believe in the message of the book, going out and bombing buildings the way McVeigh did?

As I've been pointing out, the vast majority of normal people have a properly functioning conscience that will let them know that killing a building full of innocent office workers and children is the wrong thing to do.  That's the base line morality that I'm talking about -- the thing that keeps normal people from doing all sorts of horrible and cruel things to each other even though their world is filled with the  tools and opportunity to do so.

We also don't know how many Timothy McVeighs have been stopped or disuaded by the government or someone that they know.

Quote from: gleichmanI had difficulty in identifying what long term trend you and John seem to be speaking of. The best idea I can gather is that you think over the long term, the best ideas win.

It was probably difficult because this was originally a conversation between John and Tony. Tony's original statement, which they were discussing, was, "I still believe that truth is a better tool than censorship, even when it doesn't do the job anywhere near as quickly as I'd like."

Quote from: John MorrowI believe that we can not count on the truth and goodness to win out against lies and badness if we insist on treating lies and propaganda promoting badness with respect and credibility.

And again, with the goodness and badness. Let us focus on truth and lies, then.

How is a fair judgment to be made regarding the truth of something if all other information is restricted? Obviously, it cannot; that's a straw man. The greater point, however, is that restriction of information prevents proper analysis of that information; only transparency allows for proper description of reality.

I believe with utter confidence that increased access to all information for all people has done vastly more good for the human race than it has done evil. Access to the complete pool of human opinion and information is the only way for individuals to make decisions most closely informed by reality, and the long-term trend of that has been, overall, considered most positive, from books to the internet.

You shouldn't get to decide what is credible, or treated with respect. Nor should I. Everyone should be able to make that decision for themselves, without someone else - specifically, a government, gods help us - making that decision beforehand. Power to the people.

Quote from: EngineHow is a fair judgment to be made regarding the truth of something if all other information is restricted? Obviously, it cannot; that's a straw man.

Somehow I think torture porn, kiddie porn, sick AP reports from the games of weirdoes, and the like has nothing in common with "information". The things being debate in this thread are not medical manuals or treaties on carpentry you know.

If there's a straw man here, it's being erected by yourself.

Quote from: gleichmanSomehow I think torture porn, kiddie porn, sick AP reports from the games of weirdoes, and the like has nothing in common with "information".

That is because you have decided those things are absolutely wrong, and thus not even deserving of consideration. You are, in this case, incorrect.

Quote from: gleichmanIf there's a straw man here, it's being erected by yourself.

I think perhaps you misunderstood: the portion of my post you quoted was a straw-man, yes, which is why I called attention to it being so, and then moderated with the following statements.

Quote from: Engine

Quote from: gleichmanSomehow I think torture porn, kiddie porn, sick AP reports from the games of weirdoes, and the like has nothing in common with "information".

That is because you have decided those things are absolutely wrong, and thus not even deserving of consideration. You are, in this case, incorrect.

Either you're being disingenuous for the sake of argument, or there's something wrong with you. :(

Quote from: RPGPunditI think the far more useful and interesting question in this context isn't "why did McVeigh do it" but "why the hell haven't there been many, many more Oklahoma city bombings?"

In may cases, I assume it's simply cowardice. Lots of them want to destroy the government, and of those there are probably a significant minority who lack the empathy to care about innocents killed in any attack. However, it takes a high degree of motivation and - yes - courage to actually execute such an attack. You know you are probably going to be caught, or perhaps killed during or after the attack. Most folks simply don't have the wherewithal to carry out their terrible desires.

Or maybe they have just a shade more grasp of the world outside themselves than the overwhelming need to DO something and realize that just blowing up a building is rather futile.

My God! I'm an Optimist!?! Quick call my therapist!

Quote from: StuartEither you're being disingenuous for the sake of argument, or there's something wrong with you. :(

So now there is no useful info in "sick AP reports from the games of weirdoes"?  It frightens me when people suggest they can tell inherently what is right and what is wrong.

Quote from: EngineThat is because you have decided those things are absolutely wrong, and thus not even deserving of consideration. You are, in this case, incorrect.

So you think that all serious consideration should be given to all 'information'...


That in effect one should wake up in the morning giving due thought to kidnapping and raping the 12 year girl next door. Reviewing previous such events online, at your library, and at the movie house. Perhaps some time going over police reports and procedures to determine risk/reward and how to move the odds in your favor would also be in order. Enjoyment vs. possible police action, etc must be balanced.

And thus one comes to a reasoned decision as to what the day holds for little Jenny.

All of course without a hint of assigning good/evil to the day's thoughtful review of the 'information' under consideration.


This isn't rational consideration, this has nothing to due with improving society through access to knowledge. This is nothing but simple nihilism with fuffy words wrapped around it.


Again quoted from the article I linked:

"About the fact of rot and decadence there can be no dispute, except from those who deny that such terms have meaning, and who are, for that reason, major contributors to rot and decadence."

Quote from: EngineI think perhaps you misunderstood: the portion of my post you quoted was a straw-man, yes, which is why I called attention to it being so, and then moderated with the following statements.

Perhaps I did, and perhaps I still am. What you're saying here is horrifying otherwise. Please clarify.

Quote from: StuartEither you're being disingenuous for the sake of argument, or there's something wrong with you. :(

I don't mind being cast as "wrong," particularly since I don't believe such a determination is meaningful, but perhaps it would be more useful if you would contradict my findings. And, no, I'm not being disingenuous for the sake of argument.

Quote from: walkerpSo now there is no useful info in "sick AP reports from the games of weirdoes"?  It frightens me when people suggest they can tell inherently what is right and what is wrong.

It frightens me when people suggest they can't.

Quote from: EngineI don't mind being cast as "wrong," particularly since I don't believe such a determination is meaningful, but perhaps it would be more useful if you would contradict my findings. And, no, I'm not being disingenuous for the sake of argument.

See gleichman's post above.

Quote from: walkerpSo now there is no useful info in "sick AP reports from the games of weirdoes"?  It frightens me when people suggest they can tell inherently what is right and what is wrong.

This from a man who would see us all dead, not for our own failures- but for the greater failues of mankind as a whole.

Who should be frightened by who?

Quote from: gleichmanSo you think that all serious consideration should be given to all 'information'...

I am absolutely certain I have not used the term, "all serious consideration." In fact, your entire post rests on some bizarre notion that I have claimed everyone should go through their day trying to think of the worst things they could do, and considering whether or not to do them, despite the fact I haven't said or implied anything of the sort!

What I did say was that all opinions and facts should be transparent, that individuals may decide what they believe is true for themselves. It's worth pointing out that I do agree that some restrictions of expression are appropriate in a "civilized" society, and utter transparency must be balanced by prudence.

Any time I posit that right and wrong are not absolutes, but subjective inventions of humanity, the responses are not disproof, but rather expressions of horror, based solely on subjective valuation. Seriously, if you think I'm incorrect, gentlemen, don't just say there's something wrong with me, or my statements are horrifying, just show how I'm incorrect.

Quote from: EngineI am absolutely certain I have not used the term, "all serious consideration." In fact, your entire post rests on some bizarre notion that I have claimed everyone should go through their day trying to think of the worst things they could do, and considering whether or not to do them, despite the fact I haven't said or implied anything of the sort!

You have indeed implied those very things. You call for the open availability of any and all information. You call for people to decide upon their own if they should or should not act on that information (for what is information for is it not to act upon), and how they should view it.

At the same time you consistently reject good and evil as anything but meaningless labels- and thereby overturn many of the conclusions that individuals following your preferred path would draw.

Quote from: EngineIt's worth pointing out that I do agree that some restrictions of expression are appropriate in a "civilized" society, and utter transparency must be balanced by prudence.

You imply much, and now you seek to back away from such implication?

And yet you do this while denying any individual, groups of individuals, or society as a whole the right and the ability to determine those appropriate restrictions.

This is not coming a cross as a reasoned stance.

Quote from: StuartSee gleichman's post above.

Where he explicitly plans kidnapping and raping his neighbour?  Yeah, I want Gleichman in charge of telling me what I can and can't read.

Quote from: gleichmanThis from a man who would see us all dead, not for our own failures- but for the greater failues of mankind as a whole.

Who should be frightened by who?

Well until we all die, you can read or play whatever the hell you want.

Quote from: walkerpWell until we all die, you can read or play whatever the hell you want.

Is that because you'll allow me to do so, or only because you lack the will or ability to see me dead now?

I have in this thread threatened what exactly? Disapproval of your gaming habits, maybe your reading or movie watching tastes? And that frightens you.

And yet, you feel I should feel completely safe at your death wish for all of mankind?

You have a serious disconnect going on here. Your scales need balancing.

Quote from: walkerpWhere he explicitly plans kidnapping and raping his neighbour?  Yeah, I want Gleichman in charge of telling me what I can and can't read.

You understand that we're not just talking about AP reports from Storygames here, right?  Go read Post #167 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=207790&postcount=167).

Quote from: StuartYou understand that we're not just talking about AP reports from Storygames here, right?  Go read Post #167 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=207790&postcount=167).

Yes, I do.  That's the post I quoted.  It's your utter assurance that from among those things, you know what is right and wrong.  Personally, I know what is right and wrong for myself and I censor my own consumption (for instance, I don't like to watch headshots in movies anymore; they leave a lasting stain on my mind).  But I don't know if that is good for anyone else and I certainly don't want someone deciding for me what is right or wrong.

The answer, for me, lies in education.  You need to show the young all the facets of the situation so they can make judgements themselves.  There is no way you are going to keep them away from porn, for instance, or depictions of violence.  So you need to explain to them the impacts those things have, both on the viewer and on the participants and creators.  But people still need to learn for themselves, or it doesn't stick and there is no way to learn properly without at least a little experience.

Why is it that John Morrow is always posting links with the most horrific crimes (another thing I censor myself from; the last link of Morrow's that I posted was so awful it made my afternoon unpleasant) and Gleichman is coming up with the most heinous examples?  These are the two who seem so disturbed by the increase in social permissiveness, yet they also seem drawn to the juicy, violent acts they claim this permissiveness encourages.  I often think this is what conservatives do, troll around for examples of what freaks them out, but also kind of turns them on and then go railing against change and gay marriage and such.

I think Stuart and Gleichman are purposefully framing the debate in the worst possible terms, and terminology on purpose. They're not seeking to understand someone else point of view, but rather to ridicule people who don't exactly share their point of view.

I've read through engine's post a few times now and all I see is that he asks that we have free access to as much information as possible-ideally all of it. None of his posts suggest that we should act on this information, or how we should act on this information.

By using loaded terminology Gleichman and Stuart are attempting to hold some sort of moral high ground, where they can cast down stones at the rest of us, assuming that we must rise to their particular level to be worthy of notice. This simply isn't true.

I believe in what Engine is suggesting very much, yet I've never even as much  considered some of the horrible things that Gleichman and Stuart are trying to mudsling onto people here. In fact I'd be willing to bet that if they just looked at my actions alone that I'd qualify as a pretty good guy in their book.

I don't keep extra change mistakenly given to me. I don't smoke. I don't do drugs. I don't hurt people for fun. I mow my lawn with a reel mower because I have a small lawn and a gas mower would be absurd to use on it. I'm willing to bet that I meet any definition they'd posit as being good, with one exception.

I believe in the freedom of expression, all expression. which they clearly don't. I did not say the freedom to act on expression. I did not say the freedom to hurt people.

Can you walk into a crowded movie theater and yell fire? No, because it could hurt people right? Is child pornography legal in this nation? No, because it exploits and hurts children. Should we, as a society, shy from discussing those things if they come in conversation? No-lack of exposure does not confer immunity.

Just because you don't tell your kids that drugs exist, does not mean they won't discover drugs. Or use them. Or worse, abuse them.

Words are tools. Like any other tool they have a proper usage. You may see an erosion of the limits set on this particular tools usage-I agree in some cases, but overall I actually think we, as a society, are trying much harder than ever before to limit words. To limit expression.

I'm not sure what either of you, or John Morrow would like to see done-that has been unclear through out this. But please stop assuming you hold the moral high ground. It's snobbish, and silly. I don't assume I better than any of you. In fact I pretty much consider myself less educated than many of you, and not as smart. But I don't think of myself or anyone else as being "better than".

All that said what is you guys would like to see? The ten commandments posted on the walls? A stronger FCC? What exactly do you want?

Quote from: gleichmanYou have indeed implied those very things. You call for the open availability of any and all information. You call for people to decide upon their own if they should or should not act on that information (for what is information for is it not to act upon), and how they should view it.

I don't know about "call for," but let's not quibble. Yes, absolutely, I believe in transparency of information, and on the rights of individuals to act on that information. Now, could you explain how that implies that everyone should go through their day trying to think of the worst things they could do, and considering whether or not to do them?

Quote from: gleichmanAt the same time you consistently reject good and evil as anything but meaningless labels- and thereby overturn many of the conclusions that individuals following your preferred path would draw.

This would only be true if the only means of making a conclusion were on the basis of absolute good and evil, which is not true. I recommend people avoid the meaningless labels of good and evil, and make conclusions based on rational consequences.

Quote from: gleichmanAnd yet you do this while denying any individual, groups of individuals, or society as a whole the right and the ability to determine those appropriate restrictions.

Actually, that's the precise opposite of my stated qualification.

Again, I note no refutation of the truth of moral relativism, no indication of the objective existence of morality, only a great deal more, "Oh, no you di'n't!"

Perhaps it would help if I framed the question in different terms: if you believe good and evil are absolutes, from whence do you feel those absolutes spring? How can one discern which is which? How do you know, for instance, that killing is "evil" and not "good?"

Quote from: EnginePerhaps it would help if I framed the question in different terms: if you believe good and evil are absolutes, from whence do you feel those absolutes spring? How can one discern which is which? How do you know, for instance, that killing is "evil" and not "good?"

For me, this is the scariest thing about this thread. Some sort of "Universal Morality". Killing someone is Evil...unless they are trying to kill you or your family then it is Good. More tot he point, who decides and enforces what is good?

Fundamentally scary. By these means all manner of actions may be justified. Just get enough people to agree it is right and all is forgiven. Worse yet, get some outdated religious text and spin your own interpretation. "Thou shall not Kill" suddenly becomes "You will not defend yourself".

Bill

Quote from: Serious PaulWords are tools. Like any other tool they have a proper usage. You may see an erosion of the limits set on this particular tools usage-I agree in some cases, but overall I actually think we, as a society, are trying much harder than ever before to limit words. To limit expression.

I think that is a great metaphor for this debate.  Like all tools, you need to learn how to use them properly and they should be handled with care.  Locking them away or only letting certain people use the tools does not a democratic society make.

Quote from: Serious PaulAll that said what is you guys would like to see? The ten commandments posted on the walls? A stronger FCC? What exactly do you want?

I would like an answer to this question as well.

Quote from: Serious PaulI think Stuart and Gleichman are purposefully framing the debate in the worst possible terms, and terminology on purpose.

I'm framing it where the logic being presented takes it. Nothing more, nothing less.

That you think you're capable of being exposed to any and all the worse 'information" (torture porn, kiddie porn, etc, from worst to best, nothing excluded), and not having it influence your attitudes and from there your behavior is interesting.

Was it not you, as a cop being exposed to the worst our society deals out day from day who stated that unless you stood in the way- the common man would eat the children of others just to do it?

What does this say about your information intake and it's influence on you?  

Are people evil bastards eating each other children, or are they reasoned people who can wade through the worse muck and still be "good people". What does it say that you can hold both the opinions above (which are in obvious opposition) in your head at the same time.


It is not that I refuse to see the PoV of others, indeed I've had nearly five decades of doing just that. One cannot live in this nation without your PoV being shoved down one's throat and enforced by the current law. I have seen that PoV, I have lived under it, I've seen where it leads to, I've made my judgement as to its validity.

It has none.

Quote from: Serious PaulIn fact I'd be willing to bet that if they just looked at my actions alone that I'd qualify as a pretty good guy in their book.

Don't make the bet. The entire list and your supposed one exception was silly beyond belief. There's more important things than how you mow your grass, and without doubt other problems besides your support for fantasy kiddie porn.

Quote from: Serious PaulShould we, as a society, shy from discussing those things if they come in conversation? No-lack of exposure does not confer immunity.

No one has said we should not speak of the evils of these things, all that's been suggested is the society should be returned the tools it once had to control those evils.

Indeed to condemn something, one must be aware of it. What we have lost as a culture is the ability to condemn, while at the same time we've lost the ability due to mass media of being unaware.

Quote from: Serious PaulI'm not sure what either of you, or John Morrow would like to see done-that has been unclear through out this.

I could rather solidly be defined by the following, written by William F. Buckley Jr as part of the mission statement in 1955 for the opening issue of National Review.

Looking them over, you should be able to determine the things I'd like to see done. A return to older views of the Bill of Rights before the advent of activist Judges, a return to greater Federalism with more local control, etc.

QuoteAmong our convictions:

A. It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens' lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government(the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side.


B. The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.


C. The century's most blatant force of satanic utopianism is communism. We consider "coexistence" with communism neither desirable nor possible, nor honorable; we find ourselves irrevocably at war with communism and shall oppose any substitute for victory.


D. The largest cultural menace in America is the conformity of the intellectual cliques which, in education as well as the arts, are out to impose upon the nation their modish fads and fallacies, and have nearly succeeded in doing so. In this cultural issue, we are, without reservations, on the side of excellence (rather than "newness") and of honest intellectual combat (rather than conformity).


E. The most alarming single danger to the American political system lies in the fact that an identifiable team of Fabian operators is bent on controlling both our major political parties(under the sanction of such fatuous and unreasoned slogans as "national unity," "middle-of-the-road," "progressivism," and "bipartisanship.") Clever intriguers are reshaping both parties in the image of Babbitt, gone Social-Democrat. When and where this political issue arises, we are, without reservations, on the side of the traditional two-party system that fights its feuds in public and honestly; and we shall advocate the restoration of the two-party system at all costs.


F. The competitive price system is indispensable to liberty and material progress. It is threatened not only by the growth of Big Brother government, but by the pressure of monopolies(including union monopolies. What is more, some labor unions have clearly identified themselves with doctrinaire socialist objectives. The characteristic problems of harassed business have gone unreported for years, with the result that the public has been taught to assume(almost instinctively) that conflicts between labor and management are generally traceable to greed and intransigence on the part of management. Sometimes they are; often they are not. NATIONAL REVIEW will explore and oppose the inroads upon the market economy caused by monopolies in general, and politically oriented unionism in particular; and it will tell the violated businessman's side of the story.


G. No superstition has more effectively bewitched America's Liberal elite than the fashionable concepts of world government, the United Nations, internationalism, international atomic pools, etc. Perhaps the most important and readily demonstrable lesson of history is that freedom goes hand in hand with a state of political decentralization, that remote government is irresponsible government. It would make greater sense to grant independence to each of our 50 states than to surrender U.S. sovereignty to a world organization.

Quote from: gleichmanNo such thing in most cases. In many areas there were no laws on the books requiring the posting of the commandments, nor school prayer. Often these were just how things were done.

Unless you're placing most of your stress on the wording of the 1st Amendment ("Congress shall make no law"), I don't think this really refutes my point. Even after incorporation via the 14th Amendment, this is a case of government preventing religious activities under the cover of government. The 1st Amendment doesn't obstruct religious activity in "society in general". (Also, I wouldn't agree with stressing "make no law".)

I also disagree with your argument that "new laws" (case law, really) that restrict government action represents an intrusion of government into society. Either law is an expression of society, in which case "new law" is also an expression of society--not an extension of government--or law is a function of government, in which case new law that limits the reach of law is a limitation on government.

QuoteNo where in the 1st amendment (or anywhere else in the Constitution) does the term "separation of church and state) appear.

True, however James Madison (who is primarily responsible for the authorship of the Bill of Rights) and Thomas Jefferson did use the term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#Modern). The idea is not a 20th century innovation.

QuoteI feel that one can indeed reach that determination, as do many others who study Constitution law. From my simple layman's PoV, the fact that later court decisions *changed* how US law was applied is enough to tell me that. As is the fact that the prevailing law before those decisions wasn't challenged for most of the life of the nation.

This is not quite correct. The law either hadn't been tested at the Supreme Court level prior to the judgments which you (presumably) find lacking, or those judgments overturned rulings dating from the late 1890's through the first half of the 20th century. One would have to trace the actual application of law throughout the 19th century--and I mean "throughout", as e.g. the Second Great Awakening of the early 19th century must be considered a possible source of innovation relative both to earlier legal application and the "original intent" of the framers of the Constitution. In short the image of a single, stable, uncontroversial, "traditional" understanding of the law from 1792-1950, which was subsequently overturned, needs more proof IMO to avoid being just a "myth of the Golden Age". (One might also review the history Ezra Heywood, who was able to carry out his activities advocating free love and birth control unmolested until an activist Congress passed an anti-obscenity law--and even after his conviction, he was pardoned by the President due to popular outcry.)

Paul, seriously, aren't you yourself purposefully framing the debate in the worst possible terms, and terminology on purpose? Aren't you trying to ridicule people (10 Commandments et al) who don't exactly share your point of view?

There's a wide gap between not discussing something, or worse pretending it doesn't exist -- and reveling in it, and seeking it out for enjoyment.

I'm advocating the real world we all live in, rather than an extreme "anything is permissible" fantasy world in which nothing is too obscene, or depraved for people to freely publish for general public consumption.

Police and criminologists have access to material that is unavailable for general publishing as entertainment.  That doesn't mean it needs to be available to everyone.

I'm being very specific about the things I'm saying should not be permissible for publishing.  I'm also drawing a distinction between discussing things between adults in private, things presented in a scholarly or clinical manner, and things that fall under real world laws around obscenity.

The reason the worst possible terms and scenarios are being mentioned is because those are the ones I object to.  I don't agree with the all-or-nothing perspective that EVERYTHING must be free for publishing and consumption.  I don't agree with extending censorship and taking away things you already enjoy legally either.

I also reject the idea of moral relativism, or at least it's utility to normal human beings in the real world.  I think it's a thought exercise for philosophy students and doesn't reflect people's genuine beliefs.  Unless they're disturbed.

Quote from: walkerpI think that is a great metaphor for this debate.  Like all tools, you need to learn how to use them properly and they should be handled with care.  Locking them away or only letting certain people use the tools does not a democratic society make.

And yet this society does that all the time with tools. I must have a license to use them for project of significant size, licenses to operation, sometimes even to purchase. Almost always the end to which I put them is restricted. The list is nearly endless.

And some places even forbid certain tools they object to completely. I wonder how many here so strongly in support of the 1st admendment right of free speech are as strongly in support of the 2nd admendment right concerning the keeping of bearing of a class of tools?

Yes, tools is a great metaphor in this debate. For my side of it.

Quote from: StuartPaul, seriously, aren't you yourself purposefully framing the debate in the worst possible terms, and terminology on purpose?

I don't think I am. I have not accused anyone, even you or Gleichman who hold pretty radically different points of view from my own (At least as I percieve them-obviously this is all just an internet forum, and not the totality of whom you are as individuals.), of being anything other than different from me.

I have not placed judgment-yet-on your points of view. I'm sorry if it seems that I have. So far I think you guys hold views that i don't agree with. That does not make you bad people.

QuoteAren't you trying to ridicule people (10 Commandments et al) who don't exactly share your point of view?

No I am not. I asked a serious question. I expected a serious answer.

QuoteThere's a wide gap between not discussing something, or worse pretending it doesn't exist -- and reveling in it, and seeking it out for enjoyment.

I agree.

QuoteI'm advocating the real world we all live in, rather than an extreme "anything is permissible" fantasy world in which nothing is too obscene, or depraved for people to freely publish for general public consumption.

I don't think anyone is advocating this fantasy world. Myself, and Engine, have both admitted that society has certain limitations and that we understand why.

I simply don't feel you and Gleichman should be allowed to frame the debate solely in your morality, and your terminology. If you disagree with me, then I r think what you're interested in isn't a discussion, but rather giving me a speech. (Sorry to be so absolute on this point, i just don't know a better way to phrase it.)

QuoteThe reason the worst possible terms and scenarios are being mentioned is because those are the ones I object to.

And when someone else draws the line further to the right than you they'll say that they object to those things. It's a slippery slope sometimes. I'm not sure how we should draw the line, but I do know that neither you or I should solely be responsible for drawing it.

QuoteI don't agree with the all-or-nothing perspective that EVERYTHING must be free for publishing and consumption.

I don't either. I just draw the line in a different spot than you.

QuoteI also reject the idea of moral relativism, or at least it's utility to normal human beings in the real world.  I think it's a thought exercise for philosophy students and doesn't reflect people's genuine beliefs.  Unless they're disturbed.

I think you're wrong, but that's because I consider myself a moral relativist.

Engine you say this:

Quote from: EngineThis would only be true if the only means of making a conclusion were on the basis of absolute good and evil, which is not true. I recommend people avoid the meaningless labels of good and evil, and make conclusions based on rational consequences.

And yet object to the example of someone doing *exactly* that. You desire people to make such choices, indeed- speak that it is the only way for people to make choices.

If so, then you cannot object to whatever choices they decided to embark upon taking, whatever it means for Jenny's day.

Afterwards, you can't label it evil. You've given yourself no greater right to punish them then they had to make the decision in the first place.

You're defined yourself their equal, no matter the action, no matter the intent. And then you'd be surpised when they act upon that judgement?

Really?

Quote from: EngineAgain, I note no refutation of the truth of moral relativism,

So you claim the title of Moral Relativist freely and openly? This is how you would define your stance? This is who you are?

Quote from: gleichmanI'm framing it where the logic being presented takes it. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't agree with you, but this oration and not debate so I suspect that trying to argue this point will get us no where. instead I shall assume you're telling me the truth, and that you're framing the debate as you see it, and not with a yellow pen. (So to speak.)

QuoteThat you think you're capable of being exposed to any and all the worse 'information" (torture porn, kiddie porn, etc, from worst to best, nothing excluded), and not having it influence your attitudes and from there your behavior is interesting.

I don't think that's true,nor do I think anyone said that it was true.

QuoteWas it not you, as a cop being exposed to the worst our society deals out day from day who stated that unless you stood in the way- the common man would eat the children of others just to do it?

What does this say about your information intake and it's influence on you?

You're correct in that I believe the worst of people, and yet I am still a staunch supporter of free expression. I think that says a lot about me. I see the darkest side of men, and still I adhere to my ideals-because I believe that in doing so I am doing good.  

QuoteAre people evil bastards eating each other children, or are they reasoned people who can wade through the worse muck and still be "good people". What does it say that you can hold both the opinions above (which are in obvious opposition) in your head at the same time.

I think they are both. And none. And all of the above. Each person is different, which is why I don't like sweeping generalizations about good and evil.

QuoteIt is not that I refuse to see the PoV of others, indeed I've had nearly five decades of doing just that. One cannot live in this nation without your PoV being shoved down one's throat and enforced by the current law. I have seen that PoV, I have lived under it, I've seen where it leads to, I've made my judgement as to its validity.

It has none.

Then you're not interested in a discussion. You're interested in speaking at me. I'm not sure I'm prepared to listen anymore.

QuoteDon't make the bet. The entire list and your supposed one exception was silly beyond belief.

Which was my point. It was as arbitrary as your own moral code. But then you're not interested in listening, only talking. As such I bow out of your part of the discussion.

Quote from: StuartI also reject the idea of moral relativism, or at least it's utility to normal human beings in the real world.  .

I just wanted to single this line out as it provokes a thought in me that is similar but not necessarily what is meant.

I believe that Moral Relativism has value but not utility.  

That is to say, understanding the concept expanding ones idea of what is right and wrong beyond the mere repetition of preexisting cultural mores has a value in and of itself as a means of looking at the world, expanding ones understanding, what have you.

However, attempting to USE moral relativism as a guideline for life, or even as a blueprint for civilization is worthless, less than worthless even.

This is the tripping point that renders discussions involving it difficult. Many people use the concept as stated and appear to believe they have a superior grasp of reality as a result, others see it used, even tangentally, in a discussion about society and assume that any use of it leads to the consumption of babies.

The simple acknowledgement that good and evil are not absolute nor objective fact does not render any such value judgement invalid.  By absolute, objective fact the money in my pocket is simple, worthless biomass that will degrade in a flyspeck amount of time and has no value. Objectively, the money I have in the bank is worth even less, being simply and arrangement of data that in all probability will leave no record of its existance behind for future generations at all.  Yet both the dollar in my pocket and the ones in my bank electrons are of great subjective value to me and most of the people in the world, not just my own culture. So too have the subjective values of Good and Evil that we use.

But, by all means, carry on without me. This thread is entertaining, and you all know my motto by now...


Entertain me, Motherfuckers!

Quote from: Elliot Wilen

I completely disagree Elliot. If those ideas were truly the original goals, then the very government that enacted those original laws would have acted differently. They would not have had prays open their sessions. They would not have used goverment money to support the activities of religious groups. The list is endless.

I strongly feel that any attempt to force today's viewpoints back upon the first century and a half of US existence is nothing but wishful thinking, and twisting of intent.

I'm in good and solid company in this.

Having reach this point I don't believe there is anything more to say between us on this subject. I at least won't come closer to your view by any degree. And I don't feel I need say anything more to define mine.

Quote from: SpikeI believe that Moral Relativism has value but not utility.

I'm not sure I agree with this, but I do agree with this:

QuoteHowever, attempting to USE moral relativism as a guideline for life, or even as a blueprint for civilization is worthless, less than worthless even.

I completely agree, which is why I want my society to permit me to hold a separate point of view, with out my society mirroring it. What is good for me is not good for you, necessarily.

QuoteEntertain me, Motherfuckers!

I'm enjoying myself. I may disagree with people, but I have yet to see anything printed in here that would make me hate or even strongly dislike people. I may dislike some of their ideas, but with one exception i don't know any of you people. How could I dislike you? Especially when we can discuss stuff like this!

Quote from: gleichmanYes, tools is a great metaphor in this debate. For my side of it.

Touché!

Let me try and extricate myself from this one without torturing the metaphor too much.  Words (and language and depiction) are simple tools, like a screwdriver, not complex tools like a nuclear reactor.  Everybody should have a basic education in how to use them effectively and responsibly.  Everybody should have access to them and recognize the power of what you can build with them.  

metaphor starting to break down now.

Quote from: Serious PaulI simply don't feel you and Gleichman should be allowed to frame the debate solely in your morality, and your terminology. If you disagree with me, then I r think what you're interested in isn't a discussion, but rather giving me a speech. (Sorry to be so absolute on this point, i just don't know a better way to phrase it.)

In truth I'm less interested in debating whether restriction of publishing certain material is good or bad, and more interested in sharing resources about the way the world really is (laws), what's really happening in the real world that could change things (news), and other resources related to the discussion (terms of service, articles and essays, etc).

I doubt that I'd be able to convince a freedom of speech absolutist that there should be limits to those freedoms (they'll have heard the arguments before), or a moral relativist that there are inherent goods and bads in life (again, if they're using the label they've heard it all before).

My actual intention for participating in this thread is making people aware that the internet isn't disconnected from the real world, and that there are laws and terms of service restricting what you can publish.  That's both to encourage people to act responsibly (I don't want my online friends, even the ones I argue with, to get in trouble) and also to give people resources to report things they think might be illegal.

Like most discussions on public forums, there's usually a much larger audience than the people participating in the thread... ;)

I was specifically rephrasing Stuarts comment in the way it actually read to me. I find sufficent cross over between value and utility in conversation that the statement only makes sense if read from a specific understanding of the language used: poor communication at its best.

I don't consider myself a Moral Relativist. I believe, if I can use such a term, in Good and Evil and everything in between.  I just don't accept them as universal constants, or even human constants within certain tolerences. I can imagine a world where killing babies is 'Good'. If certain sources are to be believed, the 'Babylonians' certainly thought it could be. The Spartans did as well, for different reasons.

That doesn't mean I condone baby killing or think we should treat it as acceptable behavior. It is, for lack of a better word, Evil. We have, as a culture, made that decision and need to abide by it as individuals.  

At best, the Relativistic model is useful as a tool, a lens for looking at things with new eyes. Not better eyes, mind you, just newer ones. In fact, I think one problem with it is that we've chosen to limit it to Moral thought processes... for reasons I can understand.  I can make an example involving cars but I fear I'd cloud the discussion even more if I did.

At the end of the day, when the average joe tells me he's a Moral Relativist, or even talks like he is one (even if he's unable to properly name it) I generally want to slap some sense into them.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in that I suspect you are using it more as a shorthand for your own probably more complex personal philosophy and in that I don't want the... Montreal was it?... police force after me...

Quote from: gleichmanEngine you say this: ["This would only be true if the only means of making a conclusion were on the basis of absolute good and evil, which is not true. I recommend people avoid the meaningless labels of good and evil, and make conclusions based on rational consequences."] And yet object to the example of someone doing *exactly* that.

No, I objected to your characterization of my position as being that everyone need consider whether or not to rape their neighbor in the morning.

Quote from: gleichmanSo you claim the title of Moral Relativist freely and openly? This is how you would define your stance? This is who you are?

I find "titles" to largely be more trouble than they're worth. You say, "I'm a frenchman," and all of the sudden, every opinion ever held by every frenchman is yours. I do believe there is no universal, absolute, or objective morality; you may call that what you will.

Do you dispute the truth of that? If so, how?

Quote from: SpikeI believe that Moral Relativism has value but not utility.

I'm utterly with you on that. If you're trying to decide what to do, moral relativism simply cannot aid you; all it can do is say, "No help here, man; morals aren't real." Decision-making, then, must fall back on something other than Gods' Will or absolute morality. I personally use preference, moderated by consequence, capability determined by power.

My thinking is very much in line with Spike's in practice.  In real life, I think I believe morality is purely a human construction and generally based on biology and the history of those in power.  Both moral abolutism and relativism, within a human context, are problematic at their extremes.

Quote from: EngineI'm utterly with you on that. If you're trying to decide what to do, moral relativism simply cannot aid you; all it can do is say, "No help here, man; morals aren't real." Decision-making, then, must fall back on something other than Gods' Will or absolute morality. I personally use preference, moderated by consequence, capability determined by power.

I prefer risk analysis but apparently that makes me a psychopath. ;)

Bill

Quote from: EngineNo, I objected to your characterization of my position as being that everyone need consider whether or not to rape their neighbor in the morning.

It's not every morning, but is certainly one morning.

How rational is a person in your view that doesn't consider doing such a thing at some point? Certainly, he has no reason not to and are not people inclined to explore their options.

Follow the logic.

Quote from: EngineI do believe there is no universal, absolute, or objective morality; you may call that what you will.

Do you dispute the truth of that? If so, how?

Why should I spend the effort?

After all, that very statement you just give justifies me completely if I should ignore you, reject you, or even kill you. And you could never say I was wrong no matter my decision. You've defined yourself as something without value. There is no requirement on me to give you more worth than that.

Beyond the freedom you just granted me, I've been around long enough to know that when a person such as yourself has in effect rejected everything there is no point to continue. To declare Nihilism is to declare any conversation as valueless and at an end.

You are what you are- worthless. If you ever seek more than that, then we can talk. Until then, I think we are done.

Quote from: EngineI'm utterly with you on that. If you're trying to decide what to do, moral relativism simply cannot aid you; all it can do is say, "No help here, man; morals aren't real." Decision-making, then, must fall back on something other than Gods' Will or absolute morality. I personally use preference, moderated by consequence, capability determined by power.

Whereas I have to disagree with you on the moderating forces. If merely preference and consequence are your limits you are abrogating* responsibility to your community.

If I, as an individual, take exception to an existing social more or law, I can not, as an individual decide that my preference takes precedent simply due to a lack of the greater universe's lack of objective values.  Nor should I simply decide that I can live with the consequences of my actions should I chose to violate the morals of the community.

As I see it I have a number of choices.

I can obey the societal norm/laws and accept that as a concequence of being a 'good person'. I do this every time I keep my dog fenced in the yard or my music down to a decent level at two or three in the morning.

I can remove myself from the community to one where my values are acceptable. I could do this by moving to a remote area where loud music and free roaming pets are not a problem, like the countryside. I may one day do that.

Or, I can attempt to change the values of the community. The hard third road. In this case its not worth it.  There is no good excuse to convince people they should accept loud music blasting through the neighborhood at two in the morning and, while I can demonstrate reasons why forcing dog owners to unduly restrict their pets, its not a subject worthy of the lengthy, possibly futile, crusade to change public perception of dogs, raising their children and so forth.  There are other 'crusades' I would launch first.

However, chosing to say 'fuck that, I'm willing to accept that my neighbors will hate me and the dog catcher might ticket me, I'll do what the fuck I want' is not a valid option. Possible, certainly. But not valid.  The best I chose to offer for why are old, unpopular terms like 'civic duty' or terms that self proclamed moral relativists reflexively reject like 'wrong'.  The worst I chose to offer, though high on my list of favorites, is to call those that chose this position children.


*sometimes I surprise myself, this is one of those rare times. I know, why would I use a word like abrogate when I felt the need to double check its meaning when simpler, less arcane terms are available... but really, if you know a word you like to use it, ya know? God only knows where I learned it....

Quote from: HinterWeltI prefer risk analysis but apparently that makes me a psychopath. ;)

It means you have some traits in common with a psychopath.

I think that there is obviously a universal morality; and what's more, from the practical rhetorical purpose, if you are in a debate like this one you must begin from the basis that some kind of universal morality exists; otherwise you will be unable to make any kind of an argument that has any basis.
If you really believe that there is no such thing as universal morality, then you have no basis to argue against anything that gleichman or morrow or me or anyone else says, aside from your own meaningless irrelevant personal preference.

If that's what you really believed, why even bother?

On the topic of the issues being discussed themselves, I think that there's a very significant space of difference between saying:
"You should not do this"
and saying
"You should not have the right or freedom to do this"

And since the only sensible universal morality begins with the principle that all men are created equal and have a right to liberty, life and property; then the universal principle must always favour the right to express the first of the two sentiments (indeed, a decent civilization depends on that), while at the same giving the greatest of latitude possible (with the limits being the life, liberty and property of others) to avoiding the second statement.

Or as a certain smarter-than-the-average-Frenchman once said, more or less: "I may detest (and condemn) what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

The second part of that statement does not suddenly and magically prevent one from expressing that condemnation of what someone says.

Or, put in terms relevant around these parts: I can despise and condemn the morality (or lack thereof) of the latest Forge game, express vociferously why the author is a degenerate, cast doubts on the morality or wholesomeness of those who revel in playing it, forbid promotion of it on my website, etc., while at the same time defend right in principle of the author to write it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Spike*sometimes I surprise myself, this is one of those rare times. I know, why would I use a word like abrogate when I felt the need to double check its meaning when simpler, less arcane terms are available... but really, if you know a word you like to use it, ya know? God only knows where I learned it....

Perhaps here:

"The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do — you've simply abdicated the responsibility to think."
-William F. Buckley Jr.

Seems to be his day for me to quote him.

Quote from: gleichmanIt means you have some traits in common with a psychopath.

Damn! I thought I was on your ignore list.

Well, to your point. You are not calling me a psychopath...just that I have the traits of a psychopath...:rolleyes:

Bill

Quote from: RPGPunditIf that's what you really believed, why even bother?

Many reasons.

For the entertainment.

Because I feel I must not understand your position and seek to be enlightened.

Because if my understanding is correct, people I otherwise consider intelligent are taking what appears to be a simplistic view of Good and Evil and I wish to understand their position better.

Because, if correct again, a person with the view that there is Universal Morality is just one step from a person who decides what is evil and must be destroyed and what is good and must be cherished. For that average person, this is profound. For a person in power, it can be disastrous.

To clarify, I honestly don't know if I would be a "moral relativist" since that has a lot of baggage to it. I do believe, and truly hope, that all people look at their morals and evaluate their actions on a personal view. The part that scares me is the faith in some Universal Moral Code. It would be very easy for me unknowingly to violate your code and suffer the penalty.

Bill

Quote from: RPGPunditIf you really believe that there is no such thing as universal morality, then you have no basis to argue against anything that gleichman or morrow or me or anyone else says, aside from your own meaningless irrelevant personal preference.

If that's what you really believed, why even bother?

Well, if personal opinion is all there is, then surely that makes it important enough to discuss.

Personally, I'm something like half-agnostic on the whole subject.   I believe that there are actual moral principles that are written (very, very subtly) into the very bedrock of creation.  But I also know that I could be totally and completely wrong, not only about what those principles are, but about whether any such thing exists at all ... and, plus, I've had the humbling experience of (several times) having to re-examine what I thought I knew for 100% certain, in the light of new experiences.

Even knowing I could be completely wrong, though, I find value in discussing my best guess, and contrasting it with that of others.  Most people seem to be on some sort of ongoing journey, trying to wrest meaning from the experiences of their lives.  Maybe that's striving for the universal truth, maybe it's just creating the illusion of meaning from randomness ... either way, I enjoy comparing notes.

Out of interest:  Why wouldn't I want to discuss my best guess, even knowing that it might be personal rather than universal?  You seem to find it obvious that people wouldn't want to talk about something that's "merely" their own opinion, but I don't understand the perspective that leads you to think that.  Maybe shed a little light?

Quote from: HinterWeltI prefer risk analysis but apparently that makes me a psychopath. ;)

That's okay, Bill. I think we're all psychopaths according to Morrow and the G.

Quote from: TonyLBWell, if personal opinion is all there is, then surely that makes it important enough to discuss.

No it doesn't. It makes it completely worthless to discuss.

Quote from: gleichmanNo it doesn't. It makes it completely worthless to discuss.

Except for yours 'cause dat's de Troof.

Quote from: StuartIn truth I'm less interested in debating whether restriction of publishing certain material is good or bad, and more interested in sharing resources about the way the world really is (laws), what's really happening in the real world that could change things (news), and other resources related to the discussion (terms of service, articles and essays, etc).

I think I'm starting to understand your point of view now, I was confused before. I agree with you, that it is good to understand the real world ramifications of our discussion.

QuoteMy actual intention for participating in this thread is making people aware that the internet isn't disconnected from the real world, and that there are laws and terms of service restricting what you can publish.

I absolutely agree. And I'm even some one who wishes free speech were absolute-it is not, obviously.

QuoteThat's both to encourage people to act responsibly (I don't want my online friends, even the ones I argue with, to get in trouble) and also to give people resources to report things they think might be illegal.

And given the nature of the beast, the soon to be rapidly changing laws governing the internet, this is pretty nice of you.

QuoteLike most discussions on public forums, there's usually a much larger audience than the people participating in the thread...;)

Agreed. I have always wondered what some of these discussions would look like in real life. I'm glad you posted this, it's pretty significantly improved my opinion of you. (I don't say that to be smug, or self righteous, but rather I think it's nice to let people know from time to time that I am listening, and thinking about what they say.)

Quote from: RPGPunditIf that's what you really believed, why even bother?

Because I want to. My reasons don't have to be any more complex than that, even if they actually are.

And I'll say it again, this is oration not debate. People are arguing with emotion, and not fact. Sure we have a few Google Scholars (Hi John!) who make a shot at debate, but this isn't a debate really. It's a discussion, filled with passionate oration.

QuoteOn the topic of the issues being discussed themselves, I think that there's a very significant space of difference between saying:

"You should not do this"
and saying
"You should not have the right or freedom to do this"

In this we agree completely. That's a succinct way of putting it, thanks.

QuoteAnd since the only sensible universal morality begins with the principle that all men are created equal and have a right to liberty, life and property; then the universal principle must always favour the right to express the first of the two sentiments (indeed, a decent civilization depends on that), while at the same giving the greatest of latitude possible (with the limits being the life, liberty and property of others) to avoiding the second statement.

If I were to hold an absolute moral code, I'd want it to be this. It's what I think the founding fathers of this nation wanted. (If I can make that broad sweeping generalization.)

Quote from:  HinterWeltI prefer risk analysis but apparently that makes me a psychopath. ;)

For what it's worth, I don't think Gleichman or John, or many people in this thread for that matter, really know what a psychopath is, let alone a sociopath, and have almost certainly never actually met one.

As somebody who has dealt with both extensively, on a regular basis, trust me when I say that their definitions don't hold much water.

That said I have enjoyed this conversation while it lasted.

Am I mistaken, but did someone once label you a "frat boy" Serious Paul?  

:confused:

Quote from: RPGPunditSo the real question is: why aren't these people, most of whom directly claim that they really believe in the message of the book, going out and bombing buildings the way McVeigh did?

Because extremists are cowards.

Quote from: gleichmanIt's not every morning, but is certainly one morning.

No. Nothing imparts any responsibility on someone to consider raping their neighbor. What I have said is that considering raping your neighbor is not wrong in an absolute or universal sense.

Quote from: gleichmanHow rational is a person in your view that doesn't consider doing such a thing at some point? Certainly, he has no reason not to and are not people inclined to explore their options.

I think a person can be perfectly rational and not consider taking some action. Let's remove your intentionally heinous example and use another: riding a train made of candy goats to New Jersey, in the nude. I believe it is not absolutely or universally wrong to ride a train of candy goats to New Jersey, in the nude or otherwise. I think it is important that people be allowed to read about riding a train of candy goats to New Jersey, so that they have the freedom to consider taking such action themselves, because that's the sort of world I like to live in. Most likely, no one has considered riding a train made of candy goats to New Jersey, but that doesn't make everyone irrational.

Quote from: gleichmanFollow the logic.

In my experience, "Follow the logic," generally means, "I can't follow the logic, so I'll make an implication and require you to fill in the blanks."

Quote from: gleichmanWhy should I spend the effort?

Doesn't your objective morality include some clause about the rightness of informing others of that moral code? Or maybe you could just do it because everyone here is humoring you, answering your questions, and it would just be a damned douchebagesque thing to do to completely ignore the one question someone's asking of you.

Personally, I think your refusal to assert, profess, or prove your objective morality has nothing to do with it being a waste of your time, and everything to do with your inability to do such a thing. Are you consciously aware of that inability? Does it ever cause you to question why there's no logical reason to suspect the universe comes with a built-in set of moral guidelines that predate humans but which seem to only apply to them? The answer is because the universe does not come with such a set of moral guidelines.

This is what's got to really burn you: everyone here knows you can't prove any universal morality, and that's why you won't talk about it. Oh, well. John Morrow seems more likely to provide a reasoned, considered response, anyway.

Quote from: EngineDoesn't your objective morality include some clause about the rightness of informing others of that moral code?

You're well aware about anything I could say already, and clear in its rejection.

I have no choice but to accept your decision, but I can refuse to dance at your command.

And yet you just slid onto the floor and looked at your card. "I must have the last word! No matter how it makes me look!"

Quote from: WalkerpAm I mistaken, but did someone once label you a "frat boy" Serious Paul?

Ah the irony. I've never even been to a college that had a frat. (Community Colleges tend to be light in the Greek departments.)

Tell you what, there seems to be some pretty shocking realisations of fantasies going on in those frat houses.

If only they'd include me!

I'd promise to bring my own bottle. Honest. And that's just the lube.

The Corps is sort of a fraternity.

Quote from: EngineAnd again, with the goodness and badness. Let us focus on truth and lies, then.

OK.

Quote from: EngineHow is a fair judgment to be made regarding the truth of something if all other information is restricted? Obviously, it cannot; that's a straw man. The greater point, however, is that restriction of information prevents proper analysis of that information; only transparency allows for proper description of reality.

This is an excluded middle argument.  I have never said that only the officially endorsed Truth™ should be available.  The primary thing I've endorsed is existing standards of obscenity (e.g., the Miller Test) and the very idea that some things can be obscene.  The definition of obscenity is pretty well crafted to not only require the work to be offensive but also generally of prurient interest (i.e., designed so that people can get their jollies from it, not better evaluate reality and the world around them) and that the work as a whole lacks "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value".  In other words, with respect to obscenity, we are largely talking about material that is not information in the sense that it informs, educates, or enlightens.  Restricting or banning it has little or no bearing on anyone's ability to develop a proper understanding of reality.

Beyond that, there are different ways in which information can be presented and conveyed and levels of detail that are not necessary for an adequate understanding of what's going on.  For example, to the point about criminologists, almost all crime scenes are photographed and recorded.  While I believe there are people who have a legitimate need to access that information, that does not necessarily mean that I think it should be released to the general public.  There is also a distinct difference between a person looking at the crime scene photo of a nude victim to determine the facts of the case and a person looking at the photos for kicks.  As such, I have no problem with such information being restricted.  The same goes for personal information, national security secrets, and so on.  

At this point, it should be pretty clear that we're unavoidably on the slippery slope between everything is permissible and nothing is, and somewhere along there is where I think we need to sink some pitons and set up a camp.

Now I'm going to take a moment to address a comment that walkerp made that should help tie this up a bit.  

Quote from: walkerpWhy is it that John Morrow is always posting links with the most horrific crimes (another thing I censor myself from; the last link of Morrow's that I posted was so awful it made my afternoon unpleasant) and Gleichman is coming up with the most heinous examples?  These are the two who seem so disturbed by the increase in social permissiveness, yet they also seem drawn to the juicy, violent acts they claim this permissiveness encourages.  I often think this is what conservatives do, troll around for examples of what freaks them out, but also kind of turns them on and then go railing against change and gay marriage and such.

I post links about horrific crimes because I do agree, to a degree, that the details can make a difference.  It's easy to casually dismiss things that are abstract and harder to dismiss them if details are involved.  That said, I purposely don't follow certain links or look at certain classes of information (e.g., I'm very happy not seeing crime scene photos) and there is a certain level of detail which I'd prefer sources not reach.  But I do moderate myself and even that worst of the links I've posted is filtered.  There are no crime scene photos.  No autopsy reports.  No close ups of the injuries.  Why?  Because it's just not necessary.  When you reach a certain point, you don't need the details.  A summary should sufficient.  If I really did follow what people are saying here to its conclusion and assume that the maximum information and maximum detail is always best, I'm sure I could ruin everyones lunch for a few week.  But what would be the point?

Quote from: EngineI believe with utter confidence that increased access to all information for all people has done vastly more good for the human race than it has done evil. Access to the complete pool of human opinion and information is the only way for individuals to make decisions most closely informed by reality, and the long-term trend of that has been, overall, considered most positive, from books to the internet.

All information is not equal, nor does it move as an inseparable whole.  To argue that all individual pieces of information are always a net good is, I think, unsupportable.  What you are essentially doing is taking a pot of water that's at 80°C and a pot of water that's at 0°C and telling me that on average the water is warm and won't burn you.  One pot won't but the other may.  Everything isn't the same.  One of the key themes of this video that I posted a link to in another group here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c) is "indiscriminateness of thought".

Quote from: EngineYou shouldn't get to decide what is credible, or treated with respect. Nor should I. Everyone should be able to make that decision for themselves, without someone else - specifically, a government, gods help us - making that decision beforehand. Power to the people.

So do you believe in disbanding the FDA and it's role in deciding which claims about foods and drugs are credible and which are not?  How about laws prohibiting false advertising, libel, slander?  How about laws governing what insurance companies and investment companies can and can't say to you and claim?

Quote from: walkerpI think that is a great metaphor for this debate.  Like all tools, you need to learn how to use them properly and they should be handled with care.  Locking them away or only letting certain people use the tools does not a democratic society make.

The problem that we keep coming back to is that in reality, society does lock away many tools and restricts the use of many others.  You need to pass a test before you can drive a car and when you do drive, there is a whole class of laws telling you exactly what you can and can't do with the car.  Guns are heavily restricted in many place.  What you can do with knives is restricted.  nunchaku, Wrist-Rockets, mace, and tasers are restricted in many places.  And in case you think it's just weapons, there are places where body armor is illegal and I need to specially ask, show an ID, and sign my name to buy medicine with pseudoephedrine in it.  I can't legally buy or consume alcohol unless I'm 21 and, again, there is a whole class of laws dealing with intoxication.  I can't burn a cross on my front lawn (not that I'd want to) nor blast my radio at 2AM.  And there are all sorts of chemicals and materials that are heavily regulated or illegal, not even going into illegal drugs.  

Does all of that make society unbearable oppressive and undemocratic to you?  (Of course in purely democratic societies, the majority get to decide the rules because democracy isn't anarchy, but I digress.)

Quote from: Serious PaulAll that said what is you guys would like to see? The ten commandments posted on the walls? A stronger FCC? What exactly do you want?

Me, personally?  A resumption of obscenity prosecutions to the level and degree that they were before the Clinton Administration stopped them.  I'd like to see the assumption shifted back to the idea that the public space should be family friendly while still allowing much more leeway in private.  I would like to see the Internet treated like a public space.  I would like to see a return to the idea that there is nobility in criticizing vile material rather than nobility in tolerating if not promoting it and that there is nothing wrong with judging the character of people who show little or no regard for others or social decorum.

To be honest, I'd largely prefer to see a return to more consideration and self restraint rather than laws, but think that laws pushing back at the extremes can be a valuable tool for encouraging self-restraint elsewhere.

Quote from: Elliot WilenUnless you're placing most of your stress on the wording of the 1st Amendment ("Congress shall make no law"), I don't think this really refutes my point. Even after incorporation via the 14th Amendment, this is a case of government preventing religious activities under the cover of government. The 1st Amendment doesn't obstruct religious activity in "society in general". (Also, I wouldn't agree with stressing "make no law".)

I think the First Amendment was purposely limited in scope (to Congress, before it was transformed by the 14th Amendment) and to Congress making laws for a reason.  There were states that had an established official religion as late as 1833, for example.  George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights (http://www.project21.org/VirginiaDeclaration.html) (one of the forbearers of the Bill of Rights) reads, "...it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other." and his 1788 draft of the Bill of Rights (http://www.constitution.org/gmason/amd_gmas.txt) said:

   That Religion or the Duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable Right to the free Exercise of Religion according to the Dictates of Conscience, and that no particular religious Sect or Society of Christians ought to be favored or established by Law in preference to others.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI also disagree with your argument that "new laws" (case law, really) that restrict government action represents an intrusion of government into society. Either law is an expression of society, in which case "new law" is also an expression of society--not an extension of government--or law is a function of government, in which case new law that limits the reach of law is a limitation on government.

When  new Federal laws and, worse, court rulings restrict state and local government action, especially when it is contrary to the will of the people in those states and locales and long established tradition, do in fact represent an intrusion of the national government into local matters in violation of Federalism.  In fact, the Tenth Amendment makes that plainly clear when it says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."  Those words are rendered meaningless if the Federal government can grab powers not given it by the Constitution at will.  

As for the expression of society, there is a mechanism for that in the Constitution -- Constitutional Conventions and the amendment process.  It's just that it's a lot more convenient to convince 5 Supreme Court justices to add new rights to the Constitution than to get super-majorities of the Congress and the states.  

Quote from: Elliot WilenTrue, however James Madison (who is primarily responsible for the authorship of the Bill of Rights) and Thomas Jefferson did use the term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#Modern). The idea is not a 20th century innovation.

Madison and Jefferson were just two of the Founding Fathers and George Mason is called the "Father of the Bill of Rights" because it was based on his Virginia Declaration of Rights.  There were Federalists, anti-Federalists, and other interests and the Constitution is clearly a compromise document in many ways.  I don't think it's fair to say that any one or two Founding Fathers spoke for them all, nor represented the only interpretation or spirit of those documents.

Quote from: droogThat's okay, Bill. I think we're all psychopaths according to Morrow and the G.

No, just some of you.  :p

Quote from: Serious PaulFor what it's worth, I don't think Gleichman or John, or many people in this thread for that matter, really know what a psychopath is, let alone a sociopath, and have almost certainly never actually met one.

I'm largely following the definitions provided by Dr. Robert Hare, which explain in quite a bit of detail exactly what characterizes psychopaths as well as related studies on physiological responses and brain functioning.  I can provide a lot of links detailing it a great deal if you want.

Not all psychopaths are violent criminals.  If you do a Google search for "psychopath" and "office", you'll find quite a few articles on psychopaths in the office.  You can also find support groups for people who had relationships with psychopaths.  They are not all murderous killers or thugs, which seems to be what you have in mind.

Have I ever met one?  I suspect I have.  I've certainly met narcissists, which is the mild form and I've seen plenty of psychopaths interviewed on television.  Probably not the same mix that you've encountered.

Quote from: Serious PaulAs somebody who has dealt with both extensively, on a regular basis, trust me when I say that their definitions don't hold much water.

OK.  Then what's your definition?  How do you differentiate a psychopath from a non-psychopath?

Quote from: EngineI think a person can be perfectly rational and not consider taking some action. Let's remove your intentionally heinous example and use another:

The problem is that a situation toward which one is emotionally distant from is not the same sort of moral decision as one that creates strong feeling.  You are switching the conversation from a moral violation to a conventional violation and they are not the same thing.

Quote from: SpikeI don't consider myself a Moral Relativist. I believe, if I can use such a term, in Good and Evil and everything in between.  I just don't accept them as universal constants, or even human constants within certain tolerences. I can imagine a world where killing babies is 'Good'. If certain sources are to be believed, the 'Babylonians' certainly thought it could be. The Spartans did as well, for different reasons.

The reality is, though, that even those societies that killed large numbers of babies exhibited behavior surrounding the killing suggesting that it was a decision that still troubled the people who did it, whether it we're talking about the cemetery of babies sacrificed at Carthage, the Spartans not leaving the decision of whether a child was worthy to live up to it's mother, the dead babies found hidden in the sewers of Ashkelon, Tacitus commenting that the Germans didn't kill their children like his fellow Romans, exposure instead of killing so that the parents could believe that maybe someone would take the baby in and let it live, and overall, the fact that infanticide generally happens very close to birth to avoid the parents getting any attachment to the child. Similarly, despite the fact that slavery was legal in the United States, there was no shortage of debate about it's morality all along and even quote a few Southern slave owners acknowledged it's immorality, in part or in whole.  Don't confuse what a society does with what the people think is Good and what it doesn't do with what the people think is Evil.  It's not that clear cut.

Quote from: Serious PaulYou're correct in that I believe the worst of people, and yet I am still a staunch supporter of free expression. I think that says a lot about me. I see the darkest side of men, and still I adhere to my ideals-because I believe that in doing so I am doing good.

What good are you doing?

Quote from: EnginePerhaps it would help if I framed the question in different terms: if you believe good and evil are absolutes, from whence do you feel those absolutes spring?

God or evolution.  Take your pick.  The end result is the same.

Quote from: EngineHow can one discern which is which?

They are visceral feelings hardcoded into the human brain.  Those people who lack those visceral feelings (psychopaths) behave in ways substantially different from normal people and have trouble understanding the moral language and assumptions of normal people.  So not only can they watch various parts of the human brain firing while people make moral decisions in studies but they have a good idea what emotions activity in certain areas produce and why.  Further, the pattern is fairly consistent and common, though sometimes differs in degree, between individuals suggesting that, combined with both the problems psychopaths have and studies showing similar reactions in other primates, it is an common and innate capability.

The example this article uses (http://discovermagazine.com/2004/apr/whose-life-would-you-save), talks about two moral problems with the same utilitarian equation (sacrifice 1 life for 5).  The first case is:

   magine you're at the wheel of a trolley and the brakes have failed. You're approaching a fork in the track at top speed. On the left side, five rail workers are fixing the track. On the right side, there is a single worker. If you do nothing, the trolley will bear left and kill the five workers. The only way to save five lives is to take the responsibility for changing the trolley's path by hitting a switch. Then you will kill one worker. What would you do?

The second case is:

   Now imagine that you are watching the runaway trolley from a footbridge. This time there is no fork in the track. Instead, five workers are on it, facing certain death. But you happen to be standing next to a big man. If you sneak up on him and push him off the footbridge, he will fall to his death. Because he is so big, he will stop the trolley. Do you willfully kill one man, or do you allow five people to die?

Even though they have the same utilitarian calculus, more people will approve of trading one life for five in the first situation than in the second.  Why?  Because the killing in the second example is more personal.

Later on in the article, they summarize some of the visceral elements that go into a moral decision:

   Greene suspects these regions are part of a neural network that produces the emotional instincts behind many of our moral judgments. The superior temporal sulcus may help make us aware of others who would be harmed. Mind reading lets us appreciate their suffering. The precuneus may help trigger a negative feeling—an inarticulate sense, for example, that killing someone is plain wrong.

So healthy moral judgments require an awareness of the harm we'll do to others, an empathy for any suffering we might cause, and perhaps a visceral sense that certain things are just wrong.  This is what stops us from making the utilitarian decision to slice up healthy people against their will to save dozens of other people who could survive with their organs, for example.  And it follows very common patterns across people.  It also often conflicts with what game theorists claim are ideal decisions, for reasons that are apparent, I think, if you look at the big picture.

Elements of this common morality include difficulty hurting others (strengthened by familiarity and proximity), fairness, retribution, love, and so on.

Quote from: EngineHow do you know, for instance, that killing is "evil" and not "good?"

Whether killing is good or evil depends on the context, of course.

But I think I can illustrate how you can tell pretty simply.  I'm going to list a few feelings and tell me if they seem good or bad to you:

Love
Comfort
Anger
Disgust
Satisfaction
Happiness
Discomfort
Fear

Different people will feel the same emotions and will generally assess them the same sort of value (good or bad).  Psychopaths, on the other hand, don't have that same context.  In an article I linked to in my first message here, contains the following quote:

   In Without Conscience, he quotes a psychopathic rapist explaining why he finds it hard to empathize with his victims: "They are frightened, right? But, you see, I don't really understand it. I've been frightened myself, and it wasn't unpleasant."

Good emotions and bad emotions mark good deeds and bad.  Without those emotional markers, the moral context is lost.  They psychopath is the ultimate in moral relativist since "Thou shall not kill" is equivalent to "Don't chew gum in school" to them, simply an arbitrary rule that society imposes on them.  Which brings me again, back to the point that if you want to see where dispassionate morality leads, moral relativism leads, moral indifference leads, cold utilitarianism leads, and so on, just look at psychopaths and their behavior.  You'll see what happens when the common morality that so many here doubt is kicked out and all that's left is self-interest and rational thought.

Quote from: TonyLBWell, if personal opinion is all there is, then surely that makes it important enough to discuss.

Hardly. It means that there's never anything worth discussing at all.

QuoteOut of interest:  Why wouldn't I want to discuss my best guess, even knowing that it might be personal rather than universal?  You seem to find it obvious that people wouldn't want to talk about something that's "merely" their own opinion, but I don't understand the perspective that leads you to think that.  Maybe shed a little light?

Because no true discussion would be ever possible under this circumstance. In fact, no significant communication would be possible under this situation, as there'd be no common ground reachable between anyone.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Kyle AaronBecause extremists are cowards.

I think that the point would be that there's actually a variety of levels of interaction with material.

There are people who will read the Turner Diaries, and become "true believers" in the sense that they'll agree with what it says, and yet will never take even a step toward the actual practice of what the book encourages.

Then there are others, a very tiny minority apparently, who will go another step and actually commit horrid acts, like McVeigh did.

The key being that the factor that made McVeigh kill people and all those other nutjob militiamen do nothing more than talk big in their bunkers and piss in the woods was obviously NOT the book itself. It wasn't even the ideas in the book. The former, perhaps influenced by the book (or more likely, by an existing predisposition to like the ideas in the book) are pathetic and disgusting as human beings, but they're actions do not warrant having their right to expression curtailed (much less everyone else's, on the "danger" of their evil thoughts having to be tolerated too).  And as for the McVeighs of the world, who obviously do need to be legally sanctioned if possible, it was obviously not the book's influence that provided the crucial ingredient that led him to be a cold-blooded killer.

It was something else. Thus, its something else that should be addressed.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowGeorge Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights (http://www.project21.org/VirginiaDeclaration.html) (one of the forbearers of the Bill of Rights) reads, "...it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other." and his 1788 draft of the Bill of Rights (http://www.constitution.org/gmason/amd_gmas.txt) said:

   That Religion or the Duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable Right to the free Exercise of Religion according to the Dictates of Conscience, and that no particular religious Sect or Society of Christians ought to be favored or established by Law in preference to others.

It's rather clear to me that the First Admendment was in effect only intended for Christians, or rather Christianity together with other religions acceptable to Christianity either by lack or numbers or nature of their religion (Judism for example). Thus the heavy smack down of the Mormans and polygamy (which continues to this day with some of their sects, but which I feel is likely to end given current trends before mid-21st century).


One of the interesting things I learned when digging into the Bill of Rights and the original intent behind them was that one of the debating points against them (and why there were not in the original draft, but were admendments) was that some thought that everyone understood those rights, would never act to constrain those rights, and that by putting language on them- they might cause people to error by limiting themselves only to the language used.

It's rather sad that the error ended up going the other way. Now rather then the 1st admendment standing in the way of Europe style conflicts between Christian churches, it now serves to shut down Christian expression in the public circle, including the government that was originally based upon its concepts and opening supported (it without favor to individual favors, which was it's original meaning).

Quote from: John MorrowWhat good are you doing?

By his own statements- he's doing no good because good doesn't exist.

Or rather, if he should be killed in the line of duty (as an police officer), the one killing him is doing as much good. All that's required is that the killer believe that.

Quote from: RPGPunditHardly. It means that there's never anything worth discussing at all.

I don't get this.  It seems so ... Calvinist ... like nothing human beings do on their own can possibly be worthy, unless it is due to some greater outside power acting through them.

Is this limited to just discussion, or are you saying that if there's no great objective truth than nothing is worth doing at all?

Quote from: TonyLBI don't get this.  It seems so ... Calvinist ... like nothing human beings do on their own can possibly be worthy, unless it is due to some greater outside power acting through them.

Badly phrased. "Except as it relates to some greater authority" would I think be better.

Quote from: TonyLBIs this limited to just discussion, or are you saying that if there's no great objective truth than nothing is worth doing at all?

I'll go with no, it's not.

You're walking dead with temporary use of your arms and legs. Nothing more. On the same level as ants or cows or wild dogs or even a chunk of rock. A bit of mobile dust perhaps.

If you worldview was all there was, I'd side with the Walkerists. Better dead than meaningless.

Quote from: gleichmanYou're walking dead with temporary use of your arms and legs. Nothing more. On the same level as ants or cows or wild dogs or even a chunk of rock. A bit of mobile dust perhaps.

You say that like it's a bad thing.  Okay, maybe I'm a bit of mobile dust.  Wouldn't really bother me:  I'm alive, I'm in this wondrous world, and I have a body and senses and feelings and thoughts with which to explore it.  That's an amazing gift and I intend to make the most of it, whether there's any objective import to my quest or not.

It's something in the general direction of Pascal's Wager (though not following it through to his eventual conclusions).  If there's objective truth than I did the right thing by trying to figure the world out.  If there isn't then I (at least) didn't do anything wrong, and had fun along the way.  The same philosophy works for me either way.

So telling me that I came from dust and to dust I will return ... that doesn't really faze me.  I worry that you may have gotten swept up in the emotional overtones you were trying to convey, and forgotten to make whatever actual point you had in mind.  Want to try again?

Tony, let's say a random stranger (nothing special about them) falls down in front of you and you stop to help them up.  I think we can all agree that is a "good" thing to do, particularly when you compare that with a "bad" thing to do like attacking them.  If we didn't share that common sense of good / bad people would individually react with approval, indifference, or offense at your action -- with no predictability by yourself.  You could find yourself congratulated, ignored, or attacked for your troubles.

And if there is no commonly agreed "good" and "bad" then every action you take could be met in the same way.

That's pretty stupid.  We might have differing opinions on the morality of less extreme situations (eg. What do you do if you find a $100 bill), but we all have an innate sense of good / bad.

Quote from: TonyLBSo telling me that I came from dust and to dust I will return ... that doesn't really faze me.  I worry that you may have gotten swept up in the emotional overtones you were trying to convey, and forgotten to make whatever actual point you had in mind.  Want to try again?

I was answering your question if there was any value in anything. The answer from your PoV is no.

I don't care that you think you've been given a 'gift'. From your own PoV the whole idea of a 'gift' is silly. It's nothing more than the left over remains of an objective morality that you now deny exists. You just don't have the guts it takes to let go of it.

You have said you don't matter, therefore you don't matter. How complex can that idea be to you?

Quote from: gleichmanI was answering your question if there was any value in anything. The answer from your PoV is no.

You see, Tony, what gleichman is saying is that he knows your point of view better than you do, and can tell you what everything is worth to you. He knows your position that morality is not absolute means that your personal preferences are meaningless to you, and that you shouldn't do what you enjoy, you should just sit at home in a lump like a caricature of a nihilist.

Quote from: John MorrowThe example this article uses (http://discovermagazine.com/2004/apr/whose-life-would-you-save), talks about two moral problems with the same utilitarian equation (sacrifice 1 life for 5).  The first case is:

   magine you're at the wheel of a trolley and the brakes have failed. You're approaching a fork in the track at top speed. On the left side, five rail workers are fixing the track. On the right side, there is a single worker. If you do nothing, the trolley will bear left and kill the five workers. The only way to save five lives is to take the responsibility for changing the trolley's path by hitting a switch. Then you will kill one worker. What would you do?

The second case is:

   Now imagine that you are watching the runaway trolley from a footbridge. This time there is no fork in the track. Instead, five workers are on it, facing certain death. But you happen to be standing next to a big man. If you sneak up on him and push him off the footbridge, he will fall to his death. Because he is so big, he will stop the trolley. Do you willfully kill one man, or do you allow five people to die?

Even though they have the same utilitarian calculus, more people will approve of trading one life for five in the first situation than in the second.  Why?  Because the killing in the second example is more personal.

My answer, Kirk's for Kobiashi Maru.

Bill

Quote from: TonyLBI don't get this.  It seems so ... Calvinist ... like nothing human beings do on their own can possibly be worthy, unless it is due to some greater outside power acting through them.

The point that I think you are missing is that if "personal opinion is all there is", then you have no common ground or leverage with which to convince me of anything.  It's the shared morality that we have which allows the abolitionist to convince the slave owner that slavery is wrong, lets the suffragette convince men that they should have the right to vote, and the hostage taker that they should let their hostage go.  Without any common moral ground, there are no shared or universal values upon which to make a moral appeal.  Even the appeals for liberty and against tyranny and unfair restraint here are appeals to shared morals.  If I had no interest in the liberty or rights of others, I could dismiss such arguments because they'd be irrelevant to me.

In fact, in the Slate article about Columbine (http://www.slate.com/id/2099203/) that I posted a link to earlier, contains the comment, "(The difference is so striking that Fuselier trains hostage negotiators to identify psychopaths during a standoff, and immediately reverse tactics if they think they're facing one. It's like flipping a switch between two alternate brain-mechanisms.)"  This article (http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html") from my first message talks about:

   It's also found practical applications in police-squad rooms. Soon after he delivered a keynote speech at a conference for homicide detectives and prosecuting attorneys in Seattle three years ago, Hare got a letter thanking him for helping solve a series of homicides. The police had a suspect nailed for a couple of murders, but believed he was responsible for others. They were using the usual strategy to get a confession, telling him, 'Think how much better you'll feel, think of the families left behind,' and so on. After they'd heard Hare speak they realized they were dealing with a psychopath, someone who could feel neither guilt nor sorrow. They changed their interrogation tactic to, "So you murdered a couple of prostitutes. That's minor-league compared to Bundy or Gacy." The appeal to the psychopath's grandiosity worked. He didn't just confess to his other crimes, he bragged about them.

For a normal person, "Think how much better you'll feel, think of the families left behind," may work because of shared moral values related to empathy and fairness but such an argument is useless on a person who doesn't share those values.  That the people here assume that various appeals to shared values will have some impact, and the replies that suggest they do, show this at work.

Quote from: TonyLBIs this limited to just discussion, or are you saying that if there's no great objective truth than nothing is worth doing at all?

I would argue that if there is no great objective moral truths than having a moral debate of any sort would be impossible, as in fact it generally is with psychopaths.  It reduces all moral transgressions to conventional transgressions -- that things are only wrong because someone in authority says so, and if they were to change their mind and say it was right, then it would be right.  Yet the distinction between a moral transgression and a conventional transgression is exactly one of the things that psychopaths seem to have trouble with, considering everything a sort of conventional transgression.  They describe why it's wrong to hurt someone else the same way a normal person describes why it's wrong to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk, because that's what the rules say.  So to go back to my original point in this thread, "'s as if psychopaths have convinced the world that their cold analytical perspective is normal and that the normal reaction is abnormal" by convincing the rest of the world that all morality is relative and that there are no universal rights or wrongs.

Quote from: HinterWeltMy answer, Kirk's for Kobiashi Maru.

In other words, you want to avoid the question that the test of character was designed to test by cheating.  One of the main themes of Star Trek II was that you can't always escape the hard choices.

I prefer Kirk's answer for Kodos, in The Conscience of the King.  WHen asked, "Who are you to say what harm was done?", Kirk replies, "Who do I have to be?"

Quote from: John MorrowGod or evolution.  Take your pick.  The end result is the same.

Evolution gave us the tools and desire to kill, also: does that make killing "good?" And there is a profound difference in end result between God or evolution, namely that one really would be "right." If God is real, and he wrote morality into the universe, there is one and only one true right. If God didn't write any morality into the universe, either because he's not real or he didn't feel like it at the time, then there is no universal right, only genetic tendencies, which by the way vary from person to person.

Genetic imperative does not produce absolute morality.

Quote from: John MorrowElements of this common morality include difficulty hurting others (strengthened by familiarity and proximity), fairness, retribution, love, and so on.

That is a common morality, yes. Of course, the common morality used to be killing each other with rocks; I'm not certain if that made it "right" or not. In fact, our genetic imperatives are incredibly weak when it comes to modern morality; civilization is what has made us peaceful and co-operative. [Interestingly, if you take some element of civilization away - say, take power from a city - the populace is only about 24-96 hours away from barbarism, looting, killing, hoarding, and all sorts of antisocial behaviors.]

We do have behaviors encoded into our brains; those behaviors are not all peace, sweetness, and light. Civilization - artificial selection, as it were - has shown co-operation produces a more peaceful, profitable society, but that doesn't make peace or profit "right," no matter how much you or I might prefer it.

Quote from: John MorrowGood emotions and bad emotions mark good deeds and bad.

If that's not the most incredibly ultimate statement of the subjectivity of morality, I'm not certain what might be.

It's fascinating, this division of everyone into two groups: normal people, who apparently all agree on which things are good and bad, and psychopaths, whose emotion responses are inverted or absent. You don't really think every person has the same emotional responses to deeds, do you?

Quote from: John MorrowThey psychopath is the ultimate in moral relativist since "Thou shall not kill" is equivalent to "Don't chew gum in school" to them, simply an arbitrary rule that society imposes on them.  Which brings me again, back to the point that if you want to see where dispassionate morality leads, moral relativism leads, moral indifference leads, cold utilitarianism leads, and so on, just look at psychopaths and their behavior.

Logical fallacy. Simply because psychopaths share a common element with moral relativists doesn't mean moral relativism will lead to psychopathic behavior.

Quote from: John MorrowYou'll see what happens when the common morality that so many here doubt is kicked out and all that's left is self-interest and rational thought.

Oh, how I hope so! Oh, how I hope I can live in a community, nation, or world, where all moral decisions are based on self-interest and rational thought!

If natural selection - or the artificial selection of civilization - truly is the best way to live together, isn't it what rationality and self-interest will produce anyway? It seems to me most of the problems I see around me on a daily basis aren't actually the depraved actions of psychopaths or moral relativists - Hume and Spinoza made it through their entire lives without, like, raping puppies or anything - but through the irrational actions of people with absolute moralities which they consistently defy! Their emotional reactions spur them to reject the moralities they declare, giving lie to the idea that human emotion somehow determines morality in a meaningful way.

No, I'll take the nation of people who behave rationally, who base their decisions on rational thought, over today's jumble of absolute moralities. Then again, I'm not convinced a world of moral relativists would truly be one full of rational thought; humans are humans, after all, and not everyone can manage, say, emotional isolation.

Quote from: EngineYou see, Tony, what gleichman is saying is that he knows your point of view better than you do, and can tell you what everything is worth to you. He knows your position that morality is not absolute means that your personal preferences are meaningless to you, and that you shouldn't do what you enjoy, you should just sit at home in a lump like a caricature of a nihilist.

No, his personal preferences are meaningless to me and everyone else. They are by defintion whatever he says they are to himself.

Well, meaningless that is except as they interfere with the personal preferences of others. If they share the same world view they can censor him, kill him, and kill all his offspring to make sure those preferences don't interfere again- and they would be as justified in doing so as he was in having such preferences in the first place.

That world view is the natural outgrowth of Tony's and Paul's worldview. It was enacted by such as Stalin and Mao to wonderful effect.

When everyone is dogfood, one shouldn't be surpised when they are eaten by the biggest dog.

Quote from: Engine[Interestingly, if you take some element of civilization away - say, take power from a city - the populace is only about 24-96 hours away from barbarism, looting, killing, hoarding, and all sorts of antisocial behaviors.]

Some of the populace.  Others step up.

Quote from: gleichmanI was answering your question if there was any value in anything. The answer from your PoV is no.

Brian, you're fundamentally not smart enough to figure out what the answer from my PoV is.  I strongly suggest that you stick to your own PoV.

Quote from: gleichmanYou have said you don't matter, therefore you don't matter. How complex can that idea be to you?

I've said I may not matter to the universe.  That wouldn't mean I can't matter to myself.  It's actually not a very complex idea, I agree, but you seem determined to get it wrong anyway.

Quote from: StuartTony, let's say a random stranger (nothing special about them) falls down in front of you and you stop to help them up.  I think we can all agree that is a "good" thing to do, particularly when you compare that with a "bad" thing to do like attacking them.  If we didn't share that common sense of good / bad people would individually react with approval, indifference, or offense at your action -- with no predictability by yourself.  You could find yourself congratulated, ignored, or attacked for your troubles.

And if there is no commonly agreed "good" and "bad" then every action you take could be met in the same way.

That's pretty stupid.  We might have differing opinions on the morality of less extreme situations (eg. What do you do if you find a $100 bill), but we all have an innate sense of good / bad.

I can't speak for Tony but for my part I disagree with the "Universal" part. What you and others seem to be trying to say are universal are actually communal and human creations to me. "All men are created equal" is a product of humanity. Without humans there would be no context. Further, it is a relatively modern view. Morality is a product of the community and its standards.

However, that is entirely my opinion and entirely subjective, but that is my point also, how you view morality is just as important as the morals you hold. Do you believe your morals apply to you first and foremost, above having others obey them? Or are they "Universal" and all must obey and be judged by them? Now, perhaps the counter argument would be "They are universal as in applying to all" but this is less practical because morals are the guideposts that tell us what is acceptable in society. If this is the case then we are back to "My Universal Morals judge and must be obeyed by all".

But then, perhaps I am getting hung up on the word "Universal". I take this to mean that your morals apply to every thing, this planet, solar system and the entire universe. In this manner, your moral code, should it be that polygamy is Evil, would mean that everywhere it should be Evil and those who engage in polygamy are Evil and should be punished.

Personally, I think more people should worry a bit more about their own moral compass and less about telling others what they should do.

Bill

Quote from: John MorrowThe point that I think you are missing is that if "personal opinion is all there is", then you have no common ground or leverage with which to convince me of anything.

What?  No.  That's ... I genuinely don't even understand how that's supposed to make sense.  Why would lack of an objective common ground make it impossible to have a subjective common ground?  The common ground is whatever commonalities we actually have as people.  Maybe those commonalities arise from the Universal Moral Principles, maybe they just arise because they're common ways of making meaning out of the events of life.  Could be either, and I don't see that it makes any great difference in practice.

If we both agree that (say) human life has value does it matter to our discussion whether the universe objectively agrees with us as well?

Quote from: John MorrowThe point that I think you are missing is that if "personal opinion is all there is", then you have no common ground or leverage with which to convince me of anything.

Why, of course there is: personal preference. Convincing you that you would be happier some other way, believing some other thing. Personal preference isn't some disempowering thing that makes life unworth living, conversations unworth having.

Your response of "evolution" or "genetics" as the ultimate morality means indeed that personal preference is the source of all morality [although I would add to genetics the experiences of the individual, as well].

Quote from: John MorrowIf I had no interest in the liberty or rights of others, I could dismiss such arguments because they'd be irrelevant to me.

Yes, you could. But moral relativism doesn't mean you suddenly have no interest in the liberty or rights of others, see.

Quote from: StuartSome of the populace.  Others step up.

A ratio which worsens as time passes. I mean, really, is it a big wonder to people that without civilization, we act uncivilized?

Quote from: EngineA ratio which worsens as time passes. I mean, really, is it a big wonder to people that without civilization, we act uncivilized?

And of course no one should attempt to link that worsening ratio to the rise of moral relativism now should we? That would be exploring possible links between thinking like a psychopath and behaving like one...

Quote from: TonyLBI've said I may not matter to the universe.  That wouldn't mean I can't matter to myself.

You fail to understand me.

You don't matter to *me*, or anyone for that matter besides yourself unless they agree to allow you to matter. There's less reason to agree then then is to disagree.

So the deaths of millions to suit my own personal perferences is as justified as anything else. Stalin is morally equal to yourself, and IMO far more honest, rational, successful if it comes down to it.

Quote from: John MorrowThe reality is, though, that even those societies that killed large numbers of babies exhibited behavior surrounding the killing suggesting that it was a decision that still troubled the people who did it, whether it we're talking about the cemetery of babies sacrificed at Carthage, the Spartans not leaving the decision of whether a child was worthy to live up to it's mother, the dead babies found hidden in the sewers of Ashkelon, Tacitus commenting that the Germans didn't kill their children like his fellow Romans, exposure instead of killing so that the parents could believe that maybe someone would take the baby in and let it live, and overall, the fact that infanticide generally happens very close to birth to avoid the parents getting any attachment to the child. Similarly, despite the fact that slavery was legal in the United States, there was no shortage of debate about it's morality all along and even quote a few Southern slave owners acknowledged it's immorality, in part or in whole.  Don't confuse what a society does with what the people think is Good and what it doesn't do with what the people think is Evil.  It's not that clear cut.

John, when did I suggest that mothers wouldn't still want to keep their babies?  When did I suggest that no member of a society would ever disagree with the prevailing thoughts?  

I didn't mention it, not because I didn't think of it, but because it is a sideshow.  The Spartan society believed it was Right and Good to expose malformed children at birth.  By that standard, a mother wishing to keep her child was selfish and wrong. Understandably wrong, but still wrong.

Now, the Spartans had their reasons, and arguably much better ones than the guys that tossed healthy babies into fires to ensure a good crop that year.  A malformed child could not fight, important in a militant society with lots of enemies, and was a drain on the presumptively scarce resources of the community.  Greece is not terribly fertile as I understand it.  Now it is certain that other cultures contemporary and even predating the Spartans kept even their horrifically maleformed children (I am reminded of a stone age village excavated from... Florida?... where they were shocked to find an adult skeleton showing signs of crippling Spinal Bifida. Medical experts examaning the remains concluded that the poor bastard would have been unable to even feed himself properly, and lived in extreme pain, yet his people spent a great deal of energy and time caring for him his entire life.).

The methods chosen were, in all likelihood, used because they did reduce the strain on the mothers and families. So? What's wrong with that?  Our society demands I pay taxes, yet amazingly enough those taxes are removed from my paycheck every month with no effort from me required.  They require that I make myself available for Jury Duty, but they don't insist I pop into the court house every week or so to see if my name came up.  I know those are slightly facile and weak compared to killing babies but they do illustrate how societies can work to limit the strain of demands on individuals.  What I don't think is that we have the right to tell the ancient Spartans that they were Objectively Wrong.  It is wrong for us, for them it was right.  Maybe the reasons it was right are valid ones (survival based, even eugenics based). Maybe it had become tradition after it had been valid (food was no longer in short supply due to helot slaves).

I think we can show certain behaviors are, at least on a human level, rather than limited to a purely societal one, better than others.  Baby killing has become an exception rather than a rule because we understand that physical deformity is not a curse from teh Gods, because deformed people can still lead meaningful, happy lives and, yes, can contribute to society as a whole (Stephen Hawking...).  We can show how Slavery, in its various forms, is more harmful to a society in the long run, in addition to being incredibly unpleasant and distasteful to a wide number of people, even those benefitting from it.  I think its important, however, not to get too attached to the idea that all our values are that 'good'. At one time, after all, Slavery was viewed as Good, even if there was dissent.  Then too we have a national debate about morality in this country, about abortion. Either side may prove right in the long run.   I, for one, have been inclined to err on the side of personal freedom more than cultural moral values, but can certainly see, and agree, that we may have gotten selfish and gone too far into 'personal freedom' into the real of depravity. Not because I think depravity, at least on the level I see today, is wrong; but because the selfishness it shows on a societal level seems to be destroying us (society) slowly.  

But if I take a step back, I wonder if I'll see it in a different light. Maybe I'm just becoming a fuddy duddy who is upset that our culture has moved beyond my familiarity level.  Maybe I don't see it yet. The fact that I'm willing to entertain that thought apparently puts me at odd with you and gliechman, even as my thoughts that our personal freedom crusade has gone to far puts me at odd with the Engines and Walkerists of the world.

Well there are other reasons I'm at odds with you politically and the lefties around here as well....:p

Quote from: John MorrowIn other words, you want to avoid the question that the test of character was designed to test by cheating.  One of the main themes of Star Trek II was that you can't always escape the hard choices.

I prefer Kirk's answer for Kodos, in The Conscience of the King.  WHen asked, "Who are you to say what harm was done?", Kirk replies, "Who do I have to be?"

That is one way, another would be to say, find another solution. Ridiculous hypotheticals are seldom useful. For instance, fire off a warning. How about aim for the fork and derail the train. If it is only you, then you can jump and take your chances. My point was that finding alternate solutions is often the best answer to a real world situation.

Bill

Quote from: gleichmanAnd of course no one should attempt to link that worsening ratio to the rise of moral relativism now should we?

Are you saying that the longer people in urban centers go without electricity, the more moral relativists there are among them? That's an assertion I'd need to see some reasoning on.

Quote from: gleichmanYou don't matter to *me*, or anyone for that matter besides yourself unless they agree to allow you to matter.

Naturally.

Quote from: gleichmanThere's less reason to agree then then is to disagree.

Well, that's debateable ... I personally disagree, based (in large part) on my personal belief that human relationships have value.  But if you don't share that belief then we might naturally reach different conclusions.

Quote from: gleichmanSo the deaths of millions to suit my own personal perferences is as justified as anything else. Stalin is morally equal to yourself, and IMO far more honest, rational, successful if it comes down to it.

Again, all debateable.  Given that I haven't killed anyone, or organized genocide, I suspect that you're deriving your position from some way of thinking that's really, really divergent from my own.  But go ahead ... why, in your opinion, am I just as bad as Stalin?

Quote from: gleichmanYou don't matter to *me*, or anyone for that matter besides yourself unless they agree to allow you to matter. There's less reason to agree then then is to disagree.

How about survival? I like survival. It's not right in any objective way, but I like it, so why not?

Quote from: HinterWeltI can't speak for Tony but for my part I disagree with the "Universal" part. What you and others seem to be trying to say are universal are actually communal and human creations to me. "All men are created equal" is a product of humanity. Without humans there would be no context. Further, it is a relatively modern view. Morality is a product of the community and its standards.

Whether you see things as:

God --> Morality
God --> Humans --> Morality
God --> Evolution --> Humans --> Morality
Evolution --> Humans -- > Morality
Humans --> Morality
Humans --> Our Society --> Morality
etc.

It's all really the same, isn't it?  I mean, other than arguing about how we got to where we are.  That's my perspective anyway.  Whether you think Helping = Good, Cruelty = Bad is a human invention, a product of evolution, or something divinely created... it doesn't matter so much to me.  I think it's up to you to figure out your own beliefs.  What matters is that we all have a common basis for communicating and interacting with one another.  If you think Cruelty = Good, Helping = Bad... that's where you're out of step with that "Universal" human truth... whatever that means, and wherever it came from.

Quote from: HinterWeltBut then, perhaps I am getting hung up on the word "Universal". I take this to mean that your morals apply to every thing, this planet, solar system and the entire universe. In this manner, your moral code, should it be that polygamy is Evil, would mean that everywhere it should be Evil and those who engage in polygamy are Evil and should be punished.

I see Good and Evil as poles on a spectrum.  In between there are things that are "good" or "bad" but not necessarily "evil".  It's "bad" not to wait your turn in line, have a temper tantrum when the teacher says play time is over, or bite your friends at recess.  It's not "Evil" though. :)

It also blends morality into social norms and conventions that are necessary for us all to live together peacefully.  Living peacefully is "good".  Walking around with no pants on is not "evil" or necessarily "bad" but it's something you don't do so that society can function and we can all live peacefully together.

Quote from: HinterWeltPersonally, I think more people should worry a bit more about their own moral compass and less about telling others what they should do

I'm less concerned with what other people believe and more concerned with their actions as they affect myself, family, and community.  Tying this back to the start of the thread, you can discuss whatever you want in private.  That's your concern.  However, I don't want myself, family, or community to be exposed to things they didn't choose to be, in a public space when those things are prohibited by the laws we've all agreed to abide by in order to peacefully co-exist.  Nor do I wish the production of those materials to harm or encourage the harm of myself, family, and community -- either physically, or by other means (eg. disturbing photos don't affect you physically -- but they can still affect you).

Quote from: EngineA ratio which worsens as time passes. I mean, really, is it a big wonder to people that without civilization, we act uncivilized?

I agree.  Which is why you and I and everyone else here need to be among the ones who step up. :)

Quote from: EngineEvolution gave us the tools and desire to kill, also: does that make killing "good?"

Talk of "killing" without context is meaningless, because normal people care about the context.  Normal people won't kill their friends of a slice of pizza but it's telling that psychopaths sometimes will.  We have the capacity to kill and it's tempered by a moral understanding that we shouldn't.

Quote from: EngineAnd there is a profound difference in end result between God or evolution, namely that one really would be "right." If God is real, and he wrote morality into the universe, there is one and only one true right. If God didn't write any morality into the universe, either because he's not real or he didn't feel like it at the time, then there is no universal right, only genetic tendencies, which by the way vary from person to person.

I think that in practice, the distinction is irrelevant.

Quote from: EngineGenetic imperative does not produce absolute morality.

What's the practical difference between absolute morality and common morality?  The main distinction that people seem to make is between objective morality and subjective morality.  Both absolute morality and common morality are forms of objective morality.

Quote from: EngineThat is a common morality, yes. Of course, the common morality used to be killing each other with rocks; I'm not certain if that made it "right" or not.

That was never the common morality and have also pointed out that what people actually do does not always correspond to what they think is right or wrong individually or even collectively.

Quote from: EngineIn fact, our genetic imperatives are incredibly weak when it comes to modern morality; civilization is what has made us peaceful and co-operative.

The distinction between psychopaths and non-psychopaths and the over-representation of psychopaths among certain classes of criminals suggests otherwise.

Quote from: Engine[Interestingly, if you take some element of civilization away - say, take power from a city - the populace is only about 24-96 hours away from barbarism, looting, killing, hoarding, and all sorts of antisocial behaviors.]

Again, you are confusing what people do with what they think is right and wrong and you are making assumptions about how people behave that I think are incorrect.  That psychopaths make up some percentage of the population and that there are certain social contexts in which group behavior can suppress a person's moral sense (e.g., "boy gangs") mean that yes you'll have opportunistic violence and murder during chaotic situations, but the vast majority of people aren't going to run amok and abandon all morality and many of those who do bad things for utilitarian reasons may feel bad about doing it and regret it afterward.  If people's behavior was always in harmony with their morality, people wouldn't have the regrets that they normally do.

Quote from: EngineWe do have behaviors encoded into our brains; those behaviors are not all peace, sweetness, and light. Civilization - artificial selection, as it were - has shown co-operation produces a more peaceful, profitable society, but that doesn't make peace or profit "right," no matter how much you or I might prefer it.

I'm not talking about behaviors but the way we morally interpret them.  In fact, many if not most people have behaviors encoded into their brain that they fight because they know they are wrong.  I never claimed it was all peace, sweetness, and light, but without the mitigation of a moral conscience, things become a lot darker.  This isn't idle speculation on my part.  We can see what happens when you have a highly intelligent and rational human being without a conscience.  They exist.  And they do the most awful things imaginable to other people without regret.

Quote from: EngineIt's fascinating, this division of everyone into two groups: normal people, who apparently all agree on which things are good and bad, and psychopaths, whose emotion responses are inverted or absent. You don't really think every person has the same emotional responses to deeds, do you?

Exactly the same?  No.  But largely the same?  Yes.  In fact, you can see the same emotional and moral responses in monkeys for certain moral tests.

Quote from: EngineLogical fallacy. Simply because psychopaths share a common element with moral relativists doesn't mean moral relativism will lead to psychopathic behavior.

Of course not, because most people who believe in moral relativism are not psychopaths and share in the common morality with others, even if they don't want to admit it.  They behave morally even if they don't recognize why they are doing it.

But the psychopath illustrates what a human being who actually lives true moral relativism is capable of behaving like without any shared morality to hold them back.  And the results are generally not very pleasant.  In other words, a psychopath is the living embodiment of what moral relativism actually looks like in practice.  And this is why I say that moral relativism seems as if psychopaths have convinced others that their perspective is normal.

Quote from: EngineOh, how I hope so! Oh, how I hope I can live in a community, nation, or world, where all moral decisions are based on self-interest and rational thought!

Then I don't think you really understand what that would mean.  

Quote from: EngineIf natural selection - or the artificial selection of civilization - truly is the best way to live together, isn't it what rationality and self-interest will produce anyway?

Without a common moral core, no.  Psychopaths behave out of rationality and self-interest and that's not the sort of behavior that they generally exhibit.

Quote from: EngineIt seems to me most of the problems I see around me on a daily basis aren't actually the depraved actions of psychopaths or moral relativists - Hume and Spinoza made it through their entire lives without, like, raping puppies or anything - but through the irrational actions of people with absolute moralities which they consistently defy! Their emotional reactions spur them to reject the moralities they declare, giving lie to the idea that human emotion somehow determines morality in a meaningful way.

You are confusing presentation with belief.  Hume and Spinoza may have argued for moral relativism but unless they were psychopaths, they were bound by conventional moral values even if they couldn't see them as such.  Similarly, just because a person preaches absolute morality, does not mean that they believe what they are saying.  Do you have any specific examples?

Quote from: EngineNo, I'll take the nation of people who behave rationally, who base their decisions on rational thought, over today's jumble of absolute moralities. Then again, I'm not convinced a world of moral relativists would truly be one full of rational thought; humans are humans, after all, and not everyone can manage, say, emotional isolation.

Psychopaths manage emotional isolation on moral issues just fine.  That works out real well for everyone, doesn't it?

Quote from: StuartSome of the populace.  Others step up.

Correct, and the news coverage often distorts that.  For example, during the LA Riots the news widely reported the attacks at the corner of Florence and Normandie Avenue by a gang of young men but what they didn't often report was the locals who came out to help and save their victims.  It's more interesting showing looters running through the stores than it is to show the people who stay home and don't loot.

Quote from: John MorrowCorrect, and the news coverage often distorts that.  For example, during the LA Riots the news widely reported the attacks at the corner of Florence and Normandie Avenue by a gang of young men but what they didn't often report was the locals who came out to help and save their victims.  It's more interesting showing looters running through the stores than it is to show the people who stay home and don't loot.

Related to that is this interesting observation on how the media reports things like "looting":

Black people loot, white people find? (http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/30/black-people-loot-wh.html)
(http://www.boingboing.net/images/finding-looting.jpg)

Quote from: BoingBoing

Flickr user dustin3000 uploads two similar news photos that show flood victims in New Orleans wading in chest-deep water. In each, a person appears to be dragging a bag or box or two of food or beverages.

The images were shot by different photographers, and captioned by different photo wire services. The Associated Press caption accompanying the image with a black person says he's just finished "looting" a grocery store. The AFP/Getty Images caption describes lighter skinned people "finding" bread and soda from a grocery store. No stores are open to sell these goods.

Quote from: HinterWeltThat is one way, another would be to say, find another solution. Ridiculous hypotheticals are seldom useful. For instance, fire off a warning. How about aim for the fork and derail the train. If it is only you, then you can jump and take your chances. My point was that finding alternate solutions is often the best answer to a real world situation.

I agree that looking for alternatives is a good way to deal with such situations in the real world if time permits, but I don't agree that the hypotheticals are either ridiculous or not useful.  They've helped reveal a great deal about how humans make moral decisions by having people made those decisions while their brains are being scanned.  What's more useless, in my experience, is refusing to play along and answer the question.

Quote from: StuartWhether you see things as:

God --> Morality
God --> Humans --> Morality
God --> Evolution --> Humans --> Morality
Evolution --> Humans -- > Morality
Humans --> Morality
Humans --> Our Society --> Morality
etc.

It's all really the same, isn't it?  I mean, other than arguing about how we got to where we are.  That's my perspective anyway.  Whether you think Helping = Good, Cruelty = Bad is a human invention, a product of evolution, or something divinely created... it doesn't matter so much to me.  I think it's up to you to figure out your own beliefs.  What matters is that we all have a common basis for communicating and interacting with one another.  If you think Cruelty = Good, Helping = Bad... that's where you're out of step with that "Universal" human truth... whatever that means, and wherever it came from.

Well, no, see I believe it is not the same. For centuries Priests and Kings have interpreted the Will of God and enforced their will via "Good as God would have it". This is a form of "Universal" code of morality. It was their means of doing so. It included beneficial and items I agree with such as not killing or stealing and others I do not like revering only one god and keeping one day out of the week for honoring him.

If I had to pick, I would say I personally believe in many layers of morality. First is your personal one. You may hold that keeping the change when a teller over pays you is acceptable.

I also believe that what a lot of folks are talking about in this thread is Communal Morality. This has several layers. Your neighbors may think keeping the change is right, laugh and say good show. Society may say it is wrong and stealing. You local community may think it is wrong but the fault of the teller and not your responsibility.

A trivial matter to be sure with out serious permanent damage to any party. Murder is more permanent and lasting but even here you have variation on the personal to societal levels. Personally, someone may be appalled and disgusted by murder. A society is much more discriminating. Killing for war is perfectly acceptable. Killing for criminal punishment is debatable. Killing for personal defense acceptable under certain very specific circumstances. Killing for vengeance...well, mostly immoral.

But I digress. My point is that the source often dictates the nature of the moral code and system of enforcement. If I think that killing is wrong from a personal morals stance and you believe it is wrong because God told you, we will most likely not kill each other. However, if God then tells you to kill me, you will most likely do it (say stoning for adultery). Me, I will still hold my stance that killing is wrong.

So, for me, it is very important to know why a person holds his morals.

Quote from: StuartI see Good and Evil as poles on a spectrum.  In between there are things that are "good" or "bad" but not necessarily "evil".  It's "bad" not to wait your turn in line, have a temper tantrum when the teacher says play time is over, or bite your friends at recess.  It's not "Evil" though. :)

See, but this relates to the source as well. Your range of Good to Evil and where certain acts fall on it is based on your source...your training. Where did you learn you should not hurt others? Probably your parents, interaction with friends, maybe even Church. Your community helped form your morality. Look at children when they play. Some will be friendly and laughing. Some will be sulky loaners. Most all of them will use violence in some way and to some extent to get their way. Sometimes they will be violent just to make themselves feel better. I am not talking about even 5 year olds but 2-3 year olds. You instill morality and what is Good and Evil in them as musch as the community and society.

Quote from: StuartIt also blends morality into social norms and conventions that are necessary for us all to live together peacefully.  Living peacefully is "good".  Walking around with no pants on is not "evil" or necessarily "bad" but it's something you don't do so that society can function and we can all live peacefully together.

I would say that strays out of morality really, but that could just me picking nits.

Quote from: StuartI'm less concerned with what other people believe and more concerned with their actions as they affect myself, family, and community.  Tying this back to the start of the thread, you can discuss whatever you want in private.  That's your concern.  However, I don't want myself, family, or community to be exposed to things they didn't choose to be, in a public space when those things are prohibited by the laws we've all agreed to abide by in order to peacefully co-exist.  Nor do I wish the production of those materials to harm or encourage the harm of myself, family, and community -- either physically, or by other means (eg. disturbing photos don't affect you physically -- but they can still affect you).

And this is all I was saying to be honest. I could care less what you "think" as long as we abide by the communal morality. That said, I still think people would be better served if they took a long hard look at why they hold the morals they do and worry about their own behavior. In doing so, their actions will be true to their self.

As to shared space, well, I do not know where you live but here I find very little I cannot choose to expose or not expose my family to. I value choice and I can appreciate if your self or family were forced to endure any media you would rather avoid. I take it, when I encounter it, to educate Theo on my moral values, communal moral values and societal ones. Still, I appreciate it might be unpleasant to some.

Bill

Quote from: EngineWhy, of course there is: personal preference. Convincing you that you would be happier some other way, believing some other thing. Personal preference isn't some disempowering thing that makes life unworth living, conversations unworth having.

Go back and scan over this entire thread.  Are people appealing to each other on the basis of personal preference or on the basis of shared values and emotions?  (See Serious Paul's comment about this discussion being oration rather than a debate.)

Quote from: EngineYour response of "evolution" or "genetics" as the ultimate morality means indeed that personal preference is the source of all morality [although I would add to genetics the experiences of the individual, as well].

When something is shared, it's no longer merely a personal preference.

Quote from: EngineYes, you could. But moral relativism doesn't mean you suddenly have no interest in the liberty or rights of others, see.

A belief in moral relativism doesn't mean that a person has no interest in the liberty and rights of others because most moral relativists, unless they are psychopaths, have a core moral foundation that values those things, even if they attribute their interest in those things to their culture or some utilitarian reasoning.  But when you truly detach a person from the grounding of that common morality and they truly behave in a morally relativist way, which is exactly what we see in psychopaths, then people do in fact suddenly have no interest in the liberty or rights of others.

That's why a psychopath will say things like, "[M]y mother, the most beautiful person in the world. She was strong, she worked hard to take care of four kids. A beautiful person. I started stealing her jewellery when I was in the fifth grade. You know, I never really knew the bitch -- we went our separate ways."

Does this sound like a person who has an interest in the liberty and rights of others if they can say that about their own mother who worked hard to take care of him?  Where is the fairness?  The interest in her welfare?  The reciprocal return of affection?  Nowhere to be found without a moral conscience.  It's not like what I'm talking about is hypothetical.  These people really exist.  And when you remove the emotional moral underpinnings leaving bare intellect and self-interest, we can see what happens.  It doesn't match the sort of behavior you want to imagine.

Or how about Columbine killer Eric Harris writing in his journal, after writing to the owner of a van he had robbed, "I understand now how you feel and I understand what this did to you.":

   Isn't America supposed to be the land of the free? How come, if I'm free, I can't deprive a stupid f---ing dumbshit from his possessions if he leaves them sitting in the front seat of his f---ing van out in plain sight and in the middle of f---ing nowhere on a Frif---ingday night. NATURAL SELECTION. F---er should be shot.

The perfect moral relativist acting out of self-interest with absolutely no interest in the liberty or rights of others.

Quote from: John MorrowI agree that looking for alternatives is a good way to deal with such situations in the real world if time permits, but I don't agree that the hypotheticals are either ridiculous or not useful.  They've helped reveal a great deal about how humans make moral decisions by having people made those decisions while their brains are being scanned.  What's more useless, in my experience, is refusing to play along and answer the question.

O.k. I would aim for the fork. I have steering capabilities right? I aim straight for the fork. It may fail but I will have tried for a solution that is best.

In the foot bridge, I would jump myself to take control of the trolley which we have determined has steering. Alternatively, I would shout a warning. I would not push a man to his death because I am too incompentent to think of another solution.

In general, in any of these situations, I would look for the solution that puts myself at risk or minimizes human loss. I find taking the action of killing another human to work against MY PERSONAL MORAL CODE, not some universal Good/Evil dichotomy. The situations you describe are fundamentally different in that one is in a position of participation and one is in a position of observation. Both do not require action, only one.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltAs to shared space, well, I do not know where you live but here I find very little I cannot choose to expose or not expose my family to.

TV (including commercials you didn't choose to watch), Billboards, Magazine covers in grocery store checkouts, Movies that didn't give you adequate heads-up about their content (yeah thanks a lot Pan's Labyrinth... jackass), online advertising (I'm looking for Flash games for my kids -- why are their soft-core porn ads? thanks for that :-/), Posters in the mall (La Senza / Victoria's Secret), TVs in restaurants, stores and gas stations...

You really can't choose to disconnect yourself from popular culture and the media very easily -- especially if you live in an urban or sub-urban area.

Quote from: John MorrowWe have the capacity to kill and it's tempered by a moral understanding that we shouldn't.

A moral understanding which varies constantly throughout the ages, and between differing cultures, suggesting there is no universal human morality, but only morality which is the product of genetic imperative and human experience.

Quote from: John MorrowBoth absolute morality and common morality are forms of objective morality.

Then we're definitely using the terms very differently! Why don't you define your usage of both terms, and I will adhere to your definitions.

Quote from: John Morrow[Killing people with rocks] was never the common morality...

Again, perhaps we mean something very different by "common morality," but, uh, it's been considered A-OK by huge swathes of the populace to kill anyone who wasn't a member of your own family/tribe/nation/caste at various times in history. Before civilization...well, no one talked much about morality, I don't suppose, and if they did, the bastards didn't write it down.

Quote from: John MorrowThe distinction between psychopaths and non-psychopaths and the over-representation of psychopaths among certain classes of criminals suggests otherwise.

I would expect, after 10,000 years of artificial selection, that the psychopaths would be under-represented, most certainly. That does not indicate that their responses are not genetic imperative, only that they've been selected out. Have you noticed that, for the last 10,000 years, we've gotten less and less tolerant of, say, killing people?

Are you a student of history, out of curiosity? You seem very well-read, but it's sometimes a mistake to assume.

Quote from: John MorrowAgain, you are confusing what people do with what they think is right and wrong and you are making assumptions about how people behave that I think are incorrect.

It's difficult for me to understand how this works. People have some morality burned into them, based on their emotional responses, but sometimes their emotional responses cause them to act against their morality? Look, I'm no great student of human behavior, but I don't understand how morality can be completely internal, and still be absolute when it changes all the time.

Quote from: John MorrowI'm not talking about behaviors but the way we morally interpret them.  In fact, many if not most people have behaviors encoded into their brain that they fight because they know they are wrong.

And you believe the fight is between two emotional responses, and that whatever is "good" wins? I believe these warring tendencies are generally between our biological responses and our civilized upbringing. When someone cuts me off in traffic, I may want to punch them in the nose, but a life of being told not to punch people in the nose for cutting me off in traffic restrains me. I don't know how we'd go about determining the relative likelihood of these two possibilities, either, sadly.

Quote from: John MorrowI never claimed it was all peace, sweetness, and light, but without the mitigation of a moral conscience, things become a lot darker.

This is a good time to reach back a bit. You believe this moral conscience is genetic, while I believe it's mostly based on experience post-birth, but we're both agreeing, then, that this morality isn't burned into the universe, right? It's not absolute, or universal, it's just the morality which natural and/or artificial selection has produced in us, correct? We may disagree on the terminology, and disagree on the relative valuation of natural versus artificial selection, but we both agree that morality doesn't pre-date humanity, correct?

Quote from: John MorrowWe can see what happens when you have a highly intelligent and rational human being without a conscience.  They exist.  And they do the most awful things imaginable to other people without regret.

So do stupid people with consciences. And many highly intelligent and rational human beings without consciences also do all sorts of nice things, so I don't think we can reasonably draw a line between "lack of conscience" and "awful things."

Quote from: John MorrowThen I don't think you really understand what [liv(ing) in a community, nation, or world, where all moral decisions are based on self-interest and rational thought] would mean.

No, I don't think you really understand what it would be like. So nyah.

Quote from: John MorrowPsychopaths behave out of rationality and self-interest and that's not the sort of behavior that they generally exhibit.

This is a characterization of psychopaths I generally don't hear: that they act out of self-interest. You're a student of Hare, so perhaps you could tell me how it's in a psychopath's rational best interest to be impulsive and irresponsible, to lack impulse control? I've always felt psychopathy goes beyond enlightened self-interest and moves into the realm of the destructively self-absorbed. Actually, I thought that was rather the point. You're trying to represent psychopaths as - and I'm not making this up - "rational." And that's just not so, if we're using the Hare definition.

Quote from: John MorrowYou are confusing presentation with belief.  Hume and Spinoza may have argued for moral relativism but unless they were psychopaths, they were bound by conventional moral values even if they couldn't see them as such.

Could they not have chosen to obey moral values because doing so was in their best interest, or just because it felt good? I feel - again - like we're saying the same things, but using different words for them. I think part of it is that you believe a human-created moral structure is objective or absolute.

Quote from: John MorrowSimilarly, just because a person preaches absolute morality, does not mean that they believe what they are saying.  Do you have any specific examples?

Every time a Christian acts out of anger? People betray their beliefs every day; I don't think it's that they don't hold those beliefs.

Quote from: John MorrowPsychopaths manage emotional isolation on moral issues just fine.  That works out real well for everyone, doesn't it?

And again, if A leads to C, and A has some things in common with B, that does not mean necessarily that B leads to C. I cannot state this in simpler terms. Please stop using this fallacy. Please.

Quote from: John MorrowGo back and scan over this entire thread.  Are people appealing to each other on the basis of personal preference or on the basis of shared values and emotions?

I'll bite: shared values and emotions. Now: so?

Quote from: John MorrowWhen something is shared, it's no longer merely a personal preference.

Perhaps this, too, is semantic: if I like BMWs, I consider that my personal preference even if someone else also likes BMWs. I also would not believe that because most people like BMWs, they're good or right in any meaningful way. We just like them, and for some very good reasons, but that liking doesn't imply a moral stance on BMWs.

Quote from: John MorrowA belief in moral relativism doesn't mean that a person has no interest in the liberty and rights of others because most moral relativists, unless they are psychopaths, have a core moral foundation that values those things, even if they attribute their interest in those things to their culture or some utilitarian reasoning....

[A psychopath is] the perfect moral relativist acting out of self-interest with absolutely no interest in the liberty or rights of others.

So, to review, a belief in moral relativism doesn't mean someone doesn't care about the rights of others, but the perfect moral relativist doesn't care about the rights of others. Seriously, seriously, stop with the equation of moral relativism and psychopathy; they share common elements, I agree, and those common elements might be worth consideration, but A does not equal B.

Quote from: StuartTV (including commercials you didn't choose to watch), Billboards, Magazine covers in grocery store checkouts, Movies that didn't give you adequate heads-up about their content (yeah thanks a lot Pan's Labyrinth... jackass), online advertising (I'm looking for Flash games for my kids -- why are their soft-core porn ads? thanks for that :-/), Posters in the mall (La Senza / Victoria's Secret), TVs in restaurants, stores and gas stations...

You forgot radio (which generally don't include any sort of parental lockout system) and the people cruising around in SUVs with entertainment systems watching hard core pornography clearly visible to the families driving behind and next to them.

Quote from: EngineAre you saying that the longer people in urban centers go without electricity, the more moral relativists there are among them? That's an assertion I'd need to see some reasoning on.

Ah, your "as time goes on" was meant to indicate the length of the blackout.

I on the other hand was referencing time in general- as time goes on, fewer people are will to step up when such blackouts occur.

Quote from: TonyLBBut go ahead ... why, in your opinion, am I just as bad as Stalin?

Because you yourself have told me that there is no moral difference between the two of you.

Quote from: EngineI'll bite: shared values and emotions. Now: so?

If personal appeals are a useful and effective way to persuade others and emotional appeals to shared values so unreliable and subjective, then why are the seemingly fairly rational people in this discussion relying on the latter rather than the former?

If you really believe that personal appeals are a reasonable and effective way to persuade someone else, go ahead and give it a try.  Try to persuade me you are right by appealing to my own self-interest and my own values.

Quote from: EnginePerhaps this, too, is semantic: if I like BMWs, I consider that my personal preference even if someone else also likes BMWs. I also would not believe that because most people like BMWs, they're good or right in any meaningful way. We just like them, and for some very good reasons, but that liking doesn't imply a moral stance on BMWs.

If you find that 96% of people value BMWs over Yugos and 4% of people don't know or don't care, I think that suggests that the preference for BMWs is meaningful and not simply subjective in any meaningful sense.

Quote from: EngineSo, to review, a belief in moral relativism doesn't mean someone doesn't care about the rights of others, but the perfect moral relativist doesn't care about the rights of others. Seriously, seriously, stop with the equation of moral relativism and psychopathy; they share common elements, I agree, and those common elements might be worth consideration, but A does not equal B.

Why does it bother you that I equate moral relativism and psychopathic moral perspective?  In what meaningful way are they different, that it's unfair to equate them?

Quote from: gleichmanBecause you yourself have told me that there is no moral difference between the two of you.

No objective moral difference, anyway.

Quote from: HinterWeltIn the foot bridge, I would jump myself to take control of the trolley which we have determined has steering. Alternatively, I would shout a warning. I would not push a man to his death because I am too incompentent to think of another solution.

Good.  That's the normal reaction that people have to that problem.  You don't want to push a man to his death.  But what you are essentially looking for is an out to get away from harsh judgement that cold utilitarian thinking leads to which is that killing one person to save five is a fair trade.  If you read the Discover Magazine article where the problem comes from, it will explain why.  You are disgusted at the thought of pushing a person to their death yet want to avoid facing the utilitarian trade that you know is a fair trade (one life for five) so you are looking for a way to not make a utilitarian choice that disgusts you, to the point of considering risking your own life (jumping on the trolly to try to stop it) instead.  All of that suggests that you've got a quite normal and healthy moral compass.  But from a purely rational and dispassionate utilitarian perspective, you should simply recognize the fairness of trading one life for five and not be so bothered by the choice.

My argument is that you are bothered, that it's irrational, and it short circuits utilitarian thinking is a good thing that we should applaud and encourage, not something that we should criticize and make people feel ashamed of.

Quote from: HinterWeltIn general, in any of these situations, I would look for the solution that puts myself at risk or minimizes human loss. I find taking the action of killing another human to work against MY PERSONAL MORAL CODE, not some universal Good/Evil dichotomy. The situations you describe are fundamentally different in that one is in a position of participation and one is in a position of observation. Both do not require action, only one.

In one problem, you flip a switch to trade one life for five.  In the other problem, you push a person to their death.  Both require action to let one person die instead of five.

But what you should consider is why does killing another human work against your own personal moral code?  What is your own personal moral code based on?

Quote from: John MorrowIf personal appeals are a useful and effective way to persuade others and emotional appeals to shared values so unreliable and subjective, then why are the seemingly fairly rational people in this discussion relying on the latter rather than the former?

I don't think I have an answer for that, or certainly not one that has any bearing on the objectivity of morality; what is your answer?

Quote from: John MorrowIf you find that 96% of people value BMWs over Yugos and 4% of people don't know or don't care, I think that suggests that the preference for BMWs is meaningful and not simply subjective in any meaningful sense.

Again, perhaps a definition is in order, then, because subjective, to me, indicates "existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought," and thus that the preference is subjective - it exists in the mind, and belongs to the thinking subject rather than the BMW itself. That in no way indicates that it is non-arbitrary! It's certainly based on the relative qualities of the two cars. However, it would be inaccurate to say that, because most people value BMWs more, that BMWs are "better," wouldn't you agree? A BMW will last longer, certainly, but a Yugo is less expensive. Your subjective valuation of cost versus longevity determines which is better for you, for all the attributes of both vehicles.

Quote from: John MorrowWhy does it bother you that I equate moral relativism and psychopathic moral perspective?

Well, it being logically untenable is usually enough to bother me, but I'll illustrate two of the several reasons:

Firstly, I'm a moral relativist, and it's hardly in my best interests to be thought a psychopath, since most people thing psychopaths are, you know, crazy violent people who sometimes eat their friends.

Secondly, equating the two performs a similar casting of aspersion on moral relativism in general; it equates all moral relativity with irrational and violent behavior. That's not very good for moral relativism, and since I'd prefer to live in a world where people don't do things for irrational reasons, it bothers me.

Quote from: John MorrowIn what meaningful way are they different, that it's unfair to equate them?

Moral relativism is a view which declares all moral judgments are human in origin, and not inherent functions of the universe. Psychopaths are socially-deviant narcissists with serious impulse control issues, whose neuropathy includes the belief that no moral judgment is superior to any other. It's not fair to equate them because they share one similarity, but several differences.

Quote from: John MorrowI think the First Amendment was purposely limited in scope (to Congress, before it was transformed by the 14th Amendment) and to Congress making laws for a reason.

Sorry, I don't see how pointing to state establishments of religion has anything to do with it, precisely because the 14th Amendment wasn't in effect. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, though. I'm saying that even for the time, it would be an over-literal interpretation of the 1st Amendment to say (for example) that it wouldn't prevent a Federal official of the executive branch from initiating or carrying out policies that would promote an establishment of religion. The basic argument against such an extremely narrow interpretation is that the official derives authority from Federal law, and the rest is left as an exercise for the reader. Once the 14th Amendment comes into play along with the incorporation doctrine, the same limitation applies to all branches of state & local governments, not just the legislative.

QuoteAt the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights, many states acted in ways that would now be held unconstitutional. All of the early official state churches were disestablished by 1833 (Massachusetts), including the Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut. It is commonly accepted that, under the doctrine of Incorporation - which uses the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to hold the Bill of Rights applicable to the states - these state churches could not be reestablished today.

(Source; emphasis mine, "now" applies because of the incorporation doctrine, not because of a drift in the interpretation of the 1st Amendment.) (hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#Bill_of_Rights)

QuoteWhen  new Federal laws and, worse, court rulings restrict state and local government action, especially when it is contrary to the will of the people in those states and locales and long established tradition, do in fact represent an intrusion of the national government into local matters in violation of Federalism.

The 14th Amendment and its interpretation is the answer to this. There are certain effects of the growth of Federal power which I consider unfortunate, but there are many ways in which the incorporation doctrine is clearly beneficial and required to enforce the intent of the 14th Amendment. The line isn't easily drawn either on legal or policy grounds.

Finally, about Jefferson and Madison, I'm sure there were other opinions. The main point is to punch holes in the story that portray a radical overturning of tradition beginning in 1950's. There's far more historical continuity than is allowed by that story.

Quote from: SpikeI didn't mention it, not because I didn't think of it, but because it is a sideshow.  The Spartan society believed it was Right and Good to expose malformed children at birth.  By that standard, a mother wishing to keep her child was selfish and wrong. Understandably wrong, but still wrong.

In my first message, I mentioned, "It's as if psychopaths have convinced the world that their cold analytical perspective is normal and that the normal reaction is abnormal."  

To make this somewhat brief, everything I've seen about Spartan society from the way they were raised to the separation of families and the sexes, suggests a society designed to encourage and normalize a psychopathic perspective and suppress compassion and empathy.  While you can certainly look at that as evidence that human morality is malleable, my point is that the steps such a society takes to get people to behave in certain ways suggests the common morality that is being twisted.  In other words, the reason why Spartan youths were endlessly exposed to situations that demanded ruthlessness was to teach them to suppress the empathy and compassion that they would normally develop.  

There is no doubt that humans care about the approval of other humans and also look at each other for moral guidance, and that can certainly be used to move a whole society toward ruthless an immoral behavior as the norm.  But if we look closely at the institutions and practices of those societies, they have to constantly resist or deal with the baseline of common morality that people naturally have.  Thus the choice of whether a Spartan baby lives or dies isn't left to the mother.  The upbringing of a Spartan child was left to a nurse and other children rather than the parents.  The Spartan children were whipped for weakness and encouraged to abuse the Helots, and so on.  In other words, they had to be forced to behave amorally and immorally and that force was exerted against common human morality.

You mention the utilitarian reasons why the Spartans were so ruthless but those same utilitarian reasons are always present.  At a very broad level, moral decisions are a balance between a visceral emotional response and a rational utilitarian response.  In the trolley example, the utilitarian response tells me that one life for five is a good trade but the visceral response tells me that having a hand in personally killing a person is wrong.  The relative strength of each response will determine which one wins.  What the Spartans did was suppress the visceral emotional response so that little but the cold rational utilitarian response was left so that it made sense to torture their children to make them stronger.

And here we are back at the same place again.  Remove the baseline morality and innate consideration for others and we're left with much the same thing -- psychopaths, Spartans, Nazis, the Manson family.  Cold ruthless people who will kill others without pause if it furthers their goals.  Is that really what we want to celebrate and encourage?

Quote from: SpikeWhat I don't think is that we have the right to tell the ancient Spartans that they were Objectively Wrong.

Why?  Do you think it's unfair, then, to say that the Nazis were Objectively Wrong?  Let's not forget that Nazis originally presented the Germans with all sorts of utilitarian reasons why they should be given power.  And, yes, I think the Nazis are a valid comparison here because I think that in many ways, they were the 20th Century version of the Spartans.

Quote from: SpikeMaybe the reasons it was right are valid ones (survival based, even eugenics based). Maybe it had become tradition after it had been valid (food was no longer in short supply due to helot slaves).

The Nazis made utilitarian arguments for their eugenics programs as well:

(http://www.shoaheducation.com/t4poster.png)

Does the fact that they made a utilitarian argument in order to justify the killing of the mentally impaired mean that I can't say that their doing so was Objectively Wrong?  And if I can't say that the Spartans or the Nazis were objectively wrong, then on what basis can I criticize anyone or anything other than perhaps it's impact on me personally?

Quote from: SpikeI think we can show certain behaviors are, at least on a human level, rather than limited to a purely societal one, better than others.

And I think you are making a mistake in assuming that we really hold those beliefs because of rational utilitarian reasons, any more than than the stone age tribe keeping a person alive for years with crippling spinal bifida was.  For example, if slavery were morally neutral, then why was it largely practiced on foreigners?  If the killing of infants were morally neutral, then why would it always be restricted to something done within days of birth instead of, say, within the first year?  Again, I think you are confusing what people do, especially for hard utilitarian reasons, and what they think is right and wrong and I don't think they always necessarily agree with each other.  Remember, the moral decision is a combination of a visceral moral response (what I'm primarily talking about) and a utilitarian response.  That the utilitarian response can outweigh the visceral moral response to determine a person's course of action or even that the utilitarian argument can be played up and the visceral response played down does not negate the visceral moral response nor it's value nor it's commonalities between people.

Quote from: StuartYou really can't choose to disconnect yourself from popular culture and the media very easily -- especially if you live in an urban or sub-urban area.

The link I provide covered this subject. I agree, it's effectively impossible and even if done- it surrenders the public sector to the worst idea brokers of mankind.

Once that done, those ideas can then be forced into even one's private lives.

Quote from: John MorrowWhat good are you doing?

What good am I required to do? And why? In my own point of view, my stance is inherently "good". Why? That gets a little complicated, but basically boils down to the same sort of reasoning you and Gleichman are using: because I said so.

However, I realize that logically this is pretty irrational of me. But still, there it is.

As for the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath, the two terms often being used interchangeably-something I am unsure of doing on a personal basis, for various reasons-I see it this way:

People can display psychopathic behavior-antisocial behaviors, violent behaviors, and sometimes both-but generally few people are completely socially disconnected-a true sociopath is completely disconnected with the society around him or her. So for me, it's degrees.

But since most countries and states can't agree on a legal definition of psychopathy, let alone sociopaths I'm not sure any of us should be bandying about the terms so nonchalantly.

Gleichman uses psychopath to mean anything different than him. You seem to be using it describe physically violent behavior-like sexual and physical assault. I think it is more in depth than that. (For instance I do believe some one can be a sociopath, and not act out violently. And I think emotional abuse can qualify as pyschopathic behavior.)

In the end I think like all psychiatric terminology, we're just not sure. Only recently have we begun to study the human experience, and we seem damned determined to ignore a lot of history.

Quote from: John MorrowGood.  

Somehow, I do not feel validated. ;)

Quote from: John MorrowThat's the normal reaction that people have to that problem.  You don't want to push a man to his death. But what you are essentially looking for is an out to get away from harsh judgement that cold utilitarian thinking leads to which is that killing one person to save five is a fair trade.

Not really. I just do not believe in the math, approach or situation. I will grant you that I would take no joy in the death of a group of strangers regardless. But I am not avoiding anything, I am seeking an alternative within the framework you have provided. If we go purely hypothetical, and it was 1 death vs. 5 deaths, I would choose the 1. I cannot imagine anyone choosing otherwise with the simplistic situation of 1 generic life vs 5. Perhaps Walkerists would shoot for the 5. However, I could see a number of factors that could change someone's response. Is the 1 a child? Married with a family and the others all single with no relatives? And so on.

Quote from: John MorrowIf you read the Discover Magazine article where the problem comes from, it will explain why.  You are disgusted at the thought of pushing a person to their death yet want to avoid facing the utilitarian trade that you know is a fair trade (one life for five) so you are looking for a way to not make a utilitarian choice that disgusts you, to the point of considering risking your own life (jumping on the trolly to try to stop it) instead.  All of that suggests that you've got a quite normal and healthy moral compass.  But from a purely rational and dispassionate utilitarian perspective, you should simply recognize the fairness of trading one life for five and not be so bothered by the choice.

Again, somehow I feel unvalidated by your saying I am o.k. or Discover saying I am o.k. Maybe I just know too much about statistics and sampling methodologies.

Quote from: John MorrowMy argument is that you are bothered, that it's irrational, and it short circuits utilitarian thinking is a good thing that we should applaud and encourage, not something that we should criticize and make people feel ashamed of.

Um, not at all. Do you feel it is irrational to wish to save people? I have been in a few scrapes and let me tell you, irrational emotional thinking is not your friend. I would act out of rational risk assessment given the information you provided. If you add "To your certain death" I would answer very differently if you asked me to jump on the tracks. I trust in my abilities, not your emotional state.

Quote from: John MorrowIn one problem, you flip a switch to trade one life for five.  In the other problem, you push a person to their death.  Both require action to let one person die instead of five.

No, in one you are part of the victim brigade (riding on the train into the accident) in the other you are watching it occur. Very different perspectives. No one would blame the guy standing there if he did not push a man to his death, but he may well get arrested if he does. The man on the train will receive a punishment for inaction but may be lauded as a hero for action. That, quite simply, is my rational risk analysis of the situation.

Quote from: John MorrowBut what you should consider is why does killing another human work against your own personal moral code?  What is your own personal moral code based on?

I do. It is not some mystic sky fairy. It is not some deep genetic programming. It is not some Universal Truth. It is a complex mechanism. It comes first from my parents training me to the community's social moral set and on a greater sense a society's social set. My father very much believed that if you were poor (we were) it was quite acceptable to steal from those who were richer than you but never from other poor people. My mother believed it was wrong to steal. I made the CHOICE that my mother was right.

Now, have you looked into why you believe we are all programmed with an identical moral set? You seem to think your moral set is held by everyone in the universe. I believe morals are formed at many levels from family to society and change from culture to culture. Perhaps we are saying the same thing. Honestly, my main issue is the source of the moral code. I view mine as flexible a responding to the needs of the community. I do not wish to mischaracterize your position but it appears to be some sort of inflexible code that I cannot make fit what I know of the world, cultures, history and  any society. Even the US has different views on something as straight forward as killing. It would seem your theory would lend itself to much more monolithic societies with nearly identical moral sets.

Again, trying to understand your position.

Bill

Quote from: EngineMoral relativism is a view which declares all moral judgments are human in origin, and not inherent functions of the universe.

I can't agree enough. Too many people here seem to think moral relativism equates to some sort of namby-pamby nihilism. It doesn't.

Oh, good. Now we're talking about Nazis. I was worried, with all the focus on psychopaths, that the Nazis wouldn't come up, but I needn't have been concerned.

I think this rhetoric - the neighbor raping, the appeals to emotion through comparison to Nazis and psychopaths - really doesn't get anyone any closer to the truth of the matter. It only inflames, it does not inform. Consider more neutral examples, and see if the logic still holds. Arguments based on unlikely or commonly unpleasant extremes aren't particularly logical or productive.

Quote from: John MorrowGo back and scan over this entire thread.  Are people appealing to each other on the basis of personal preference or on the basis of shared values and emotions?

For my part?  Personal preference.  Hence the prevalence of terms such as "I disagree," "I believe," "I feel" and (most insidious of all) "What do you think?"

Quote from: gleichmanBecause you yourself have told me that there is no moral difference between the two of you.

And since when did you listen to me?

Besides, that's not what I said.  It's what you say I said.  You do a piss-poor job of representing my position for me.  A person could almost think that you weren't trying very hard.  Maybe ... just maybe ... you should stick to your own position rather than continually botching mine.

Quote from: StuartTV (including commercials you didn't choose to watch), Billboards, Magazine covers in grocery store checkouts, Movies that didn't give you adequate heads-up about their content (yeah thanks a lot Pan's Labyrinth... jackass), online advertising (I'm looking for Flash games for my kids -- why are their soft-core porn ads? thanks for that :-/), Posters in the mall (La Senza / Victoria's Secret), TVs in restaurants, stores and gas stations...

You really can't choose to disconnect yourself from popular culture and the media very easily -- especially if you live in an urban or sub-urban area.

Hmm, I guess it just depends on parenting and approach. I can outline my approach but do not think it is the "One True Way".

I am raising and training an adult. I do not wish to raise a child. That is too common and the source of a great deal of problems in this world. If my child sees something he does not understand I explain it to him. If there is questionable content, I avoid it in the extreme (porn, extreme violence, drugs) and explain in the minor. He will come into contact with this eventiually, I want an informed adult able to deal with extreme media within the moral set I have taught him and within community standards. So, it is more than monitoring you child's information intake but also guiding his understanding in an informed adult manner.

That is a woefully brief answer. In an even shorter version, some see the glass half empty, some see it half full.

Bill

Quote from: John MorrowDoes the fact that they made a utilitarian argument in order to justify the killing of the mentally impaired mean that I can't say that their doing so was Objectively Wrong?  And if I can't say that the Spartans or the Nazis were objectively wrong, then on what basis can I criticize anyone or anything other than perhaps it's impact on me personally?

No, but you can say they are wrong from your subjective moral set. I am sure the Nazis thought they were right.

Bill

Quote from: TonyLBFor my part?  Personal preference.  Hence the prevalence of terms such as "I disagree," "I believe," "I feel" and (most insidious of all) "What do you think?"

Interestingly, it is this latter question which seems most often to go unanswered. There are several questions I've asked which I thought were critical to mutual understanding - as opposed to unnecessary rhetorical conflict - which yet lack answers. I am uncertain what conclusions I should draw from this.

Quote from: HinterWeltI am raising and training an adult. I do not wish to raise a child.... So, it is more than monitoring you child's information intake but also guiding his understanding in an informed adult manner.

"Lack of exposure does not confer immunity." I agree with your method of parenting.

Quote from: HinterWeltNo, but you can say they are wrong from your subjective moral set. I am sure the Nazis thought they were right.

I think people often ask these questions - "If someone raped your mother while you watched, wouldn't that be objectively wrong?" - in hopes that some emotional response will result in your betrayal of your worldview. Thank you for not being distracted by rhetoric.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd I think you are making a mistake in assuming that we really hold those beliefs because of rational utilitarian reasons, any more than than the stone age tribe keeping a person alive for years with crippling spinal bifida was.  For example, if slavery were morally neutral, then why was it largely practiced on foreigners?  If the killing of infants were morally neutral, then why would it always be restricted to something done within days of birth instead of, say, within the first year?  Again, I think you are confusing what people do, especially for hard utilitarian reasons, and what they think is right and wrong and I don't think they always necessarily agree with each other.  Remember, the moral decision is a combination of a visceral moral response (what I'm primarily talking about) and a utilitarian response.  That the utilitarian response can outweigh the visceral moral response to determine a person's course of action or even that the utilitarian argument can be played up and the visceral response played down does not negate the visceral moral response nor it's value nor it's commonalities between people.

First let me point out that the bolded text was your words, not mine even by implication.  I may not believe in a universal moral force but neither do I believe we can use morally neutral to describe anything. In fact, I specifically pointed out why Slavery can be held as wrong without reverting to moral value judgements.  I DO think utilitarian responses have a place, certainly at the societal level, but then you seem to think that means we'll all turn into nazis.

Which is bullshit.  At BEST the Nazi's used the framework of utilitarian thought to excuse decidedly non-utilititarian behaviors.  The effort and energy spent killing is proof enough of that, the fact that millions of victims are millions of citizens that can not be used as productive members of a society is proof of that.  Since you seem to think it was utilitarian thought that led to the holocaust lets put it into a utilitarian what if senario:

What if, instead of blind hatred and political expidency the Nazi party had instead embrassed the Jews, the Gypsies and their other victims, recruited them into the military, into the sciences, into the factories and on the farms to run their war machine. Do you not think that adding another 10 million workers, thinkers and soldiers to their war efforts would have had huge, and for Germany favorable, impact on the outcome of WWII?

Why not?

THAT is utilitarian thought. People are resources. Killing people, disposing of the bodies, moving people to be killed consumes resources for little to no gain.

Hey, we can even extend that to your murder one to save five example. You don't know anything about this mythical fatman you want to kill. You DO know that the guys on the tracks are workers, semi-skilled laborers.  Tragic to lose them? Well, this is utilitarian thought, after all, so... not so much. But this Fatman? He could very well be a researcher pondering a new approach to curing cancer, he could be a Randian Industrialist who's death will see the dissolution of his company, the loss of new factories, and thousands out of work, their families starving. Five workers? Easily replaceable. The Fatman? Unknown quantity, better not to gamble.

THAT is utilitarian thought.  Of course, we also can only GUESS that the fatman will be enough to stop the train.  We can also only GUESS that the five mythical workers are too stupid and innattentative to jump off the tracks rather than get hit... wherein the purely 'darwinistic' mind goes 'Good riddance, out of the gene pool for you!'. Its utilitarian.

But I've never tried to claim to be a purely utilitarian person. Unlike you, apparently, I do see the value in allowing utilitarian thought to influence decision making, you seem to think that somehow it will make us all nazi's.


Moving on: Undoubtedly the Spartans were bastards by our standards. Heck, even in ancient greece they were pretty much bastards. Of course, they were also largely successful bastards which makes it a little less easy to condemn them.  And for all their various cultural faults (their treatment of the Helots, for example), it wasn't their absolute bastardy that did them in at the end.  According to on thesis on the matter I've read (ok, the only actual thesis...) it was their process of weeding out the Similars that did them in... a purely downwardly mobile society will, eventually, disinfrancise everyone, which is exactly what happened.   If their bastardly ways were the root of their fall, then we could look at them and say, unequivicably, that being such an unmitigated bastard to everyone (including themselves) is a reciepe for disaster on a societal level.

That said, I think it is a mischaracterization to suggest that the process was designed to weed out human behavior and create little psychopaths. Rather it was to redirect fear from 'Survival based' that we are all born possessing to 'condemnation based'. A Similar feared nothing so much as failing in the eyes of his peers, be it in war or at the dinner table.  Failure to perform properly in either circumstance was grounds for removal from the Similar Caste for himself and his decendants.  When fear of failure... or shame... outweighs fear of death you create damned impressive soldiers.   In some ways it is similar  (haha) to what the Samurai did, though unlike the Samurai, the Similars at least were known for more sophisticated strategies than 'meatgrinder until one side fails'... though this may be due more to the fact that the Similars rarely, if ever, fought equally fearless opponents.

Quote from: EngineI don't think I have an answer for that, or certainly not one that has any bearing on the objectivity of morality; what is your answer?

I think the answer is fairly obvious.  We naturally assume that other people share the same basic set of moral values that we do and thus will respond predictably to certain types of appeals on that shared basis.  When that's not true, doing so is all but useless and can be even worse.  And that's a real problem when dealing with psychopaths.  Training programs designed to appeal to the consciences of normal criminals have been shown to make psychopaths more likely to commit more crimes.

Let's go back to the Seattle police example I pointed out earlier.  They suspected a person have having committed a other homicides and, assuming he was a normal person, the natural argument they made to him was an emotional appeal to empathy for the families of his victims, a tactic that might work on a person with a conscience.  It was useless with the psychopath.  But once they realized that they had a psychopath, they switched to a more personal approach, insulting his achievements to make him talk.

In other words, most people assume that they are talking to normal people with a conscience and shared moral values so they rely on arguments that play on those shared moral values because those arguments work with normal people.  If such arguments worked a badly on normal people as they work on psychopaths, which is what would happen if we didn't have shared moral values, then such arguments would be worthless and people wouldn't use them.  They'd use personal appeals, like you suggest, which is exactly what you need to do with a psychopath.  Why not just use them all the time?  Because they are difficult, more complicated, and unreliable.

Quote from: EngineAgain, perhaps a definition is in order, then, because subjective, to me, indicates "existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought," and thus that the preference is subjective - it exists in the mind, and belongs to the thinking subject rather than the BMW itself. That in no way indicates that it is non-arbitrary! It's certainly based on the relative qualities of the two cars. However, it would be inaccurate to say that, because most people value BMWs more, that BMWs are "better," wouldn't you agree? A BMW will last longer, certainly, but a Yugo is less expensive. Your subjective valuation of cost versus longevity determines which is better for you, for all the attributes of both vehicles.

I think that regardless of the fact that I can imagine situations where a person would select a Yugo over a BMW (e.g., they can't afford a BMW but they can afford a Yugo), it does not change the fact that the BMW is an objectively better car and that given a free choice between a BMW and a Yugo that a person would pick the BMW.  

To compare to a moral situation, I may feel it is wrong to kill an innocent person but I can understand why a police officer, when confronted with a person pulling out what looks like a gun, could kill an innocent person.  That I feel the police officer had a legitimate reason to kill an innocent person does not change the fact that I still think that killing innocent people is wrong, that I think it was a tragedy that an innocent person had to die, that I'm not happy about it, and that I would approve of killing innocent people purposely or for trivial reasons.

Similarly, given a choice between a Yugo and a BMW, my bank account might force me to get the Yugo but it won't change the fact that if I could have afforded one that I would have gotten the BMW nor does it mean that I'm necessarily happy to be driving a Yugo.  

Yes, two people may take the moral building blocks such as empathy, fairness, innocence and mix them up with utilitarian reasons to come up with different moral answers about whether it's right, for example, to kill another family and take their food to feed your own starving family.  But unless you are dealing with a psychopath, you shouldn't run into a person who says that it's OK to kill another innocent family to take their TV or for fun.  Our scales may balance out a little differently but normal people are loading them with similar weights.

Quote from: EngineFirstly, I'm a moral relativist, and it's hardly in my best interests to be thought a psychopath, since most people thing psychopaths are, you know, crazy violent people who sometimes eat their friends.

A large number of psychopaths are not violent at all.  They simply act ruthlessly and without a conscience.  I can give you plenty of links about how psychopaths get by in businesses, if you really want.

That said, why should I be concerned about what other people think about you?  Please don't appeal to any shared morality with your answer.

Quote from: EngineSecondly, equating the two performs a similar casting of aspersion on moral relativism in general; it equates all moral relativity with irrational and violent behavior. That's not very good for moral relativism, and since I'd prefer to live in a world where people don't do things for irrational reasons, it bothers me.

I think that casting those moral aspersions on moral relativism are entirely warranted.  You are assuming that psychopaths do not do things for rational reasons.  That's not true at all.  They are often quite rational, perhaps more than you or I since they need to think their way through things that normal people do intuitively.  They simply lack moral inhibitions.  

If you want to see a person down, it's entirely rational to push a three year-old child into a pool and pull up a chair.  It accomplishes the objective, doesn't it?  

Now if you want to argue that it's irrational because a person can get caught and punished for it, then you are not arguing that it's irrational to kill someone to watch them die, simply that it's irrational to not take steps not to get caught.  And in fact there are killers who do not get caught and die peacefully in their beds.  How many years did that Austrian father keep his daughter locked in the basement?  How long did it take the BTK killer to get caught?  In what way are they less rational than most other people?  They certainly seemed smarter than the people that lived with them and knew them.

Quote from: EngineMoral relativism is a view which declares all moral judgments are human in origin, and not inherent functions of the universe.

Moral relativism goes beyond that and declares that right and wrong are malleable and that there is no objective right and wrong.  And whether human morality comes from God or evolution, isn't that essentially the same thing as saying that it's an inherent function of the universe?

Quote from: EnginePsychopaths are socially-deviant narcissists with serious impulse control issues, whose neuropathy includes the belief that no moral judgment is superior to any other. It's not fair to equate them because they share one similarity, but several differences.

Why do psychopaths have impulse control issues, why are they socially-deviant compared to normally people, and why are they narcissists?  All of that is a product of really truly believing that no moral judgement is superior to any other and from lacking the innate moral responses that normal people have.

In other words, moral relativism (and moral relativists) ungoverned by a conscience and innate moral awareness would be indistinguishable from psychopaths because that's what a psychopath is.  And the problem with moral relativism is that it undermines the innate moral awareness in people and can encourage normal people to excuse the behavior of psychopaths and to create an environment where they can better fit in and flourish.

Quote from: HinterweltI am raising and training an adult.

I don't disagree with you, but I do think that I'd prefer to be the one making choices about what and when is suitable for my children to be exposed to, and when I have to have certain conversations with them.  I'm in no rush to have 9 year old teenagers.  Why should I have to explain to a pre-schooler about the picture of a rabbit F@%$ a duck that some guy walks past with on his shirt?  Why should John Morrow have to talk to his kids, not just about sex, but about hardcore pornography because some idiot is watching it on the TV in his SUV at the stop lights?

Quote from: HinterweltHe will come into contact with this eventiually, I want an informed adult able to deal with extreme media within the moral set I have taught him and within community standards.

Part of the problem is that some people are either disregarding community standards, or we're seeing those community standards shift. That means your child is more likely to come into contact with it before he's an adult.  You don't get a choice in that either -- it's based on the actions of other people in your community.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSorry, I don't see how pointing to state establishments of religion has anything to do with it, precisely because the 14th Amendment wasn't in effect. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, though. I'm saying that even for the time, it would be an over-literal interpretation of the 1st Amendment to say (for example) that it wouldn't prevent a Federal official of the executive branch from initiating or carrying out policies that would promote an establishment of religion.

The Constitution is pretty clear in defining scope and the scope of the First Amendment was to Congress, the first word of the Amendment.  Applied through the filter of the 14th Amendment, I would assume that it applied to legislatures.  That is, passing laws.  As a counterbalance, I would assume that the 14th Amendment would also carry the protection against religious tests as a qualification to any office or public trust, found in Article VI.  

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe 14th Amendment and its interpretation is the answer to this. There are certain effects of the growth of Federal power which I consider unfortunate, but there are many ways in which the incorporation doctrine is clearly beneficial and required to enforce the intent of the 14th Amendment. The line isn't easily drawn either on legal or policy grounds.

I agree.  For the record, I think the 17th and 16th Amendments were more harmful than the 14th in terms of changing the nature of the US government.

Quote from: Elliot WilenFinally, about Jefferson and Madison, I'm sure there were other opinions. The main point is to punch holes in the story that portray a radical overturning of tradition beginning in 1950's. There's far more historical continuity than is allowed by that story.

I don't think the "other opinions" can be so casually dismissed and I think this points to the danger of wandering too far from the plain text of the documents.

Quote from: SpikeOf course, we also can only GUESS that the fatman will be enough to stop the train.  We can also only GUESS that the five mythical workers are too stupid and innattentative to jump off the tracks rather than get hit... wherein the purely 'darwinistic' mind goes 'Good riddance, out of the gene pool for you!'. Its utilitarian.

This is a very good point, and one that I think Bill has also touched on. When people respond to hypotheticals of this sort in a certain way--say, by saying they'd steer for fewer people but wouldn't push someone into the path of a train--it's taken as proof of an innate morality that doesn't answer to "pure logic". But it's just as likely--more likely, IMO--that it's proof of the innate resistance of the human mind to hypotheticals built on fictional certainties which do not exist in the real world.

Quote from: Serious PaulGleichman uses psychopath to mean anything different than him.

I've had almost nothing to say on the subject, let alone saying anything like that.

Other than a passing comment tossed at HinterWelt which was a personal jab and nothing more.

Quote from: John MorrowI think the answer is fairly obvious.  We naturally assume that other people share the same basic set of moral values that we do and thus will respond predictably to certain types of appeals on that shared basis.

This in no way indicated morality is objective, only that the people in this thread assume common cultural factors in each other, which is certainly true, but doesn't actually advance your cause in any way.

Quote from: John MorrowI think that regardless of the fact that I can imagine situations where a person would select a Yugo over a BMW (e.g., they can't afford a BMW but they can afford a Yugo), it does not change the fact that the BMW is an objectively better car...

It is not an objectively better car because "better" is based entirely on subjective valuation, provided we're using the common dictionary/textbook definition of "subjective." [And seriously, are you allergic to defining terms?]

"Again, perhaps a definition is in order, then, because subjective, to me, indicates 'existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought,' and thus that the preference is subjective - it exists in the mind, and belongs to the thinking subject rather than the BMW itself."

"Objective," of course, would be the opposite: a quality belonging to the object of thought, and not the thinking subject. A BMW is objectively faster than a Yugo; "fast" is an objective quality. A BMW is not "objectively better" than a BMW, because "better" is not a quality of an object, it is a subjective valuation of objective characteristics.

Quote from: John Morrow...and that given a free choice between a BMW and a Yugo that a person would pick the BMW.

Yes, if you remove one of the greatest benefits of choice A, people are indeed very likely to make choice B. This is like saying, "If you take the suspension out of a BMW, most people will choose a Yugo."

Quote from: John MorrowA large number of psychopaths are not violent at all.  They simply act ruthlessly and without a conscience.  I can give you plenty of links about how psychopaths get by in businesses, if you really want.

Oh, I don't think it's particularly necessary to show me links of how psychopaths get by in normal society, I definitely agree.

Quote from: John MorrowThat said, why should I be concerned about what other people think about you?  Please don't appeal to any shared morality with your answer.

I find it unpleasant, as I said. I'm not sure if that appeals to shared morality or not, since you haven't defined that term, and its meaning is not clear to me.

Quote from: John MorrowIf you want to see a person down, it's entirely rational to push a three year-old child into a pool and pull up a chair.  It accomplishes the objective, doesn't it?

At an often unacceptable personal cost. Seriously, your idea of "rational" is very short-sighted, one might almost say psychopathic. I'm a psychopath, and even I don't push children into pools to get a seat.

Quote from: John MorrowNow if you want to argue that it's irrational because a person can get caught and punished for it, then you are not arguing that it's irrational to kill someone to watch them die, simply that it's irrational to not take steps not to get caught.

I am not arguing that it's irrational to kill someone to watch them die, simply that it's irrational not to take steps not to get caught. It might also be unpleasant to watch them die, which would be another reason to avoid it, if you don't like unpleasant things.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd whether human morality comes from God or evolution, isn't that essentially the same thing as saying that it's an inherent function of the universe?

No; if it comes from God, it might be a function of the universe. If it is a product of evolution, it is a result of functions of the universe. That's a very, very large gap.

Quote from: John MorrowWhy do psychopaths have impulse control issues, why are they socially-deviant compared to normally people, and why are they narcissists?  All of that is a product of really truly believing that no moral judgement is superior to any other and from lacking the innate moral responses that normal people have.

Well, I don't think that's actually true, but let's say it is: again, again, again, that does not mean the converse is true! I don't know how many ways I can spell out this very basic logic.

Quote from: StuartI don't disagree with you, but I do think that I'd prefer to be the one making choices about what and when is suitable for my children to be exposed to, and when I have to have certain conversations with them.

The high price of civilization is the surrender of some of that control. There are means to avoid exposure to these sorts of things, but they mean avoiding civilization. I'm friends with a number of traditional Amish families, and they've no problems explaining T-shirts about duckfucking, because they just don't see them.

Quote from: SpikeTHAT is utilitarian thought. People are resources. Killing people, disposing of the bodies, moving people to be killed consumes resources for little to no gain.

The other side of the coin is the fact that perhaps the best thing, in the long term, that could happen to the US would be the utter destruction of 50 of its largest cities, due to the ratio of resources to population; utilitarianism doesn't always lead to the preservation of life.

Quote from: Serious PaulWhat good am I required to do? And why? In my own point of view, my stance is inherently "good". Why? That gets a little complicated, but basically boils down to the same sort of reasoning you and Gleichman are using: because I said so.

That's not the reasoning I'm using at all, unless you think that the various articles and research that I've been posting links to are all on the payroll and following my lead.

I'l try again.  You claimed that you were doing good by sticking to your ideals of free expression despite the fact that you believe the worst in people.  What is the "good" that you believe you are doing?  What's the benefit?  What's the plus?  What do you get out of it?  Why do you feel that way?

Quote from: Serious PaulAs for the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath, the two terms often being used interchangeably-something I am unsure of doing on a personal basis, for various reasons-I see it this way:

There are several schools of thought on the subject and at least some of it is caused by the fact that there are psychologists who do not want to believe that some people are morally broken and can't be changed which comes into play with law enforcement.

Again, from this article (http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html) (which I really encourage you to read in full):

   Hare's research upset a lot of people. Until the psychopath came into focus, it was possible to believe that bad people were just good people with bad parents or childhood trauma and that, with care, you could talk them back into being good. Hare's research suggested that some people behaved badly even when there had been no early trauma. Moreover, since psychopaths' brains were in fundamental ways different from ours, talking them into being like us might not be easy. Indeed, to this day, no one has found a way to do so.

"Some of the things he was saying about these individuals, it was unheard of," says Dr. Steven Stein, a psychologist and ceo of Multi-Health Systems in Toronto, the publisher of the Psychopathy Checklist. "Nobody believed him thirty years ago, but Bob hasn't wavered, and now everyone's where he is. Everyone's come full circle, except a small group who believe it's bad upbringing, family poverty, those kinds of factors, even though scientific evidence has shown that's not the case. There are wealthy psychopaths who've done horrendous things, and they were brought up in wonderful families."

"There's still a lot of opposition -- some criminologists, sociologists, and psychologists don't like psychopathy at all," Hare says. "I can spend the entire day going through the literature -- it's overwhelming, and unless you're semi-brain-dead you're stunned by it -- but a lot of people come out of there and say, 'So what? Psychopathy is a mythological construct.' They have political and social agendas: 'People are inherently good,' they say. 'Just give them a hug, a puppy dog, and a musical instrument and they're all going to be okay.' "

If Hare sounds a little bitter, it's because a decade ago, Correctional Service of Canada asked him to design a treatment program for psychopaths, but just after he submitted the plan in 1992, there were personnel changes at the top of CSC. The new team had a different agenda, which Hare summarizes as, "We don't believe in the badness of people." His plan sank without a trace.

Quote from: Serious PaulPeople can display psychopathic behavior-antisocial behaviors, violent behaviors, and sometimes both-but generally few people are completely socially disconnected-a true sociopath is completely disconnected with the society around him or her. So for me, it's degrees.

Yes, it's degrees, which is why Hare's test deals with a variety of criteria and scores them.  If I had to guess, I'd say that psychopathy is a spectrum disorder and that it proceeds through malignant narcissism and narcissism down to normal people.

Quote from: Serious PaulBut since most countries and states can't agree on a legal definition of psychopathy, let alone sociopaths I'm not sure any of us should be bandying about the terms so nonchalantly.

I've been using a very specific definition and have been presenting my source material throughout this discussion.

Having looked at the evidence (which I encourage you do to -- what good is all of this free speech and information necessary for people to make up their own minds if nobody bothers to look at it), I suspect that much of that is political rather than scientific.  See the quote about the CSC above.  Why do I give Dr. Robert Hare more credibility than those who disagree?  Again, look at the evidence yourself and especially the use to which Hare's theories have been put by law enforcement and the psychological and brain scan tests.  I think the evidence is overwhelming.

If you have reason to doubt it, I'd be happy to hear it and look at your sources.

Quote from: Serious PaulGleichman uses psychopath to mean anything different than him. You seem to be using it describe physically violent behavior-like sexual and physical assault. I think it is more in depth than that. (For instance I do believe some one can be a sociopath, and not act out violently. And I think emotional abuse can qualify as pyschopathic behavior.)

I have not been using it to mean physically violent behavior.  I have been using it to mean a person without a conscience.  And while I have used examples of violent psychopaths, I have pointed out that they can be non-violent and even fit in to society pretty well.  In fact, here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article826475.ece) is an article on psychopaths in the office.

Quote from: Serious PaulIn the end I think like all psychiatric terminology, we're just not sure. Only recently have we begun to study the human experience, and we seem damned determined to ignore a lot of history.

I think that with the increased use of brain scans and physiological readings instead of subjective assessments, it's becoming much more clear what's going on.

Quote from: EngineThe other side of the coin is the fact that perhaps the best thing, in the long term, that could happen to the US would be the utter destruction of 50 of its largest cities, due to the ratio of resources to population; utilitarianism doesn't always lead to the preservation of life.

Since I've never tried to claim to being a utilitarian in fact, I may be in error on the value of having a large potential labor force and yes, destroying all the large cities IS the way to go. I tend to doubt that, as this also implies the loss of potential labor sources, not to mention the concentration of research and development, educational facilties, libraries and so forth that are primarily found in... you guessed it... cities.

The point I was making to Morrow was that just because someone, anyone, claims a utilitatarian reason for committing an act does not make it an actual utilitarian act, nor does it mean that the actual cause of the said act was utilitarian... merely that they claimed it was so.

But he and I have gone around on this before in regards to the handling of scientists who committed atrocities in the name of research, and other things. I don't believe you can demonize utilitarian thought any more than you can demonize moral relevance. I also think you can not put either on a pedestal and claim they are 'the way to go'.  John seems to think that if you don't demonize them you are planning to follow them blindly.  He deals in absolutes far more than I do, which is evident even in his casual dismissal of the Spartan example earlier... because they did these things which were 'bad' everything they did must be viewed through the worst possible filter.

For a sharp guy, he seems to have a remarkably short perspective on things...

Quote from: EngineThe high price of civilization is the surrender of some of that control. There are means to avoid exposure to these sorts of things, but they mean avoiding civilization. I'm friends with a number of traditional Amish families, and they've no problems explaining T-shirts about duckfucking, because they just don't see them.

Culture isn't a static thing.  Many people are intent to push culture in the direction they desire. You can remove yourself from it, like the Amish, or you can push back.  That could mean contacting your gov't representatives, or filing complaints with companies (either media producers or advertisers).

For the web, it's being aware of the laws around obscenity, and how to report someone who has broken those laws, as well as the terms of service for ISPs, Hosting Providers, and Domain Registrars and where those are more restrictive than what the law states on it's own -- that's the alternative to being like the Amish and disconnecting from the larger society.

I think it transcends traditional left/right, liberal/conservative politics as well.  Lots of groups pushing things in lots of different directions.

The cultural mosh pit. :raise:

Quote from: SpikeSince I've never tried to claim to being a utilitarian in fact, I may be in error on the value of having a large potential labor force and yes, destroying all the large cities IS the way to go. I tend to doubt that, as this also implies the loss of potential labor sources, not to mention the concentration of research and development, educational facilties, libraries and so forth that are primarily found in... you guessed it... cities.

In the US, currently, we have too many sources of labor, and not enough resources for them to process; fewer people per resource means more resources per person; this is why the real value of personal economies increased by 50 percent in the wake of the Black Death.

Our economy also relies on the production and consumption of useless and inefficient things, and has since the development of the American System of Manufacture, when labor essentially become so productive, we instantly had way too many people. Now we're stuck in a cycle of production and consumption, and, mostly, the consumption is done in the 50 largest cities and the production done outside them.

That's the rationale, anyway, for killing half the US population. Um. Not that I'm a psychopath. ;)

Quote from: StuartMany people are intent to push culture in the direction they desire. You can remove yourself from it, like the Amish, or you can push back.  That could mean contacting your gov't representatives, or filing complaints with companies (either media producers or advertisers).

Absolutely, and I think both are perfectly reasonable choices.

Quote from: EngineI think this rhetoric - the neighbor raping, the appeals to emotion through comparison to Nazis and psychopaths - really doesn't get anyone any closer to the truth of the matter.

And what is the truth of the matter that you want to get to?

Quote from: EngineIt only inflames, it does not inform.

It does both.

Quote from: EngineConsider more neutral examples, and see if the logic still holds. Arguments based on unlikely or commonly unpleasant extremes aren't particularly logical or productive.

Did you read the Discover Magazine article?

Let me summarize for you.

Moral decisions are a combination of a visceral response and a rational response.  The visceral response is irrationally emotional, saying for example, "It's disgusting to think about pushing another person in front of a train," while the rational response is coldly calculating, saying for example, "It's better to kill one person than let five people die."  The relative strength of the emotional response is compared by your brain to the relative strength of the rational response and the one with the stronger imperative wins.  

Thus I might be able to convince you to push your own mother to her death to save the entire world but I'm unlikely to convince you to push our mother to her death to collect a $1000 life insurance policy.  This is the place where everyone is getting hung up because somewhere in there, people will draw different lines between when it might be acceptable to sacrifice their mother  and some people will argue that it's never acceptable.  But the core emotional component, the visceral response that killing your mother is bad, is always there in a normal person.  You may be convinced to ignore it for a variety of reasons, but it's there and will be reflected in how you view your decision.

Psychopaths don't have that little voice in them saying it's wrong.  Read this quote again:  "[M]y mother, the most beautiful person in the world. She was strong, she worked hard to take care of four kids. A beautiful person. I started stealing her jewellery when I was in the fifth grade. You know, I never really knew the bitch -- we went our separate ways."  This is a person who doesn't have the visceral emotional response telling him that stealing from (or probably even killing) someone else, let alone his mother, is wrong.  So their decision is made only on the the basis of of the rational considerations.  If they need $20, why not steal it from their mother?  If they don't, it's because they think they'll get caught and punished, not because they'd feel bad about it.  Kill mom for a $1000 life insurance policy?  If you aren't going to get caught, why not?

My point here is that we don't have to imagine what it would be like if we removed emotional and passion from moral decisions.  We have living examples in psychopaths.  And contrary to the beliefs of many here, using cold dispassionate reasoning alone, they do not make decisions that people would conventionally consider moral.  Quite the contrary, they often commit the worst evils.

So when you ask me to consider more neutral examples, what you are asking me to find more ambiguous examples or examples where the decision is based on rational considerations rather than moral considerations.  You want me to do that because it would shift the discussion  onto ground where you would feel more comfortable and I would have a far more difficult time drawing the contrasts I'm trying to draw, so on a purely rational personal and subjective basis, I have no reason to comply with your request.

Quote from: TonyLBFor my part?  Personal preference.

What makes you think that your personal preferences would be persuasive to anyone else?  Why should I care what you think or believe?

Quote from: John MorrowAnd what is the truth of the matter that you want to get to?

That morality is subjective and not objective.

Quote from: John MorrowSo when you ask me to consider more neutral examples, what you are asking me to find more ambiguous examples or examples where the decision is based on rational considerations rather than moral considerations.

Yes, I am asking you to consider the entire spectrum of responses, not solely the responses which re-enforce your entrenched opinion.

Quote from: EngineInterestingly, it is this latter question which seems most often to go unanswered. There are several questions I've asked which I thought were critical to mutual understanding - as opposed to unnecessary rhetorical conflict - which yet lack answers. I am uncertain what conclusions I should draw from this.

What questions have you asked that you think lack answers?

Quote from: John MorrowThe Constitution is pretty clear in defining scope and the scope of the First Amendment was to Congress, the first word of the Amendment.  Applied through the filter of the 14th Amendment, I would assume that it applied to legislatures.  That is, passing laws.

I would agree, except that "passing laws" has a broader meaning and effect than you're, apparently, allowing. That is to say, any official power created or financed by Congress would be subject to the prohibition. Furthermore according to the 10th Amendment (or alternatively, Federalist arguments that the Bill of Rights really wasn't necessary) the executive and judicial branches had no power or authority to support an establishment of religion.

The application of the 14th Amendment isn't such as to create a mini-Bill of Rights in each state, which would then apply to legislatures as the Constitutional limitations previously applied to the Congress. Rather the amendment says that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In short the Amendment provides protections to citizens of the US (first clause), "any person" (second clause), and inhabitants (third clause) against the full government apparatus of each State.

QuoteI don't think the "other opinions" can be so casually dismissed and I think this points to the danger of wandering too far from the plain text of the documents.

I'm not the one dismissing other opinions. I am saying that if you are going to base your interpretation of the intent or plain meaning of the text, it would be very odd not to take into account the intent and interpretation of the people who wrote and ratified the text. (Yes, even if they don't collectively agree, in fact especially if they don't.)

Quote from: EngineI think people often ask these questions - "If someone raped your mother while you watched, wouldn't that be objectively wrong?" - in hopes that some emotional response will result in your betrayal of your worldview. Thank you for not being distracted by rhetoric.

You'll be happy to know that psychopaths are never distracted by such emotional appeals and are never distracted by the rhetoric.  Again, we have living examples of this perspective played out to it's logical conclusion so we don't have to speculate about where this leads.

Quote from: John MorrowWhat questions have you asked that you think lack answers?

Every question I've asked regarding definitions, for instance. There were several, I felt, critical questions asked here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=208130&postcount=275), including several definitions as well as your own personal view regarding whether or not morality predates humanity, among several others. But the definitions, and your personal views about the objective nature of morality, are really what counts to me.

Quote from: EngineIn the US, currently, we have too many sources of labor, and not enough resources for them to process; fewer people per resource means more resources per person; this is why the real value of personal economies increased by 50 percent in the wake of the Black Death.

Our economy also relies on the production and consumption of useless and inefficient things, and has since the development of the American System of Manufacture, when labor essentially become so productive, we instantly had way too many people. Now we're stuck in a cycle of production and consumption, and, mostly, the consumption is done in the 50 largest cities and the production done outside them.

That's the rationale, anyway, for killing half the US population. Um. Not that I'm a psychopath. ;)

Very glib but entirely missing the point. The rational, even utilitarian, answer is not to destroy the consumers but to change the culture to more efficently use the labor resources we have.  Historically, though in the modern world this has been shown to be a short sighted path, excess population can be sent out to die taking more resources. War, if you will.

Expanded, once we remove the excessively safety minded cultural barriers, we can use our population to make the move into space, tapping the resources of a much wider pool, putting people to use 'out there'. Many will die, but that happens anyway.

The simple fact that you have a resource without current purpose does not automatically lead to the idea that you can dispose of that resource willy nilly.  More: your recommendation actually consumes resources and creates hardship in the short term. Obviously you can't 'bank' excess population per se.

Stripped of all other considerations the only resource that has any real value is human labor.  'Natural Resources' only have value once human labor has been applied to gather them, refine them and put them to use.  Advocating destruction of the only 'real' resource is folly by any reasonable measure, and with a long enough (millenia or more) view the only real goal is survival of the species within tolerences.  I suspect any purely utilitarian thinker would eventually  be forced to make decisions based on those to 'facts'.  Any ambitious enough project can be viewed ONLY with that in mind if you wish to call the rationale 'utilitarian'.

But it is not really productive as a practical matter to think or operate on that level.  In fact, in all practicality, Utilitarianism ISN"T practical. The 'View' would have it that if the Russkies had launched their ICBM's at the US then the US needed to sit back and take it like a champ on the chin. Destroying all life is counter to survival of the species. Practically, however, the Red Menace needed to believe the US would not operate from a Utilitarian view, that they would, in fact retaliate regardless of the cost... by doing so they did not launch that first strike.  Thus it would have been non-utilitarian to actually be utilitarian... in such that creating a situation where half the world dies to prevent the same situation resulting in the entire world dying when NOT accepting the situation prevented any significant percentage dying off in a massive extinction level event.

Follow? Good, because I think we've run this to death.

Quote from: John MorrowWhat makes you think that your personal preferences would be persuasive to anyone else?

Maybe they've had similar experiences, and the way I think of things will resonate with them.

Quote from: John MorrowWhy should I care what you think or believe?

The reasons for that, if any, would be your own.  Maybe there is no particular reason.

Personally, I care what other people think and believe because (a) their insights are often useful to me in continuing to refine what I think and (b) I find people fascinating.  But if neither of those appeals to you, and you can't think of any other reason to be interested, then there's no reason you should.

Quote from: SpikeThe rational, even utilitarian, answer is not to destroy the consumers but to change the culture to more efficently use the labor resources we have.

If we use those labor forces more efficiently, we'll need even fewer people. Efficiency is, ultimately, the problem: we don't need 300 million people to exploit the resources of our nation. More efficiency would only necessitate fewer people.

Quote from: SpikeMore: your recommendation actually consumes resources and creates hardship in the short term.

No doubt! I mean, I'm using the Black Death as my precedent!

Quote from: EngineIf we use those labor forces more efficiently, we'll need even fewer people. Efficiency is, ultimately, the problem: we don't need 300 million people to exploit the resources of our nation. More efficiency would only necessitate fewer people.

Or, y'know, suggest that a fair number of people could trade less of their leisure time for consumer goods, and keep more of it for themselves.

Quote from: SpikeI DO think utilitarian responses have a place, certainly at the societal level, but then you seem to think that means we'll all turn into nazis.

Utilitarian considerations are one of the two components of moral decisions.  I think that if you use strict utilitarian concerns alone, you'll get psychopathic behavior which can range from selfish to murderous.

Quote from: SpikeWhich is bullshit.  At BEST the Nazi's used the framework of utilitarian thought to excuse decidedly non-utilititarian behaviors.

To be clear, and I haven't been, I've been using "utilitarian" in the broadest literal sense -- a weighing of the costs and benefits of each choice.  The "benefits" that one seeks needn't have anything to do with efficiency, sustainability, or even personal survival.

Quote from: SpikeTHAT is utilitarian thought. People are resources. Killing people, disposing of the bodies, moving people to be killed consumes resources for little to no gain.

It depends on what you want to gain.

Quote from: SpikeTHAT is utilitarian thought.  Of course, we also can only GUESS that the fatman will be enough to stop the train.  We can also only GUESS that the five mythical workers are too stupid and innattentative to jump off the tracks rather than get hit... wherein the purely 'darwinistic' mind goes 'Good riddance, out of the gene pool for you!'. Its utilitarian.

Yes, and we can play that game, back and forth, until the stars go out and never come up with an absolute answer.  So how do you make the call, especially when there are so many unkowns?

Quote from: SpikeBut I've never tried to claim to be a purely utilitarian person. Unlike you, apparently, I do see the value in allowing utilitarian thought to influence decision making, you seem to think that somehow it will make us all nazi's.

I think utilitarian considerations need to be informed by and balanced against visceral emotional considerations.  What I object to is the idea that we should prefer or default to the cold calculating rational approach and devalue the visceral response.  You need both for healthy moral decisions.

Again, this is not idle speculation and a "What if?" that we can't know the answer to.  Their are people walking around who lack the visceral response and the moral behavior who grow up in the same schools and among the same cultural influences as everyone else, and we can see how they behave.

Quote from: SpikeIf their bastardly ways were the root of their fall, then we could look at them and say, unequivicably, that being such an unmitigated bastard to everyone (including themselves) is a reciepe for disaster on a societal level.

But isn't that exactly what the downward social mobility that you are talking about was?  Being unforgiving and indifferent bastards to everyone including themselves?

Quote from: SpikeI DO think utilitarian responses have a place, certainly at the societal level, but then you seem to think that means we'll all turn into nazis.

Utilitarian considerations are one of the two components of moral decisions.  I think that if you use strict utilitarian concerns alone, you'll get psychopathic behavior which can range from selfish to murderous.

Quote from: SpikeWhich is bullshit.  At BEST the Nazi's used the framework of utilitarian thought to excuse decidedly non-utilititarian behaviors.

To be clear, and I haven't been, I've been using "utilitarian" in the broadest literal sense -- a weighing of the costs and benefits of each choice.  The "benefits" that one seeks needn't have anything to do with efficiency, sustainability, or even personal survival.

Quote from: SpikeTHAT is utilitarian thought. People are resources. Killing people, disposing of the bodies, moving people to be killed consumes resources for little to no gain.

It depends on what you want to gain.

Quote from: SpikeTHAT is utilitarian thought.  Of course, we also can only GUESS that the fatman will be enough to stop the train.  We can also only GUESS that the five mythical workers are too stupid and innattentative to jump off the tracks rather than get hit... wherein the purely 'darwinistic' mind goes 'Good riddance, out of the gene pool for you!'. Its utilitarian.

Yes, and we can play that game, back and forth, until the stars go out and never come up with an absolute answer.  So how do you make the call, especially when there are so many unkowns?

Quote from: SpikeBut I've never tried to claim to be a purely utilitarian person. Unlike you, apparently, I do see the value in allowing utilitarian thought to influence decision making, you seem to think that somehow it will make us all nazi's.

I think utilitarian considerations need to be informed by and balanced against visceral emotional considerations.  What I object to is the idea that we should prefer or default to the cold calculating rational approach and devalue the visceral response.  You need both for healthy moral decisions.

Again, this is not idle speculation and a "What if?" that we can't know the answer to.  Their are people walking around who lack the visceral response and the moral behavior who grow up in the same schools and among the same cultural influences as everyone else, and we can see how they behave.

Quote from: SpikeThat said, I think it is a mischaracterization to suggest that the process was designed to weed out human behavior and create little psychopaths. Rather it was to redirect fear from 'Survival based' that we are all born possessing to 'condemnation based'.

But there was more to it than that, wasn't there?  The Romans had much the same perspective but without such a radical restructuring of social norms, didn't they?

Quote from: TonyLBOr, y'know, suggest that a fair number of people could trade less of their leisure time for consumer goods, and keep more of it for themselves.

You don't think it'd be easier to just kill them? I mean, I think your solution is a great one, but I think it's going to be a tough sell. ;)

Quote from: John MorrowUtilitarian considerations are one of the two components of moral decisions.  I think that if you use strict utilitarian concerns alone, you'll get psychopathic behavior which can range from selfish to murderous.

Do you believe relying on utilitarian concerns alone will inevitably or always lead to "psychopathic behavior which can range from selfish to murderous." Can't purely utilitarian judgment also produce behavior that is altruistic or beneficial to others? I suppose that begs the question of utilitarian altruism not being selfish, though; it just feels like you're saying, "No matter what, if you're only utilitarian, bad shit's going to go down."

And how does utilitarian decision-making lead to psychopathic behavior? Psychopathy is a psychological condition which leads to chronic antisocial behavior; how does utilitarianism lead to antisocial behavior, much less psychological conditions?

Quote from: Elliot WilenThis is a very good point, and one that I think Bill has also touched on. When people respond to hypotheticals of this sort in a certain way--say, by saying they'd steer for fewer people but wouldn't push someone into the path of a train--it's taken as proof of an innate morality that doesn't answer to "pure logic". But it's just as likely--more likely, IMO--that it's proof of the innate resistance of the human mind to hypotheticals built on fictional certainties which do not exist in the real world.

What evidence do you have that the people answering those questions were resisting the hypotheticals rather than simply answering the question?  If the details in the Discover Magazine (e.g., which parts of the brain show activity), are not specific enough for you, I can point you to the peer-reviewed papers and brain scan images describing the research.

Quote from: EngineConsider more neutral examples, and see if the logic still holds. Arguments based on unlikely or commonly unpleasant extremes aren't particularly logical or productive.

You call the deaths of millions unlikely? And think that common events, just by their nature upleasant should also be excluded. Interesting.

It's often the case that when confronted with the natural extremes that arises from a worldview- people recoil and shout about how unfair it is to bring that up. This is much easier to answering how their worldview would disallow such extremes.

Quote from: gleichmanYou call the deaths of millions unlikely?

Yes. How often does "the deaths of millions" occur, relative to, say, "the lives of millions?"

Quote from: gleichmanAnd think that common events, just by their nature upleasant should also be excluded.

An excellent point; unpleasant - even uncommon - events should not be excluded, by any means. They should, however, be presented in proportion, and this is what is not being done. I appreciate the correction.

Quote from: gleichmanIt's often the case that when confronted with the natural extremes that arises from a worldview- people recoil and shout about how unfair it is to bring that up. This is much easier to answering how their worldview would disallow such extremes.

Well, I think that's what people expect, which is why I'm so pleased when someone doesn't rise to that bait.

And I do think that many otherwise rational people, when an unpleasant reality of their position is exposed, backpedal or otherwise try to escape the reality of their position, absolutely. I hope you understand I'm not trying to do that, I'm merely attempting to place matters in proportion and context.

Hey, John, what's your take on someone who uses a utilitarian morality, but who sets the value of other people's well-being equal to the value of their own?  How about someone who values other people's well-being more highly than their own?

My sense is that utilitarianism can result in whole different propositions depending on how you choose to measure utility.  As such, it seems very strange to me to see a blanket dismissal of every possibility.

In regards to the Utilitarian line: I was responding along those line to Engine, not because I believe that the thought process is more valid than any other. You do come across as rejecting it rather explicitly, John, even when you do occasionally condcend to its value.  I don't disagree at all with its value as PART of decision making.

However, I did take firm exception to characterizing the Nazi behavior as at all utilitarian. Engine seems to be trying to make a point with his calls for mass extinctions, but I think he's failing...certainly with regards to me. I don't get what point he's trying to make. The removal of 10 million human beings from Nazi controlled Europe, regardless of which group of humans they came from (crippled, deformed, Jewish, or political dissidents) was a massive drain on resources across the board. The 10 million people that died could not be used to fight, or support the fighting, to take, or even hold the territory that was won.  The manpower and labor involved in moving them around, sorting them and eventually killing them was wasted as well. At no point was the decision based on utility, saying it was is mere propaganda.


With regards to the Spartans:  We may have to agree to disagree here. Certainly you can point to the Romans as following a similar path, obviously not to the same extreme, while I can point to the suicidal fervor of the samurai in mideval Japan as being another expression of the same mindset put to the same purpose with a different look.  Replacing survival concerns with shame concerns is not necessarily evil. Nor was the method used by the Spartan Similars necessarily self destructively evil inherently. Without consequences, even terrible consequences, for failure to live up to the ideal, the fantatic fearlessness on the battlefield could not be acheived.

The problem came in the specific implimentation. Without a corresponding way of building the ranks of the Similars, without an Upward mobility to offset the Downward mobility of the station you had a flawed system, a slow leak if you will. This was compounded, naturally, by the fact that entire family lines were weeded out by the actions of a single individual.  As a selective program to 'breed' superior warriors it appears to have been an outstanding success, even at their final loss, 300 Similars (as I recall their final muster to have been) outfought thousands of Thracians.

Of course this is utterly ignoring the fact that the Spartans has spent hundreds of years honing a particular strategy to a ridiculously keen edge, which is why they had a standing rule not to fight the same people twice in a lifetime (which they violated at the end out of necessity... in other words the Thracians adapted tactics and strategies specific to beating the Spartan Similars...).

My point is, by being Bastards to even each other, they were being Good Spartans.  They didn't become Psychopaths, did not exhibit traits of Psychopathy on a societal level, they simply had a societal moral code founded on different principles than our own.  And for some 700 years it worked for them. The helots did not tear the Spartan culture down, the Similars did not tear their society apart with increasing psychopathic behavior, they simply ran out of people who met their exacting standards to throw at their enemies.  As unpleasant as it may be, a singular change to the Similar culture (to allow a sustainable population of Similars) would have allowed the greater Spartan society to persist for far longer.  Stagnation would have done them in eventually, as new tactics and strategies became more commonplace.

Quote from: EngineThis in no way indicated morality is objective, only that the people in this thread assume common cultural factors in each other, which is certainly true, but doesn't actually advance your cause in any way.

So, if I assume that people will consider an unfair trade to be wrong because of cultural factors, why do chimpanzees have a similar moral reaction to unfair trades?  

Quote from: EngineIt is not an objectively better car because "better" is based entirely on subjective valuation, provided we're using the common dictionary/textbook definition of "subjective." [And seriously, are you allergic to defining terms?]

Are we talking about a better car or a better choice?

Quote from: Engine"Again, perhaps a definition is in order, then, because subjective, to me, indicates 'existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought,' and thus that the preference is subjective - it exists in the mind, and belongs to the thinking subject rather than the BMW itself."

So you are arguing that the quality and the performance of a BMW exists only in my mind?

Quote from: Engine"Objective," of course, would be the opposite: a quality belonging to the object of thought, and not the thinking subject. A BMW is objectively faster than a Yugo; "fast" is an objective quality. A BMW is not "objectively better" than a BMW, because "better" is not a quality of an object, it is a subjective valuation of objective characteristics.

Can you imagine anything resembling a real world situation where someone would prefer a slower, less reliable, and less safe care "better" without some other mitigating factor being the actual determiner of the assessment?

Quote from: EngineYes, if you remove one of the greatest benefits of choice A, people are indeed very likely to make choice B. This is like saying, "If you take the suspension out of a BMW, most people will choose a Yugo."

If I could build a BMW for the cost of a Yugo, nobody would choose the Yugo.  That the Yugo is cheaper does not make it a better car, even to someone who can't afford a BMW.  It might make it a better choice for purchase for a person of limited means but as you pointed out, price is a valuation while quality and performance are objective attributes of the car.  Looking at the objective attributes of the car alone, the BMW is an objectively better car.

The point I'm trying to make here is this.  That I can afford a Yugo and not a BMW might lead me to buy a Yugo instead of a BMW but it does not mean that I wouldn't prefer to have the BMW and think it's an objectively better car.  Bringing this back to morality, I might decide that it's too dangerous to step in and stop a mugger but that doesn't mean that I think the mugger is right, that the mugging shouldn't be stopped, or that I might not feel guilty about it afterward.  That people make decisions based on a mix of factors does not change the assessment of the components that go into that choice.  That I can't afford a BMW and have to buy a Yugo doesn't mean that I suddenly think that the Yugo is faster, more reliable, and safer than a BMW.  It means that I had to compromise and make do with the lesser vehicle because of mitigating circumstances.

Quote from: EngineAt an often unacceptable personal cost. Seriously, your idea of "rational" is very short-sighted, one might almost say psychopathic. I'm a psychopath, and even I don't push children into pools to get a seat.

And if it's not at an unacceptable personal cost?  Anything wrong with tossing junior into a pool because you want to see someone drown?

Quote from: EngineI am not arguing that it's irrational to kill someone to watch them die, simply that it's irrational not to take steps not to get caught. It might also be unpleasant to watch them die, which would be another reason to avoid it, if you don't like unpleasant things.

On what basis to you expect watching someone to die be unpleasant?  History is full of bloody public spectacles of people dying and it drawing large crowds.

Quote from: EngineNo; if it comes from God, it might be a function of the universe. If it is a product of evolution, it is a result of functions of the universe. That's a very, very large gap.

I agree that they aren't identical but in practice, I think they are very similar.

Quote from: EngineWell, I don't think that's actually true, but let's say it is: again, again, again, that does not mean the converse is true! I don't know how many ways I can spell out this very basic logic.

Converse of what?

Quote from: EngineThe other side of the coin is the fact that perhaps the best thing, in the long term, that could happen to the US would be the utter destruction of 50 of its largest cities, due to the ratio of resources to population; utilitarianism doesn't always lead to the preservation of life.

Correct.  And often it leads to some pretty frightening conclusions, like that one.  Or at least they should frighten you if you aren't a psychopath. :p

Quote from: SpikeEngine seems to be trying to make a point with his calls for mass extinctions, but I think he's failing...certainly with regards to me. I don't get what point he's trying to make.

Only this: utilitarian decision-making does not necessarily lead to preservation of life as an objective. Irrespective of the case I chose to illuminate that point - and I realize my case is extremely debatable - I believe we agree on that point.

Quote from: John MorrowSo, if I assume that people will consider an unfair trade to be wrong because of cultural factors, why do chimpanzees have a similar moral reaction to unfair trades?

Because natural selection has favored the survival of those who don't get screwed over?

Quote from: John MorrowAre we talking about a better car or a better choice?

No matter what we may say, a BMW isn't a choice, it's just a car.

Quote from: John MorrowSo you are arguing that the quality and the performance of a BMW exists only in my mind?

Not at all! Only that the relative valuation of those things exists only in your mind. As I said, the BMW is indisputably and objectively faster, but that does not make it "better," except by your subjective valuation.

More later: must go.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI would agree, except that "passing laws" has a broader meaning and effect than you're, apparently, allowing. That is to say, any official power created or financed by Congress would be subject to the prohibition. Furthermore according to the 10th Amendment (or alternatively, Federalist arguments that the Bill of Rights really wasn't necessary) the executive and judicial branches had no power or authority to support an establishment of religion.

Exactly.  So if a President decides to put a copy of the Ten Commandments up on the White House lawn or a judge decides to have a copy hanging in his courtroom, he has no power or authority to turn that into an establishment of religion.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn short the Amendment provides protections to citizens of the US (first clause), "any person" (second clause), and inhabitants (third clause) against the full government apparatus of each State.

And what are those protections?

Quote from: EngineOnly this: utilitarian decision-making does not necessarily lead to preservation of life as an objective. Irrespective of the case I chose to illuminate that point - and I realize my case is extremely debatable - I believe we agree on that point.

Again: It does depend upon what end you are aiming towards, within limits. I think the only PURELY utilitarian goals must extend beyond self, even beyond generation and nation to cover Species in a long term, which makes it easier to avoid mass extinction decisions because they simply do not serve the end of long term survival of species. Those genetic lines that are lost are... lost. Reduction of resources is never useful, its waste. Waste serves no end at all but the creation of waste.

It IS true, and here is the catch, that utilitarian thinking can be applied at smaller levels. My comfort can be an end to which utilitarian thinking can come into play. OF course 'my Comfort' is, in and of itself a non-utility. But I can apply it. Good luck getting other people to sign on board.

But, from a fairly firm standpoint, and selfish, emotional end state automatically renders the process 'non-utilitarian'.  Once you have determined that the man on the tracks is your good freind Bob, and you can't let Bob die... you can no longer claim your efforts to spare his life were done for utilitarian purposes. Not with any validity.

The Nazi's killed people because they hated them.  Aside from a slight simplification of events, that very fact renders their decisions non-utilitarian... which can be used predicitively to show how butchering 10 million people was contra-utility... though in this case the prediction comes after the demonstration.

Of course, survival of species over self is a harsh mistress to serve. Utiltarianism is a harsh master, which is why its easier to claim it as justification after you've done something for emotional reasons than to actually apply it before hand and find that it doesn't tell you to do what you really want to do.

I'm flipping paragraphs to make a better reply...

Quote from: TonyLBMy sense is that utilitarianism can result in whole different propositions depending on how you choose to measure utility.  As such, it seems very strange to me to see a blanket dismissal of every possibility.

You are correct that the results of utilitarianism will depend on how you assess utility, but I think Joshua Greene (one of the guys quoted in that discover article) sums up the problem pretty well in his 350+ page philosophy dissertation (http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/GreeneWJH/Greene-Dissertation.pdf) here (starting on page 322 and with references removed for readabilty) before he spoils it all by arguing for utilitarianism:

   To a connoisseur of normative moral theories, nothing says "outmoded and ridiculous" quite like utilitarianism. This view is so widely reviled because it has something for everyone to hate. If you love honesty, you can hate utilitarianism for telling you to lie. If you think that life is sacred, you can hate utilitarianism for telling you to kill the dying, the sick, the unborn, and even the newborn, and on top of that you can hate it for telling you in the same breath that you may not be allowed to eat meat. If you think it reasonable to provide a nice life for yourself and your family, you can hate utilitarianism for telling you to give up nearly everything you've got to provide for total strangers, including your own life, should a peculiar monster with a taste for human flesh have a sufficiently strong desire to eat you. If you hate doing awful things to people, you can hate utilitarianism for telling you to kidnap people and steal their organs. If you see the attainment of a high quality of life for all of humanity as a reasonable goal, you can hate utilitarianism for suggesting that a world full people whose lives are barely worth living may be an even better goal. If you love equality, you can hate utilitarianism for making the downtrodden worse off in order to make the well off even better off. If it's important to you that your experiences be genuine, you can hate utilitarianism for telling you that no matter how good your life is, you would be better off with your brain hooked up to a machine that gives you unnaturally pleasant artificial experiences. No matter what you value most, your values will eventually conflict with the utilitarian's principle of greatest good and, if he has his way, be crushed by it. Utilitarianism is a philosophy that only... well, only a utilitarian could love.

Quote from: TonyLBHey, John, what's your take on someone who uses a utilitarian morality, but who sets the value of other people's well-being equal to the value of their own?  How about someone who values other people's well-being more highly than their own?

The problem is threefold.  

First, I think the psychopath illustrates that without the normal core human feelings that we generally call a conscience (which includes empathy and visceral feelings encouraging and discouraging certain behaviors) that you'd ever set your values to have great concern for the well-being of others, not to mention putting them first.  In other words, I think that sort of altruism starts from a visceral compassion and can't be derived simply from some sort of chain of rational arguments.  At some point, you have to care, and that's not an intellectual response.  

Second, it's not difficult to find equations where the killing of one will benefit others.  For example, the best way you could help other many other people might be to render yourself brain dead near a hospital and leave your organs to science.  The visceral response that keeps the people in those tests from purposely acting to kill another and makes use shocked at the thought of cutting up a healthy person to save a bunch of sick people is irrationally at odds with utilitarian calculus.  I think that aversion to killing one to benefit others is useful, even though there are always cases where we might overcome it.

Third, I recommend Thomas Sowell's book The Quest for Cosmic Justice.  In it, he makes the case for why even if we had the best of intentions and wanted to create fair outcomes for everyone, that our lack of knowledge will often mean that in our attempts to do good, we'll wind up doing greater injustices.

I suppose you could use wholly utilitarian means based on promoting the well-being of others above your own limited only to your own actions with respect to yourself with regard to others, but that would cover only a fairly narrow slice of morality.

Quote from: John MorrowLooking at the objective attributes of the car alone, the BMW is an objectively better car.

Again, this is a fallacy: you're assuming "faster" and "better handling" automatically equal "better." My mother, for instance, finds driving my BMW most disturbing, because she does not hold the same relative valuation of performance I [and you] do.

That's not even getting into the fact that there are a variety of ways in which a Yugo objectively outperforms a BMW - depending on the BMW; I wasn't specific when I started this, comparing a company with decades of history and dozens of models past and present with, you know, one car: my bad - such as fuel economy, size, repair ease, and so on.

Look, I prefer BMWs, don't get me wrong. My relative valuation of their qualities is much like that of most other people, and I like them a great deal more than any Yugo, and would rather have one than any Yugo. But "how much I like it" has nothing to do with whether it's "good" in any sense external to me.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd if it's not at an unacceptable personal cost?  Anything wrong with tossing junior into a pool because you want to see someone drown?

Okay, really, the answer's not going to change: "not objectively wrong, no." Also, to anticipate the next several times this comes up, there's nothing objectively wrong with eating puppies, raping kittens, or pouring molten lead on bunnies. Seriously, stop dreaming up shit you think is bad and asking me if I think it's wrong: the answer is always going to be, "not objectively wrong, no."

Quote from: John MorrowOn what basis to you expect watching someone to die be unpleasant?

If you'll notice, what I said was, "might also be," not, "will be."

Quote from: John MorrowConverse of what?

Sorry: I was saying that while psychopaths believe no moral judgment is superior to any other, believing no moral judgment is superior to any other does not make you a psychopath.

I should touch on the other half of what you said: "the innate moral responses that normal people have." I'm no psychologist, but I've met a few, as well as some crazy people over the years. Even some psychopaths. What I've never met is any normal people; this polar notion of normalcy, that there's a template for brain function, is false and highly inaccurate. And yes, I've read the Discover article.

Okay. Now, what I'm going to do is restrain myself from replying, John, until you have a chance to address some of those questions I've been talking about. I apologize for not giving you that chance until now, but work was highly irregular today, leaving me with too much spare time.

Quote from: SpikeAgain: It does depend upon what end you are aiming towards, within limits.

Yeah, absolutely, and I think that's a very important point.

Quote from: SpikeThose genetic lines that are lost are... lost. Reduction of resources is never useful, its waste. Waste serves no end at all but the creation of waste.

I believe some reduction of resources - if by resources, we mean organisms - can be useful, or not-wasteful. Honestly, I think it's necessary to the "betterment" of the gene pool that organisms less equipped for survival do not survive. But I think - and here's my catch - that this only works on the long term, and humans are generally not capable of perceiving the future with accuracy great enough to predict which organisms will, in the future, be successful survivors [and reproducers].

Which is, sort of, what you were saying.

Quote from: EngineYes. How often does "the deaths of millions" occur, relative to, say, "the lives of millions?"

I would say on this point that you benefit from the protection of nations that have for the most part avoided having large segments of their populations be numbered in those deaths, or the even larger numbers of of the non-lethal crimes done under the same mindset. If however you had lived in the USSR, your opinion of "unlikely" may have been different.

Quote from: EngineAnd I do think that many otherwise rational people, when an unpleasant reality of their position is exposed, backpedal or otherwise try to escape the reality of their position, absolutely. I hope you understand I'm not trying to do that, I'm merely attempting to place matters in proportion and context.

I'm afraid I don't.

If you weren't, you'd agree that you and Stalin are equally moral. That the person considering Jenny's fate for the day is following the same logic as yourself, if to a different conclusion. That the extremes are indeed consistent. And so far no one here who claims the lack of objective morality is willing to do that.

And once that was admitted, perhaps you could then explain to me how such a worldview could in any way control for a Stalin or even have a reason to.

Quote from: gleichmanI would say on this point that you benefit from the protection of nations that have for the most part avoided having large segments of their populations be numbered in those deaths, or the even larger numbers of of the non-lethal crimes done under the same mindset.

I would say that, as well.

Quote from: gleichmanIf you weren't, you'd agree that you and Stalin are equally moral.

Stalin and I possess the same degree of objective morality, but do not share identical subjective moralities; is that close enough?

Quote from: gleichmanThat the person considering Jenny's fate for the day is following the same logic as yourself, if to a different conclusion.

This is a little more complex, because the Jenny example has never been made entirely clear to me, but I agree that a logical argument can be made for raping someone, depending on your relative valuations of certain significant qualities.

Quote from: gleichmanAnd so far no one here who claims the lack of objective morality is willing to do that.

I try to stay calm during these sorts of discussions, but...are you fucking shitting me? No, seriously, is that a joke? This has come up over and over and over again, and we keep saying, "Yeah, that's not objectively wrong," because we don't believe in objective wrongness. What people haven't been willing to do is torture their own logic to get there, which is what you keep requiring them to do: "So you agree every moral relativist should wake up every morning and rape the hell out of something - a brick, a puppy, their mother, whatever - because if it's not morally wrong, it must be required." Yeah, we're not going to agree with that. But yes, I will say: raping Jenny is not objectively wrong, because there is no objective morality.

Quote from: EngineBut the definitions, and your personal views about the objective nature of morality, are really what counts to me.

I'm going to have to come back to this and your spectrum point a few replies before this a little later when I have a little more time to give it.  Not avoiding your questions but acknowledging them.

Quote from: EngineYeah, absolutely, and I think that's a very important point.


I believe some reduction of resources - if by resources, we mean organisms - can be useful, or not-wasteful. Honestly, I think it's necessary to the "betterment" of the gene pool that organisms less equipped for survival do not survive. But I think - and here's my catch - that this only works on the long term, and humans are generally not capable of perceiving the future with accuracy great enough to predict which organisms will, in the future, be successful survivors [and reproducers].

Which is, sort of, what you were saying.

I think its a point a great many would be utilitarians and even moral relativists miss: What you do with it matters.  Its a point I've tried to hammer on repeatedly in this very thread.  It doesn't matter to an uncaring universe, but it matters to you, to me, and to the people we interact with. And that is important in and of itself. The worlds greatest masterpeice rendered in paints only visible in spectrums we cannot see is merely a blank canvas.  

Er... yeah.

I am continually baffled by your repeated insistance that discarding resources has any value at all. Not using a resource is vastly different than eliminating it.  

Look at our current oil crisis (or fears of crisis, either way...). Only a fool suggests we would have been better off, as a species, if the oil had never existed.  Should we have used it better, husbanded it better? Certainly. Should we have avoided using it frivolously? Absolutely.  But to not have access to it at all? Worse than using it poorly.  

We can argue that the occupants of our cities are a poorly used resource. You can even argue that they are so poorly used as to be wasteful of our resources.  I may even agree with you on some level. When you suggest that it is at all useful to simply destroy them, render them unsuitable for other uses... regardless of the fact that we are talking about people... there is no logical arguement I can imagine that would convince me that this serves any utility other than immedeate and selfish ones.

Much as say, the homeless addict on the street pointing out that the money in the back I'm not spending would be put to better use feeding his addiction rather than just languishing there in the bank.  He is only right in an immedeate, and short sighted point of view. Selfish. Non-Utility thinking, disguised as something else.

This is especially true since neither one of us can predict the future. Maybe I will go home tonight and find that my family is sick and needs to go to the hospital, that money now serves an immedeate need. Maybe that panderer will be murdered before he spends my money and the money will languish even more in the evidence room of some police station...

Maybe there is some combination of genetics in that urban population that holds the key to our eventual evolution, maybe some guy riding a bus in that metropolis will one day invent zero point energy. Maybe not.

In this case waste is a loss of potential as well as actual value.

So, what have we learned from this thread?

• John Morrow is worried that society is glorifying psychopathic traits, and thus that our society is turning nasty. Possibly he's right, or possibly he's got Old Coot's Disease. "The world's a-changin', and not fer the good!"
• Serious Paul thinks everyone's a violent criminal, or would be if they thought they could get away with it. "Everyone's evil, and always has been."
• Engine, like walkerp, wants to wipe out most of the human race, and can't understand why anyone would think this a strange and unpleasant desire.
• There are a disturbing number of moral relativists on therpgsite who claim that if you don't like watching your mother being raped and murdered, "well that's just subjective."

:cool:

Quote from: John MorrowThe problem is threefold.

I ... don't recall posing a problem.  I just asked some questions.

Is there a problem with the questions?  Are they somehow invalid?  Or do you just not know what you'd think of a utilitarian who used a measure of utility that was something more than totally simplistic?

I mean ... sheesh ... who uses measures of utility that advocate suicide as being more optimal than (for instance) a healthy person dedicating their life to the betterment of their fellow man?  A living human is worth more than the sum of their organic parts.  Using them that way would be just plain wasteful.

Quote from: John MorrowI'm going to have to come back to this and your spectrum point a few replies before this a little later when I have a little more time to give it.  Not avoiding your questions but acknowledging them.

Honestly? I appreciate that. I find this conversation most fascinating, not least because you're willing to put real thought and time into your posts. I prefer a well-thought-out post to a prompt one, very much, so thank you.

Quote from: EngineStalin and I possess the same degree of objective morality, but do not share identical subjective moralities; is that close enough?

Yes.

Quote from: EngineYeah, we're not going to agree with that. But yes, I will say: raping Jenny is not objectively wrong, because there is no objective morality.

Also good enough (skipping the pointless rant the preceded it).


You left out my closing question however. Given that you agree that Jenny's rapist and Stalin are your objective moral equals...

How does a worldview without objective morality control for Stalin and Jenny's rapist? Why would it want to?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron

• There are a disturbing number of moral relativists on therpgsite who claim that if you don't like watching your mother being raped and murdered, "well that's just subjective."

:cool:

One could argue that it IS subjective... but that doesn't make it any less unpleasant.

There is, I find, very little practical value in such a distinction, but there you have it.

Given that there are real victim fetishes out there, plenty of 'rape fic' written from the perspective of the victim... not to mention the half dozen or so willing volunteer victims of murder in the last twenty years or so... they might very well be right. It IS subjective.

If your mother likes the idea of being raped and murdered and you have some sick voyeuristic desire to see her raped and murdered... or you just hate the bitch than it wouldn't be unpleasant at all. Illegal certainly.

Where does that leave us then? Being unpleasant and illegal are just as valid reasons not to do something as 'the skyfairy told me'.

The problem with psychopaths is that they DON"T find it unpleasant and don't seem to CARE that it is illegal.  

But then, I have no idea why I'm arguing this for them.  

-Spike, who feels that meddling in other cultures because you disagree with their moral values is acceptable within certain tolerances.

Quote from: SpikeI am continually baffled by your repeated insistance that discarding resources has any value at all. Not using a resource is vastly different than eliminating it.

Well, let me put it this way: can one not have too much of a resource? I mean, I like water, but if my house were full of it, I'd have a profound problem. Now, a water shortage in my house may ensue later, but that's of very little concern to me if everyone in my house drowns.

We have too many people in the US for the amount of stuff the US can provide us, in terms of trees and air and water and shiny rocks. We may someday need more, or benefit from more, but we can just make them then; humans always expand to fill the available resources. But you and I, we'd be vastly better off if those in the 50 largest cities just vanished one day.

Now, that's a short-term view, as we've said. In the long term, it's impossible to predict how many people we're going to need; however, we can make estimates based on previous experience and statistics. To translate this into human terms, the crazy homeless guy on the corner might go on to father the person who cures cancer, but that's most unlikely. It is uncertain but surpassingly likely that we'd be better off in material terms if he were dead.

Quote from: SpikeOnly a fool suggests we would have been better off, as a species, if the oil had never existed.

Hmm. You know, actually, I'm not so certain. That's an interesting consideration. I think you're probably right, though, if only because we'd have just burned wood and coal instead, until we ran out of those things. But something interesting to ponder, nevertheless.

Quote from: TonyLBA living human is worth more than the sum of their organic parts.  Using them that way would be just plain wasteful.

Please don't force your personal opinion on this, it doesn't matter to anyone else but you. Another could easily hold the opposite view.

Quote from: gleichmanYes....Also good enough...

Excellent. So you understand, then, that I'm only trying to put matters into their context. I'm not sure how those things proved that, but I'm glad you understand.

Quote from: gleichmanYou left out my closing question however. Given that you agree that Jenny's rapist and Stalin are your objective moral equals...

How does a worldview without objective morality control for Stalin and Jenny's rapist? Why would it want to?

Yeah, I skipped that because I didn't understand it. I actually thought a word had been left out, but now I have an inkling of what you mean; could you tell me what you mean by "control for?" Or just completely rephrase the question?

No, Engine, because if you let the water out of your house, you haven't destroyed it. The water is simply not in your house anymore. If you kill off 50 cities worth of people, those people are GONE.  The resources they represent are not available to use by anyone, anywhere ever again.  Entire genetic lines wiped out, massive quantities of people unavailable to work. Your understanding of labor forces was limited earlier, I assume due to the necessity of keeping discussion simple, but really...

The difference between reallocating a resource (re locating it from your house into even just general circulation) is not the same as destroying it (putting the water into... I don't know... the burning heart of the sun? magically disintigrating it as if it had never been?).

No. If you find that people in the cities are consuming more value than they produce you don't simply annihilate the people. A simpler solution, and a more efficient one, is to start moving more people OUT of the cities into areas where they can produce more than they consume.  You can point to the limited available land and I can point to the stars. I assure you I will rethink my position when we expand beyond the ability of the universe to contain us.

Quote from: gleichmanPlease don't force your personal opinion on this, it doesn't matter to anyone else but you. Another could easily hold the opposite view.

They could, and I'd be happy to discuss it with them.

Do you, in fact, hold the opposite view?  Or do you just find it easier to talk about what other (hypothetical) people believe than to stand up, admit what you believe, and have to deal with the possibility that people will think you're wrong?

Quote from: John MorrowSo if a President decides to put a copy of the Ten Commandments up on the White House lawn or a judge decides to have a copy hanging in his courtroom, he has no power or authority to turn that into an establishment of religion.

It is, in itself, an establishment of religion, if the person is doing so as an official of the government, particularly if that person is a state official or is operating in a capacity created or financed by Congress. So it's easy to answer in the case of a state judge such as Roy Moore. In the case of a President, current Constitutional law is if I'm not mistaken governed by Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hein_v._Freedom_From_Religion_Foundation), a recent case concerning executive branch actions where public funds were used to advance "faith-based initiatives". If the logic of this decision, a 5-4 decision along predictable lines, were followed, the President could quite possibly, even probably, do what you propose, not because it wouldn't be an establishment of religion, but because the funds wouldn't have been specifically earmarked by Congress.

I disagree with this; while I would steer very clear of any argument that, essentially, could lead to a gag order on Presidential expressions or endorsement of faith (e.g. on the basis of the President's salary being drawn from taxpayer's funds), I think a line can be drawn over (mis)use of general funds in a way specifically designed to advance religion. (In short I probably agree with Justice Souter's dissent.)

In any case there's a better argument for viewing this as a separation of powers issue than for questioning whether Presidential action can be an establishment of religion simply because it's Presidential.

QuoteAnd what are those protections?

By this you mean, what are the protections that the 1st Amendment provides, when extended to States via the 14th Amendment? A non-exhaustive list would include: freedom not not to have one's taxes be used to support religious establishments, freedom from punishment for non-criminal speech, freedom to assemble...I really don't know where you're going with this, John. It's pretty simple, under current statute and caselaw, the President has a moderate amount of leeway to advance religion under official cover. I think that's wrong, but it's a fact. Neither Congress nor the States have this leeway.

Quote from: EngineYeah, I skipped that because I didn't understand it. I actually thought a word had been left out, but now I have an inkling of what you mean; could you tell me what you mean by "control for?" Or just completely rephrase the question?

Perhaps 'avoid' in place of control.

The question for a culture that has embraced moral relativism, and sees itself as objectively morally equal to a Stalin- is what do they do with that mindset?

Do they work to avoid Stalin, or make any attempt to stop his actions if one should arise? Would they only act if Stalin threatened them and not others, making them the ultimate isolationists?

How does a nation of such people manage the national will to do anything? They are after all nothing but a collection of different opinions completely without common ground.

How can they avoid the undermining of their culture by a sub-group who do believe in objective morality, but is growing in population such that they will take control of democratic government in the next three decades or so?

What possible reason can they give to keep rapists from making the decision to act upon their desires? Why would they even want to?

Quote from: EngineAgain, this is a fallacy: you're assuming "faster" and "better handling" automatically equal "better." My mother, for instance, finds driving my BMW most disturbing, because she does not hold the same relative valuation of performance I [and you] do.

Without qualification or prompting, ask your mother which car is the better car, a BMW or a Yugo.  If she asks in what way, say "overall".  If she refuses to answer without further qualification, let me know.

Quote from: EngineLook, I prefer BMWs, don't get me wrong. My relative valuation of their qualities is much like that of most other people, and I like them a great deal more than any Yugo, and would rather have one than any Yugo. But "how much I like it" has nothing to do with whether it's "good" in any sense external to me.

Can you imagine a reasonable situation where a less safe car would be preferred over a more safe car, all other relevant factors being equal?  Why a less reliable car would be preferred over a more reliable car, all other relevant factors being equal?  I understand that there are differences in aesthetic preferences but not all differences are simply aesthetic.

Quote from: EngineOkay, really, the answer's not going to change: "not objectively wrong, no."

OK.  So if there is nothing rationally wrong with tossing junior in the pool and nothing objectively morally wrong with tossing junior in the pool, why don't more people do it?  And why do the people who do things like that or kill their friend over a slice of pizza or torture and murder dozens of people over a few decades predictable come from the small percentage of the population with a specific defect in their moral reasoning that makes them unable to tell the difference between moral transgressions (objective wrongs) and conventional transgressions (subjective wrongs)?

Quote from: EngineIf you'll notice, what I said was, "might also be," not, "will be."

Sure.  But if they are willing to kill someone casually, on what basis do you think they'd consider it unpleasant to watch the person die?  What makes watching a person die unpleasant?  

Quote from: EngineSorry: I was saying that while psychopaths believe no moral judgment is superior to any other, believing no moral judgment is superior to any other does not make you a psychopath.

Correct, and I've said that.  But that's because you have the base moral components that a psychopath is lacking so you are predictably going to favor certain moral judgments over others, even if you don't think it's entirely for utilitarian, cultural, or personal reasons.  You are going to find certain things unpleasant and that's going to moderate your morality.  But a psychopath doesn't simply believe that no moral judgment is superior to any other.  They actually live it and act accordingly, and the results are not pretty.

Quote from: EngineI should touch on the other half of what you said: "the innate moral responses that normal people have." I'm no psychologist, but I've met a few, as well as some crazy people over the years. Even some psychopaths. What I've never met is any normal people; this polar notion of normalcy, that there's a template for brain function, is false and highly inaccurate. And yes, I've read the Discover article.

So if you exclude the crazy people and the psychopaths that you've met, the rest of the people aren't normal?

I'm not sure what you mean by "a template for brain function" but do you really think that the physical structure of the brain is unconnected to the functioning of the brain or that the various structures of the brain perform significant different purposes in different people?

Quote from: SpikeNo. If you find that people in the cities are consuming more value than they produce you don't simply annihilate the people. A simpler solution, and a more efficient one, is to start moving more people OUT of the cities into areas where they can produce more than they consume.

It still doesn't help; in fact, that would be an utter disaster: there's an average of 80 people per square mile here! And that's if you actually allowed people to live on every nature preserve, park, and bit of current wetland. If you look at useable land, minus what we need to grow crops for whatever population you end up with, minus the space we need to do various other survival-necessary tasks, the population density would end up so high that what you'd have is one giant pretty dense suburb. No good.

Cities themselves aren't the problem, anyway: it's actually more efficient to pack people in. The only reason to target the metropolises is because that's the most cost-effective way of getting as many people as possible. And, well, metropolises contain a greater density of non-producers than smaller cities, sub-urban areas, and rural areas.

Let me point out that your perceived utility and mine are very different in these two cases [presuming I actually perceive utility in the plan I'm positing]: I'm finding utility in maximizing the producer-to-consumer-to-natural-resource ratios in the United States, thus raising standard of living and lowering investment of individual labor. If those are your goals, this is the way to do it. On the other hand, you're discussing the utility of long-term species survival and possible paradigm shift, goals which annihilating chunks of one of the world's nations would not well serve. As you said, it all depends on what one finds utility in; as such, utilitarianism, in itself, is really only just logic or rationality.

Quote from: TonyLBThey could, and I'd be happy to discuss it with them.

Do you really think they'd give you the chance?

No, the only discussion would be over your dead body with various moral relativists trying to decide if perhaps it would be in their self defined view to take action against your murderer.

Quote from: TonyLBDo you, in fact, hold the opposite view?

Walker does. So does Engine it seems if you live in one of his targeted 50 cities.

For myself, I don't believe I currently have the right to make a decision upon worth of your life or death. But I'm a believer in objective morality, so that would be expected.

Quote from: SpikeNo. If you find that people in the cities are consuming more value than they produce you don't simply annihilate the people. A simpler solution, and a more efficient one, is to start moving more people OUT of the cities into areas where they can produce more than they consume.  You can point to the limited available land and I can point to the stars. I assure you I will rethink my position when we expand beyond the ability of the universe to contain us.

You mean like the Khmer Rouge evacuating the population of Phnom Pehn into the countryside and then executing the people whose culture they couldn't change?

Yes, I know that's not what you mean and I'm unfairly hanging the Killing Fields around your neck but the sorts of social engineering that you are talking about, making it sound as if countries can just wave their hands and change cultures and movie people around like pieces on a risk board, reminds me very much behind the mindset of Mao's Great Leap Forward which tried to centrally refashion an entire economy in a few years and led to as many as 40 million or more deaths or, well, the Khmer Rouge trying to remake Cambodian society to fit their ideals.  And from a pure cost and benefit perspective, various governments have come to the conclusion that it's easier to wipe people out than reeducate them.  I know you are trying to suggest humane alternatives to wiping people out but the people tend to get wiped out just the same doing the sorts of things you suggest, especially if they object to people making decisions for them.

Quote from: John MorrowCorrect, and I've said that.  But that's because you have the base moral components that a psychopath is lacking so you are predictably going to favor certain moral judgments over others, even if you don't think it's entirely for utilitarian, cultural, or personal reasons.  You are going to find certain things unpleasant and that's going to moderate your morality.

I've bolded a word there that's making it hard for me to understand you.  Is that a typo, or is it actually supposed to be there?

Quote from: John MorrowWhat evidence do you have that the people answering those questions were resisting the hypotheticals rather than simply answering the question?

None. I didn't even look at the article. I'm saying that these sorts of hypotheticals are in and of themselves so abstract as to be of questionable usefulness. Just as you might say that a person would have trouble pushing another to his death because "it's more personal", I'd also say that answering a hypothetical question which has been constructed with absolutely certain outcomes and only two options is quite removed from the "personal" response that someone would have in a real situation.

Now having read the article I see that the use of the hypothetical was quite a bit more sophisticated than simply asking the question and collecting answers.

But I still object to one of the examples given, the 50-50 test, not so much because the brain scan shows an emotional response, but because the emotional response is portrayed as a "Kantian" counter to the "utilitarian" response. In this case, as I said before, I think the artificiality of the situation contaminates the experiment. What I mean by this is, the subjects of the experiment may be in a completely different "mind" depending on their unconscious expectations based on "normal" human interactions in an environment where there's no guarantee that the relationship will be limited to a single transaction. In the real world, the "Kantian" response ("punishment") also happens to be "utilitarian" due to expectations of repeatability.

I'm also disturbed by use of hypotheticals of this sort outside of brain research, typically to argue in favor of some utilitarian standpoint in a legal grey area.

Quote from: TonyLBI don't get this.  It seems so ... Calvinist ... like nothing human beings do on their own can possibly be worthy, unless it is due to some greater outside power acting through them.

Is this limited to just discussion, or are you saying that if there's no great objective truth than nothing is worth doing at all?

No, if there's no objective truth then there is one and only one reason why something would be "worth" doing: because you want to.
Thats the only thing it could all come down to.

And this is also the reason why discussion these subjects would be impossible: because the only motive one could have for doing anything would be strict personal preference.

RPGPundit

Quote from: gleichmanWhat possible reason can they give to keep rapists from making the decision to act upon their desires?

"If you do this, we will either kill you or make your life supremely unpleasant, whatever your subjective idea of unpleasant might be. Maybe it's Celine Dion, I don't know. Whatever it is, we're going to do it to you if you rape people."

Quote from: gleichmanWhy would they even want to?

Well, again, most people don't really like to be raped, so it's a good idea to have laws which reduce the number of rapes, thus lessening your average chance of being raped.

Quote from: gleichmanThe question for a culture that has embraced moral relativism, and sees itself as objectively morally equal to a Stalin- is what do they do with that mindset?

Well, here's the thing about Stalin: he had a lot of people killed, and not many people got a lot of, you know, satisfaction out of his time in charge. If you like satisfaction, and like not being killed, you want to avoid living in a nation where someone like Stalin is in charge.

Quote from: gleichmanWould they only act if Stalin threatened them and not others, making them the ultimate isolationists?

It would depend entirely on the minutiae of the situation, but it's entirely possible. It's also possible that they'd be tied up in a bunch of mutual defense pacts and economic treaties that would mean they'd want to get involved, or that they'd want to act preemptively when someone such as Stalin rose to power, on the off chance he'd eventually start having them put to death, too, even though they weren't citizens of his nation. All these and more are possible, yes: it's all going to depend on the situation.

Quote from: gleichmanHow does a nation of such people manage the national will to do anything? They are after all nothing but a collection of different opinions completely without common ground.

Well, for one thing, as John Morrow has eloquently pointed out, they do have common ground, in the form of biological imperatives to do stuff like eat, not die, and have enough peace to fuck every so often. A nation of such people will frankly have more in common than the scattered bizarrity that's the mish-mash of absolutist moralities we have today!

That's not to say dissent amongst even rational people with the same survival needs won't arise, but since it's in everyone's best interest to co-operate at least to some degree, national will arises.

Quote from: gleichmanHow can they avoid the undermining of their culture by a sub-group who do believe in objective morality, but is growing in population such that they will take control of democratic government in the next three decades or so?

We don't, gleichman. That's the world in which we live. We're horribly outnumbered, and the government's already run by people who believe there is one single code of behavior which is correct, and all other codes are incorrect. And I'll tell you, it's a real hoot.

The only solution, then, is to grow our own population over time until we outnumber you. I pursue this goal in several ways, not the least of which is advocacy of moral relativism on internet message forums.

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd this is also the reason why discussion these subjects would be impossible: because the only motive one could have for doing anything would be strict personal preference.

And it would be impossible to have a discussion informed by nothing more than personal preference? There is evidence to suggest otherwise.

Quote from: John MorrowYou mean like the Khmer Rouge evacuating the population of Phnom Pehn into the countryside and then executing the people whose culture they couldn't change?

Yes, I know that's not what you mean and I'm unfairly hanging the Killing Fields around your neck but the sorts of social engineering that you are talking about, making it sound as if countries can just wave their hands and change cultures and movie people around like pieces on a risk board, reminds me very much behind the mindset of Mao's Great Leap Forward which tried to centrally refashion an entire economy in a few years and led to as many as 40 million or more deaths or, well, the Khmer Rouge trying to remake Cambodian society to fit their ideals.  And from a pure cost and benefit perspective, various governments have come to the conclusion that it's easier to wipe people out than reeducate them.  I know you are trying to suggest humane alternatives to wiping people out but the people tend to get wiped out just the same doing the sorts of things you suggest, especially if they object to people making decisions for them.

Which I why I try to keep responses to one person to THAT person. :pundit:

I am not advocating moving anyone anywhere, I'm demonstrating that removal of a huge chunk of the population is not utilitarian in any but the most short sighted ways.

Though I should have suspected you'd hang some relocation based atrocity around my neck regardless. ;)

I personally don't advocate forcing people to do anything.  I've stated here, I'm certain, a certain bent towards the libertarian and even limited anarchist political values. Note I said bent, I am not blithely traipsing along and suggesting that either group is right, merely that I can identify with them to some extent.

While the idealist in me DOES look to the far future and survival of the species, I am too damn selfish to care about what will happen after I'm long dead and gone.  If all of humanity is wiped out the day after I die, I won't much care... after all, I'll already be dead.  I'd prefer that not be the case. I'd prefer that thousands of years from now the children of Man roam the stars, though I may not be able to fathom the culture they develop when they do.


That is to say: If you gave me the power to shape the world as I saw fit (akin to Pol Pot or Chairman Mao anyway...) I can't promise I wouldn't let my ideals (long term survival of species) overcome my philosophy of letting people get along to get along.  I can certainly hope I'd do better than they did, and I can promise to care more than either one evidently did about the people in my charge... but since I'm unlikely to ever have that power those are just empty words.

Because I do feel that the ideal is worth your comfort or mine.  In the realm of hypothetical if someone offered me a magic button that would ensure that Mankind would acheive the stars and continue as a species until the death of the universe at the cost of my own life... I might just push it. I'm honest enough to say might.  I'm also willing to say I could change my mind if the future humanity was a brutal civilization that wiped out other species just because they could, tyrants of space. I almost certainly wouldn't push that button if the person offering it wouldn't tell me that failure to push it garaunteed failure to survive as a species. I'm willing to gamble on it...

But there are no magic buttons, and angry Pikachu's don't get the power to change the world. So its all moot anyway.

-Spike, who honestly thinks the men named in this post were at best blithely waiving their hands and demanding 'make it so' without once considering the human cost, or the reasons it should or should not 'be so'.

Quote from: John MorrowWithout qualification or prompting, ask your mother which car is the better car, a BMW or a Yugo.

I'm certain she'd say the BMW. That would be her subjective valuation of the relevant vehicles, and would make no statement about their objective value [because they don't have objective value, only imparted, subjective value].

Let me try this: if humans did not exist, would the BMW be a better car? That's the difference between subjective and objective: the existence [or relevance] of a thinker, a valuer.

Quote from: John MorrowCan you imagine a reasonable situation where a less safe car would be preferred over a more safe car, all other relevant factors being equal?

But all other factors are not equal.

Quote from: John MorrowI understand that there are differences in aesthetic preferences but not all differences are simply aesthetic.

Well, the differences have objective existences, as well: the BMW can change its velocity more quickly than the Yugo. The Yugo costs fewer of your dollars. The BMW is more popular, and will result in increased sexual activity for you. The Yugo will be nippier in traffic, and get better gas mileage. These differences are objective, but the relative valuation of those differences is subjective [by definition].

Quote from: John MorrowSo if there is nothing rationally wrong with tossing junior in the pool and nothing objectively morally wrong with tossing junior in the pool, why don't more people do it?

Uh, police? The influence of 10,000 years of human civilization? The influence of 4 billion years of natural selection? It's not the existence of objective morality, I'll tell you that!

Quote from: John MorrowAnd why do the people who do things like that or kill their friend over a slice of pizza or torture and murder dozens of people over a few decades predictable come from the small percentage of the population with a specific defect in their moral reasoning that makes them unable to tell the difference between moral transgressions (objective wrongs) and conventional transgressions (subjective wrongs)?

Are you saying the only people who commit murder and mayhem are psychopaths? Because, seriously, that's so not true.

Quote from: John MorrowBut if they are willing to kill someone casually, on what basis do you think they'd consider it unpleasant to watch the person die?

A person who's willing to kill someone else is probably less likely to find it unpleasant. Is this, I don't know, going somewhere?

Quote from: John MorrowBut that's because you have the base moral components that a psychopath is lacking...

That's an interesting assumption.

Quote from: John MorrowI'm not sure what you mean by "a template for brain function"...

I mean a single way in which a correctly functioning brain will behave.

Quote from: John Morrow...but do you really think that the physical structure of the brain is unconnected to the functioning of the brain or that the various structures of the brain perform significant different purposes in different people?

I definitely do not believe that. Do you really think there's one right way all that works, and it's identical in all people who aren't psychopaths?

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, if there's no objective truth then there is one and only one reason why something would be "worth" doing: because you want to.
Thats the only thing it could all come down to.

Makes sense.  Of course, what other people want and why they want it is an interesting subject, so there's a lot of room for good discussion there.

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd this is also the reason why discussion these subjects would be impossible: because the only motive one could have for doing anything would be strict personal preference.

Why would that make discussion impossible?  Surely one can discuss personal preferences.  Indeed, to the extent that people can explain the reasoning behind their preferences, such discussions can be very illuminating.

I get the feeling that you think "discussion" means something above and beyond ... well ... talking about things.  Because I really can't imagine that you mean to be saying "It is impossible to talk about preferences," ... which is, uh, what you seem to be saying.  Care to fill us in on the missing subtext?

Quote from: EngineThe only solution, then, is to grow our own population over time until we outnumber you. I pursue this goal in several ways, not the least of which is advocacy of moral relativism on internet message forums.

Mrrrh?  Surely there are other solutions ... like tolerance of differing viewpoints, for a start.

Not that I'm against a vigorous and sweaty program of population growth, mind you.

Quote from: Engine"If you do this, we will either kill you or make your life supremely unpleasant, whatever your subjective idea of unpleasant might be. Maybe it's Celine Dion, I don't know. Whatever it is, we're going to do it to you if you rape people."

So you're all for forcing your personal perference upon others.

Quote from: EngineWell, again, most people don't really like to be raped, so it's a good idea to have laws which reduce the number of rapes, thus lessening your average chance of being raped.

One could of course suggest that the people who don't like being raped are equal in number to those who do rape as a baseline.

Perhaps it would be better to only restrict each individual to one rape in their lifetime, there after you can punish them. Or maybe one rape victim who they can keep, or even trade.

And what happens if as the culture evolves under it's own moral decision making to a point where rape is now an acceptable activity. Do you join it, pass on it, or attempt to alter that change in culture (again forcing your perferences upon others)?

Quote from: EngineWell, here's the thing about Stalin: he had a lot of people killed, and not many people got a lot of, you know, satisfaction out of his time in charge.

May I suggest you look back over the history of his rule. It doesn't match what you're suggesting. He had widespread support and respect throughout the world.

Quote from: EngineIt's also possible that they'd be tied up in a bunch of mutual defense pacts and economic treaties that would mean they'd want to get involved, or that they'd want to act preemptively when someone such as Stalin rose to power, on the off chance he'd eventually start having them put to death, too, even though they weren't citizens of his nation. All these and more are possible, yes: it's all going to depend on the situation.

You actually think people, with nothing other then their own self-defined morality could make those types of decisions without a Stalin like power structure forcing it upon them?

It's never been done in history, the closest we've come is found in Europe today- and they have proved nearly helpless to do much of what you suggest is possible here.

Nothing seen indicates any strength behind a of collection of people of this sort. But as Europe approaches it over the next 30 years, would its failure have any impact in your wishful vision of such a culture. Or would you just say it failed for reasons unconnected to its abandonment of objective morality?

Quote from: EngineThat's not to say dissent amongst even rational people with the same survival needs won't arise, but since it's in everyone's best interest to co-operate at least to some degree, national will arises.

Is it really in everyone's best interest to co-operate? I doubt it, for example I could say (and with good historical reason for it, unlike your dreams for the future) that the past success of traditional US morality is a proven method, excellent for the self-interest of the nation going forward.

And you still disagree. So much for self-interest driving things.

Why do you have such faith in people being able to identify their self-interest, surely I who stand athwart your entire definition of it after giving it great thought in my youth am but an immediate example of the rash stupidity mankind is prone to.

And yet, you think that the wide-spread rejection of the belief in objective morality will change all this so that self-interest is not only identified by the large majority of people- but is agreed upon in action.

Really?

Quote from: EngineThe only solution, then, is to grow our own population over time until we outnumber you. I pursue this goal in several ways, not the least of which is advocacy of moral relativism on internet message forums.

And this is how you would save Europe from becoming a collection of Islamic nations over the next 30-40 years.

Internet Message Forums.

Good luck with that.

What exactly is wrong with Islam that isn't wrong with Christianity? Or Buddhism? Or any religion?

I'm sorry. I Know Gleichman is a troll, but I can't resist.

Quote from: Serious PaulWhat exactly is wrong with Islam that isn't wrong with Christianity? Or Buddhism? Or any religion?

Turkey is preparing to publish a document that represents a revolutionary reinterpretation of Islam - and a controversial and radical modernisation of the religion. (BBC Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7264903.stm))

Quote from: BBCThe Hadith is a collection of thousands of sayings reputed to come from the Prophet Muhammad.

As such, it is the principal guide for Muslims in interpreting the Koran and the source of the vast majority of Islamic law, or Sharia.

But the Turkish state has come to see the Hadith as having an often negative influence on a society it is in a hurry to modernise, and believes it responsible for obscuring the original values of Islam.

It says that a significant number of the sayings were never uttered by Muhammad, and even some that were need now to be reinterpreted.

This part sounds very promising:

Quote from: BBCIts supporters say the spirit of logic and reason inherent in Islam at its foundation 1,400 years ago are being rediscovered. Some believe it could represent the beginning of a reformation in the religion.

I mean, this just makes sense:

Quote"There are some messages that ban women from travelling for three days or more without their husband's permission and they are genuine.

"But this isn't a religious ban. It came about because in the Prophet's time it simply wasn't safe for a woman to travel alone like that. But as time has passed, people have made permanent what was only supposed to be a temporary ban for safety reasons."

I'm very optimistic about this project, and think it could be an amazing thing for millions of people all over the world. :)

Quote from: Serious PaulWhat exactly is wrong with Islam that isn't wrong with Christianity? Or Buddhism? Or any religion?

I'm sorry. I Know Gleichman is a troll, but I can't resist.

For the point of this exchange, it's not important to define that. From Engine's PoV Christianity and Islam are identical- believers in an objective morality.

In Europe it just so happens we have a increasingly (and certainly majority) culture much like Engine wishes to see everywhere. Non-religious, committed to rational thought and self-defining of their individual values. Within their boarders they have a rapidly growing body of objective moralists who own values conflict with those on nearly every level. By the middle of this century they will reach or exceed numeric parity.

What happens then? What should happen then?

Well gleichman since you don't care what we think, why don't you go ahead and skip the holding your breath part of the show and show us the money. Oh wait, you'd tell us but you can't be bothered, because you're just way too smart.

I forgot....

Quote from: Serious PaulWell gleichman since you don't care what we think, why don't you go ahead and skip the holding your breath part of the show and show us the money. Oh wait, you'd tell us but you can't be bothered, because you're just way too smart.

I forgot....

Bitter are we? You convinced me you didn't matter and weren't worth talking to do, and now you're upset with me?

Pray tell, how can I get back into your good graces that... well don't matter? Perhaps if you tell me what I have to gain from it? Appeal to my own self-interest.

Certainly that will do the trick.



Besides, what money are you interested in exactly?

Quote from: StuartTurkey is preparing to publish a document that represents a revolutionary reinterpretation of Islam - and a controversial and radical modernisation of the religion. (BBC Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7264903.stm))

I missed that. Thanks for the link.

Need to consider what my opinion of that effort is. Pure PR for the west so Turkey can enter the EU? A method for the government to hold onto secular power? An honest attempt at a reformation even if it's at the cost of honest history?

Quote from: StuartI don't disagree with you, but I do think that I'd prefer to be the one making choices about what and when is suitable for my children to be exposed to, and when I have to have certain conversations with them.  I'm in no rush to have 9 year old teenagers.  Why should I have to explain to a pre-schooler about the picture of a rabbit F@%$ a duck that some guy walks past with on his shirt?  Why should John Morrow have to talk to his kids, not just about sex, but about hardcore pornography because some idiot is watching it on the TV in his SUV at the stop lights?

I do not have these problems. I do not know if that is a function of the community I live in or a matter of choices I make in where I go. I am not in the habit of looking in other peoples cars nor really paying any attention to peoples shirts. Theo has been less then interested likewise.

I suppose if prostitutes were walking up and rubbing against my three year old I would be concerned. As the adult, I feel it is my duty to avoid exposing the child to this.

I am not trying to give you a hard time, just saying I do not encounter these things. When I do, I take it as an opportunity to educate should he be interested.

Quote from: StuartPart of the problem is that some people are either disregarding community standards, or we're seeing those community standards shift. That means your child is more likely to come into contact with it before he's an adult.  You don't get a choice in that either -- it's based on the actions of other people in your community.

Then you should find a different community? No snarky but honest. Alternatively, you could try to change it. I doubt you will have much success if you are the minority. For instance, I have a friend. He lives in a particularly seedy part of Minneapolis. He has two children, one is a girl. There are hookers, crack houses and strip clubs all around his house. His complaint "The hookers set a bad example for my girl". My response, "Move." He does not think he should have to. I point out he is part of a community that does not share his views. Eventually, he moved to a law income neighborhood filled with children and has been very happy with the community. If the TV offends, turn it off or monitor the channels your child watches. I do this already. It works out pretty good.

In the end, if the child is old enough to ask, he probably is old enough for a response. The response may vary with age but should satisfy regardless.

I don;t think this is news to you and believe me when I say, I hope you can raise your children how ever you please. You just may not be able to do it the way you want in the community you are in.

Bill

Quote from: gleichmanNeed to consider what my opinion of that effort is. Pure PR for the west so Turkey can enter the EU? A method for the government to hold onto secular power? An honest attempt at a reformation even if it's at the cost of honest history?

I believe the people working on the project are genuine in their stated goals.  What remains to be seen is how the rest of the muslim world will respond.  I would like to think it will catch on. :)

I think eventually it, or something like it will have to catch on Stuart. The Islamic world isn't completely filled with lunatics.

A fascinating read, by the way. Thanks for sharing it.

@Hinterwelt:  It's not a problem yet (my kids are happy and unaware of things we notice).  There are definitely social norms that I see changing in our  North American society (don't know about the rest of the world) and is likely to continue to change.  Things always change, but I'm not the only one noticing a lot of these changes aren't very positive.

Well change in and of itself isn't bad. I mean society isn't a static thing. I think sometimes we forget that-the we in this case meaning society as a whole, and it's individual subsets.

By the social standards of fifty years ago things today are off the hook. By the standards of a hundred years ago things are beyond reckoning. But in a hundred years? A thousand?

Hell this may be the golden age of America folks.

Quote from: Serious PaulBy the social standards of fifty years ago things today are off the hook. By the standards of a hundred years ago things are beyond reckoning. But in a hundred years? A thousand?

Hell this may be the golden age of America folks.

"As the 21st century began, human evolution was at a turning point..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqa4LpdtOD8

:haw: and :(

Quote from: StuartThere are definitely social norms that I see changing in our  North American society (don't know about the rest of the world) and is likely to continue to change.  Things always change, but I'm not the only one noticing a lot of these changes aren't very positive.

History is not kind to rich republics; they have always decayed and failed. Success brings the abandonment of those very virtues that brought that success, for virtues are difficult goals and success breeds a fondness for softer roads.


I take the words of Abraham Lincoln very seriously:

"If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be the authors and finishers. As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide."

Quote from: gleichmanYou convinced me you didn't matter and weren't worth talking to

And yet, here you are still talking to those self-same people, in order to tell them over and over that you've decided they're not worth talking to.

I love the internet :D

Quote from: EngineA moral understanding which varies constantly throughout the ages, and between differing cultures, suggesting there is no universal human morality, but only morality which is the product of genetic imperative and human experience.

My argument is that the basic components of human morality are part of the genetic imperative, which is why you see the same behavior in monkeys.  It goes beyond "hungry" and "want to live" into "unfair trade" and "don't want to hurt him".  That it's malleable does not mean it doesn't exist.  Some people go on hunger strikes and starve themselves to death but that does not mean that normal humans do not experience hunger or don't have a will to survive.

Quote from: EngineThen we're definitely using the terms very differently! Why don't you define your usage of both terms, and I will adhere to your definitions.

For all intents and purposes, objective = universal and subjective = relative.  Another way to look at it is nature vs. nurture.  Common vs. individual.

Quote from: EngineAgain, perhaps we mean something very different by "common morality," but, uh, it's been considered A-OK by huge swathes of the populace to kill anyone who wasn't a member of your own family/tribe/nation/caste at various times in history.

Correct.  And as I've explained, emotional distancing and ultimately dehumanizing another person is a way to reduce the emotional and empathic component of morality.  We care more about family and in-group people than strangers and out-group people, and more about both of those than people we feel are inhuman or deserve a killing.  That's why denying the humanity of an enemy is critical to getting people to condone killing them.  And it's why cults isolate people from their families and the surrounding culture, to turn everyone else into an out-group.  But the building blocks components are the same and shifting the moral distance of a person can change your perception of them and what you think you can morally do to them.  For example, the playing of Christmas music during WW1 create a spontaneous cease-fire by humanizing the opponents and making them seem in-group while fathers and brothers who kill their own daughters and sisters for honor are persuaded by a combination of emotional distancing and the treat of worse consequences to the family to go along with it.  Even then, we have a woman who turned her husband into the authorities for an honor killing of their daughter because, culture aside, she felt it was murder.

Quote from: EngineBefore civilization...well, no one talked much about morality, I don't suppose, and if they did, the bastards didn't write it down.

Lawrence Keeley writes about some of the relevant issues in his book, War Before Civilization.  You'll find the same in-group and out-group divides and in some case, dehumanization.  While the homicide rates go up because it's easier to kill and get away with it, you'll still see things like the stone age adult with spina bifida.  Even among Neanderthals, you can find the elderly who were clearly taken care of by others in their old age.  

Broadly speaking, in moral calculus, people by default follow a variation of the Pastun code, "Me against my brother, my brother and me against our cousins, we and our cousins against the enemy."  The closer a person is to you, the more moral weight that they carry in moral decisions.  I think that one of the key features of the modern world that helps reduce our tolerance for harm to others is that pictures and video of people from around the world along with education about them reduces the emotional distance between people, usually preventing us from getting the the inhuman level of distance and often even from the enemy distance, sometimes to our detriment (it's a liability to be unable to morally distinguish legitimate enemies from your friends).  We've also become far less tolerant of animal cruelty through treating animals as pets and family members and knowing more about them, which is why pet animals are generally given a different status by people than farm animals and, as the saying goes, you don't name the pigs you are going to slaughter and eat.

What's key here is that it's not the core morality that changes so much as the emotional distance and groupings.  The other thing that can change is the urgency and utilitarian needs.  For example, a person might never normally kill their neighbor but might be persuaded to if killing their neighbor is the only way to save their family.  

This is where psychopaths offer a critical contrast.  First, they lack most or all of that core morality that provides the common ground that certain things are good and other things are bad.  As a result, the emotional distancing becomes entirely meaningless to them.  For example, Karla Homolka offered her sister to Paul Bernardo to rape by knocking her out with veterinary drugs, killing her accidentally in the process, which she doesn't seem terribly broken up or repentant about.  Her sister, a stranger, a rock or tree?  All the same thing morally to a psychopath -- nothing.

Quote from: EngineA moral understanding which varies constantly throughout the ages, and between differing cultures, suggesting there is no universal human morality, but only morality which is the product of genetic imperative and human experience.

My argument is that the basic components of human morality are part of the genetic imperative, which is why you see the same behavior in monkeys.  It goes beyond "hungry" and "want to live" into "unfair trade" and "don't want to hurt him".  That it's malleable does not mean it doesn't exist.  Some people go on hunger strikes and starve themselves to death but that does not mean that normal humans do not experience hunger or don't have a will to survive.

Quote from: EngineThen we're definitely using the terms very differently! Why don't you define your usage of both terms, and I will adhere to your definitions.

For all intents and purposes, objective = universal and subjective = relative.  Another way to look at it is nature vs. nurture.  Common vs. individual.

Quote from: EngineAgain, perhaps we mean something very different by "common morality," but, uh, it's been considered A-OK by huge swathes of the populace to kill anyone who wasn't a member of your own family/tribe/nation/caste at various times in history.

Correct.  And as I've explained, emotional distancing and ultimately dehumanizing another person is a way to reduce the emotional and empathic component of morality.  We care more about family and in-group people than strangers and out-group people, and more about both of those than people we feel are inhuman or deserve a killing.  That's why denying the humanity of an enemy is critical to getting people to condone killing them.  And it's why cults isolate people from their families and the surrounding culture, to turn everyone else into an out-group.  But the building blocks components are the same and shifting the moral distance of a person can change your perception of them and what you think you can morally do to them.  For example, the playing of Christmas music during WW1 create a spontaneous cease-fire by humanizing the opponents and making them seem in-group while fathers and brothers who kill their own daughters and sisters for honor are persuaded by a combination of emotional distancing and the treat of worse consequences to the family to go along with it.  Even then, we have a woman who turned her husband into the authorities for an honor killing of their daughter because, culture aside, she felt it was murder.

Quote from: EngineI would expect, after 10,000 years of artificial selection, that the psychopaths would be under-represented, most certainly. That does not indicate that their responses are not genetic imperative, only that they've been selected out. Have you noticed that, for the last 10,000 years, we've gotten less and less tolerant of, say, killing people?

I would suspect that psychopaths would be less successful in small close-knit societies because their problems become apparent over time.  That's part of my concern about normalizing the psychopathic perspective.  The more we accept or excuse the sort of behavior that psychopaths exhibit and the more we surround ourselves with strangers instead of family, the easier it is for psychopaths to blend in and hide.

Quote from: EngineAre you a student of history, out of curiosity? You seem very well-read, but it's sometimes a mistake to assume.

It depends on the period and subject.  I know quite a bit about early human and Bronze Age cultures and the history of Judaism and early Christianity, for example, but I'd have a rough time giving you a list of Egyptian kings or specific dates.  I'm generally more interested in cultures and themes than lists of kings, battles, and dates.  To be honest, it's probably hit or miss.  I follow what interests me and I talk about what I know.  Obviously I can't talk about what I don't know. :p

Quote from: EngineIt's difficult for me to understand how this works. People have some morality burned into them, based on their emotional responses, but sometimes their emotional responses cause them to act against their morality? Look, I'm no great student of human behavior, but I don't understand how morality can be completely internal, and still be absolute when it changes all the time.

Human morality consists of a collection of components.  Broadly speaking, the brain processes personal, impersonal, and non-moral decisions differently.  The moral transgressions are personal moral issues while the conventional transgressions are impersonal or even non-moral decisions that are simply frames as moral decisions.

As the Discover Magazine article describes it:

   The more people Greene scanned, the clearer the pattern became: Impersonal moral decisions (like whether to throw a switch on a trolley) triggered many of the same parts of the brain as nonmoral questions do (such as whether you should take the train or the bus to work). Among the regions that became active was a patch on the surface of the brain near the temples. This region, known as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, is vital for logical thinking. Neuroscientists believe it helps keep track of several pieces of information at once so that they can be compared. "We're using our brains to make decisions about things that evolution hasn't wired us up for," Greene says.
Personal moral questions lit up other areas. One, located in the cleft of the brain behind the center of the forehead, plays a crucial role in understanding what other people are thinking or feeling. A second, known as the superior temporal sulcus, is located just above the ear; it gathers information about people from the way they move their lips, eyes, and hands. A third, made up of parts of two adjacent regions known as the posterior cingulate and the precuneus, becomes active when people feel strong emotions.
Greene suspects these regions are part of a neural network that produces the emotional instincts behind many of our moral judgments. The superior temporal sulcus may help make us aware of others who would be harmed. Mind reading lets us appreciate their suffering. The precuneus may help trigger a negative feeling—an inarticulate sense, for example, that killing someone is plain wrong.[/QUOTE]

Basically, your brain polls it's various parts for an answer and compares the strength of the responses to pick a winner.  What that means is that you can have a moral choice that greatly disgusts a person but they'll do it anyway because something even stronger trumped it.  For example, if an officer tells a soldier to shoot a group of innocent civilians to instill terror in the locals, the soldier may be disgusted by the idea of killing innocent people but his fear that he'll be shot and killed if he doesn't may trump the disgust and he'll do it anyway, especially if the pragmatic utilitarian component points out that even if he sacrifices himself for his principles, the officer will just find someone else to kill them.  A father may be socially required to kill his daughter for sleeping around in some cultures and may not want to out of love for his daughter.  But his fear of what might happen to his family might make him go along with it anyway.

What can also happen is that you can emotionally distance yourself from the targets, thus lessening or eliminating the disgust.  Maybe the innocent civilians are just a bunch of foreigners from a nation that wronged your people so you hold them morally responsible for what their people did or maybe the father convinces himself that his daughter brought her death upon herself because she should have known better.  People can also use that to escape unbearable choices, adjusting their view of one of them to make it more palatable.  You don't want to push the fat man to his death to save five people so you imaging he's going to cure cancer and they're just a bunch of dump menial laborers, for example.

So if it can vary that much, why am I placing so much emphasis on the conscience component that psychopaths are lacking?  Two reasons.  

First, we know what happens when it's broken.  We have examples and it's not pretty.

Second, is the combination of two things.  I believe we all have the components of a psychopath inside of us because the evidence suggests that the psychopath is missing something, not that they have something extra so the "psychopath perspective" is present in all of your moral decisions with a particular moral weight.  Second, as social creatures our morality is influenced by the behavior of those around us who we look to for guidance and conformation, thus the behavior of those around us and how society responds to certain ideas and beliefs can influence what we think is right or wrong, something significantly.  This includes the cultural component to morality that moral relativists focus on.  What that means is that the more readily psychopaths move invisibly through society, the more likely they are to influence others who look to them for guidance and confirmation and the more culture excuses or even celebrates a cold, impersonal, detached, and analytical approach to morality, the more a person is persuaded to weigh the impersonal moral answers more strongly and the personal moral answers experienced as emotions less strongly.

When people have asked in this thread, for example, to stop using emotionally loaded moral issues, what they are saying is that they prefer the impersonal immoral space.  They want to discount the outrage, disgust, and anger and look only at the utilitarian moral calculus of costs and benefits.  My counter argument is that it's wrong to do that.  We should look at moral problems that make us disgusted, outraged, and angry rather than hold them at arms length and look at them with the cool detachment of, well, a psychopath.  Let me repeat the key quote from my first message in this thread:

   In another Hare study, groups of letters were flashed to volunteers. Some of them were nonsense, some formed real words. The subject's job was to press a button whenever he recognized a real word, while Hare recorded response time and brain activity. Non-psychopaths respond faster and display more brain activity when processing emotionally loaded words such as "rape" or "cancer" than when they see neutral words such as "tree." With psychopaths, Hare found no difference. To them, "rape" and "tree" have the same emotional impact -- none.

The psychopath makes moral decisions with emotional detachment.  They view words and ideas with emotional detachment.  "To them, "rape" and "tree" have the same emotional impact -- none."  So when people ask to stop talking about the holocaust and talk about brands of cars or morally ambiguous situations, they are asking to more the discussion into the moral space of emotional detachment, impersonal morality, and the psychopath.  When people claim that we can't expect people to react to anything as a universal wrong, we are validating the perspective of the psychopath, for which nothing is inherently wrong.  And when we excuse the expression of vile and antisocial fantasies in the public space, we are making the public space friendly for psychopaths to move in and dominate.

All of that would be fine if psychopaths were productive pillars of society but they aren't.  At best, they stay out of trouble.  Often, they leave trails of destruction in their wakes.  Sometimes, they become serial killers and mass murderers.  And it's not because they are irrational or stupid or have any new psychological component that's lacking from a normal non-psychopath.  They seem to be just missing the component that we conventionally call a "conscience".  Take the conscience away and anything, really anything, becomes possible.  They are the embodiment of moral relativism if all of the morality is set to NULL.  

So what I'm saying for normal people is that I don't think it's good to encourage people to be dispassionate in their morality, treating every decision as an impersonal moral decision.  That means making decisions more like a psychopath and I think the evidence shows that it doesn't produce better moral decisions.  Instead, it warps morality toward viewing people as pieces on a playing board, with predictable and repeatable results.

Certainly being too passionate also has its liabilities, which is one of the reasons why a call for dispassionate decisions is persuasive.  And certainly some moderation is called for.  But I think that disgust, outrage, and anger are important components of moral decisions and shouldn't be banished from the dialog, which is what I think people are trying to do when they ask for less emotionally loaded moral problems.  Face them.  Deal with them.  Don't look me in the face and tell me that the thought of your mother being raped makes you yawn and if the prevailing social standards said that raping your mother was fine, you couldn't be bothered to make a moral argument in her defense because the morality of the rapists is just as valid as your own.

Quote from: EngineAnd you believe the fight is between two emotional responses, and that whatever is "good" wins?

Whatever is the strongest imperative wins.  For example, if I apply "killing is bad" to a bug (not human, morally insignificant) the moral disgust at doing so will be very small and might easily be overwhelmed by the pragmatic interest in keeping my house and food clean of bugs.  If the bug is somewhat beneficial, the moral significance of the bug increases so maybe I'll take the effort to throw the spider outside instead of squashing it.  If the bug is one of the last members of an endangered species, the moral weight of the bug increases significantly and perhaps I'll go out of my way to save the bug.  

Quote from: EngineI believe these warring tendencies are generally between our biological responses and our civilized upbringing. When someone cuts me off in traffic, I may want to punch them in the nose, but a life of being told not to punch people in the nose for cutting me off in traffic restrains me. I don't know how we'd go about determining the relative likelihood of these two possibilities, either, sadly.

I think that those tendencies are naturally there but given context which adjusts their weight based on our culture.  So for example, someone cutting you off in traffic triggers disgust from the parts of your brain that process fairness and mutual respect while your rational brain might weigh the cost of actually attacking him.  Your desire not to hurt other humans will act to deter acting violently against the intensity of how wronged you feel, as will your assessment of how beating him up might be viewed by others.  You'll put all of that into a blender and get an answer.  The less cultural disapproval you expect for acting violently, the more likely you'll be to do so.  The less empathy you feel for the other driver, the more likely you'll be to hurt them.  And here's a key one, the more intensely and personally you take the disrespect that the other driver has displayed to you, the more you'll want to hurt them.

That last point explains the problem with "boy gangs" (gangs of young men) who overemphasize the moral value of respect and disrespect into key moral motivators.  The more you move impersonal or casual disrespect into the personal moral space, the more intense it becomes as a motivator toward seeking revenge and violence.  

So it's true that culture influences morality but it doesn't create it out of whole-cloth.  It's malleable but not infinitely so, nature and nurture, objective and subjective.  But in the core, I think we can see the basic principles of objective morality and get an understanding of how healthy and normal moral decisions are supposed to be made.

Quote from: EngineThis is a good time to reach back a bit. You believe this moral conscience is genetic, while I believe it's mostly based on experience post-birth, but we're both agreeing, then, that this morality isn't burned into the universe, right? It's not absolute, or universal, it's just the morality which natural and/or artificial selection has produced in us, correct? We may disagree on the terminology, and disagree on the relative valuation of natural versus artificial selection, but we both agree that morality doesn't pre-date humanity, correct?

I think that question is tangental.  I personally believe in God but I'm not sure if God defines Good and Evil or God chooses to be Good.  I don't think it matters and if I were to embrace an evolutionary perspective, I think I'd come to pretty much the same conclusion.  Ultimately humans have a certain ingrained morality that's conducive to our survival and success.  We have living examples of what happens if we change the balance of the moral weight in favor of dispassionate and impersonal morality and ignore the ingrained emotional component.  The worst examples of human depravity have been the result.

Quote from: EngineSo do stupid people with consciences. And many highly intelligent and rational human beings without consciences also do all sorts of nice things, so I don't think we can reasonably draw a line between "lack of conscience" and "awful things."

I don't think that's entirely true.  If there is no connection as you claim, then why do psychopaths make up around 50% of all violent criminals when they make up around 4% of the general population?  And how many of the other 50% are stupid or gullible people like Dylan Klebold who let himself get persuaded to go along with a psychopath?  

Quote from: EngineThis is a characterization of psychopaths I generally don't hear: that they act out of self-interest. You're a student of Hare, so perhaps you could tell me how it's in a psychopath's rational best interest to be impulsive and irresponsible, to lack impulse control? I've always felt psychopathy goes beyond enlightened self-interest and moves into the realm of the destructively self-absorbed. Actually, I thought that was rather the point. You're trying to represent psychopaths as - and I'm not making this up - "rational." And that's just not so, if we're using the Hare definition.

They act out of self-interest to the extent that they do what they want.  They are only about their needs and their wants.  Not all psychopaths are impulsive and irresponsible and I would argue that many of them get that way because they can get away with it.  Take a good look at how Eric Harris talked his way out of the van robbery and evaded the scrutiny of his parents and the police.  Or see this excerpt (http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780767920209&view=excerpt) from Martha Stout's
 The Sociopath Next Door:
 
   Imagine--if you can--not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken. And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools. Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless. You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience, that they seldom even guess at your condition.

In other words, you are completely free of internal restraints, and your unhampered liberty to do just as you please, with no pangs of conscience, is conveniently invisible to the world. You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by their consciences, will most likely remain undiscovered.
How will you live your life? What will you do with your huge and secret advantage, and with the corresponding handicap of other people (conscience)? [...]

Quote from: EngineCould they not have chosen to obey moral values because doing so was in their best interest, or just because it felt good? I feel - again - like we're saying the same things, but using different words for them. I think part of it is that you believe a human-created moral structure is objective or absolute.

Sure, they can act morally.  But they'll act morally out of convention rather than morality.  In other words, they'll be deterred by the same sort of restraint that keeps a normal person from chewing food with their mouth open or walking around in their underwear.  It's a constraint that can keep someone in line but it's a less intense constraint than a moral constraint.  And remember that intensity plays a role in the choices a person makes.

Thus you might have a law abiding ex-professional football player decide that he can murder his ex-wife and get away with it because of the intense jealousy motivating him to do so and then he'll do it, where a normal person likely wouldn't.  And once he believes he can get away with crimes, he might do something even more stupid, like holding up a collectables dealer at gunpoint.  Simply put, the threshold of reasons that they need to hurt or kill someone else is significantly lower than it is for normal people.  

Quote from: EngineEvery time a Christian acts out of anger? People betray their beliefs every day; I don't think it's that they don't hold those beliefs.

Exactly, because the intensity of the anger overcomes their desire to forgive.  So just because human beings violate their core morality does not mean that the don't hold it.  How a person reacts doesn't necessarily reflect what they believe is right or wrong.

Quote from: EngineAnd again, if A leads to C, and A has some things in common with B, that does not mean necessarily that B leads to C. I cannot state this in simpler terms. Please stop using this fallacy. Please.

I think that A and B are substantially similar enough to suspect that B will lead to C without the moderating influence of the universal morality that the moral relativist doesn't believe in.  If you think A and B are significantly different, I'd like to know how.

Quote from: TonyLBI've bolded a word there that's making it hard for me to understand you.  Is that a typo, or is it actually supposed to be there?

Probably a typo.

Quote from: TonyLBAnd yet, here you are still talking to those self-same people, in order to tell them over and over that you've decided they're not worth talking to.

With Serious Paul, I was making a point by taking the devil's advocate's stance and displaying one of the final end results of the mindset he's taken. He's not too happy with it, for he wanted to be taken as someone worth talking to. But there is no objective reason for him to be so valued.

At the end of that exchange, he even attempted an appeal to my Christian beliefs to keep the conversation going- having found nothing in his own worldview to manage the task.

I wonder what possible leverage he could seek in a world full of people who believe as he does. Perhaps a bribe or trade that would suit my self-interest? That seems to be Engine's currency of choice.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut I still object to one of the examples given, the 50-50 test, not so much because the brain scan shows an emotional response, but because the emotional response is portrayed as a "Kantian" counter to the "utilitarian" response.

The brain scans are presented as "Kantian" counters to the "utilitarian" response in part because when certain parts of the brain light up on the scan, they know what those areas of the brain govern.  Thus the odds are good that if the part of the brain that generates "disgust" lights up that it's because of a "Kantian" response rather than a "utilitarian" response, which generates a different emotion.  So I think this is more than just blind speculation, though I suppose you could argue that they are still misreading the data.  If you are really interested, I invite you to look at the peer reviewed papers on Joshua Greene's web page.  I've read a few of them and they are pretty interesting.

Quote from: TonyLBI ... don't recall posing a problem.  I just asked some questions.

The "problem" is the reason why I doubt the situation you presented is workable or would produce good results.  As for the utility of suicide, if one person's organic parts can save a half-dozen other people, what's the utility of the saved people compared to the utility of the one person who was sacrificed?

Fucking hell, Morrow, and I thought I wrote long posts!

Quote from: John MorrowBasically, your brain polls it's various parts for an answer and compares the strength of the responses to pick a winner. What that means is that you can have a moral choice that greatly disgusts a person but they'll do it anyway because something even stronger trumped it. For example, if an officer tells a soldier to shoot a group of innocent civilians to instill terror in the locals, the soldier may be disgusted by the idea of killing innocent people but his fear that he'll be shot and killed if he doesn't may trump the disgust and he'll do it anyway, especially if the pragmatic utilitarian component points out that even if he sacrifices himself for his principles, the officer will just find someone else to kill them.

It's interesting the "I had to kill that innocent guy because otherwise I'd be killed."

In the first place, that's just plain cowardice. The whole job of a soldier is to stand as a barrier between helpless civilians and armed people who want to do them harm. A soldier deliberately shooting civilians is about equivalent morally to desertion in the face of battle.

Secondly, in general morality we do not kill or harm anyone except those who directly threaten us or those unable to defend themselves. If a man comes at me in the pub with a broken beer bottle, I can't kick his girlfriend in the groin and claim it was self-defence.

Lastly, only 14 Germans in all of WWII killed, sent to a concentration camp, or punished in any serious way for refusing to kill civilians. The vast majority who refused were able to just walk away. As described in this article (http://itech.fgcu.edu/&/issues/vol2/issue1/german.htm),
   [There are] many examples where high-ranking officials told their men that they could opt for other forms of service without shame.  On June 21, 1942, as a Major Trapps assembled his 101 police battalion outside of the Polish town of Jozefow, he told them it was now time to help bring about their Fuhrer's dream – the dream of a Jew-free Europe. They were told that each would be required to kill many women, children, and even infants, but to think of their own children in the homeland who had been bombed by the Allies.  Trapps, who was genuinely shaken by the order to kill women and children, clearly told his men that if any wished to be relieved of this duty, they could have the option not to kill.  This would be the turning point in these men's lives as they made the moral decision whether or not to participate in "wholesale slaughter."  Major Trapps asked each who wished to be relieved of this duty to step forward.  Some of the men did step forward, however, they were hesitant at first, as this account illustrates.    In this connection, I remember that the chief of my company, Hoffman, became very agitated at my having stepped forward.  I remember he said something to the effect: 'This fellow ought to be shot!'  But Major Trapps cut him off... After seeing that their major was willing to stand behind them, other men from the battalion stepped forward.  Up and down the ranks of the Battalions hierarchy there appeared to be formal and informal understanding that those who didn't  want to kill didn't have to.  However, it was only a handful of men who stepped forward that day.  On their first day of killing Battalion 101 murdered 1200 Jews.
Rather than a threat to their own lives if they refused to kill innocents, we can see that it was at most peer pressure. We're talking about simple cowardice here.

And again we see cowardice when we look to the concentration camps. After Stalingrad, Hitler ordered that no-one who volunteered for the Eastern Front should be prevented from going. So any SS guards uncomfortable with mass murder could simply march off and actually fight for their homeland instead of skulking about in a death camp. None volunteered - it was too cosy a posting.

Now, I give the example of the Nazis because let's face it, if they weren't killing soldiers for refusing to kill civilians, who would?

There's the excuses people make for their vile behaviour, and then there's the real reasons. Often those are different things. This strongly affects Morrow's laying out of the way the brain handles things. Peer pressure is strong than self-preservation, and can be stronger than inherent decency. Well, if you're a spineless coward, anyway.

Quote from: EngineI'm certain she'd say the BMW. That would be her subjective valuation of the relevant vehicles, and would make no statement about their objective value [because they don't have objective value, only imparted, subjective value].

I can say with some certainty that borrowing a handful of environmentalist who value gas milage over everything else, it would be difficult to find anyone who would say that the Yugo is a better car.  Apparently I could roll a d20 1000 times and have it come up "1" and you'd still have faith that it's an unbiased d20 and that there is no difference between the faces, right?

Quote from: EngineLet me try this: if humans did not exist, would the BMW be a better car? That's the difference between subjective and objective: the existence [or relevance] of a thinker, a valuer.

If humans didn't exist, there would be nobody to make the evaluation.

Assuming that there was an alien observer that knew what a car was and what it was for, I would expect them to grasp that the BMW is better.

Quote from: EngineBut all other factors are not equal.

Which means you won't answer the question.  I feel the same way about your "if humans did not exist" question but I gave an honest shot at answering it.

Quote from: EngineWell, the differences have objective existences, as well: the BMW can change its velocity more quickly than the Yugo. The Yugo costs fewer of your dollars. The BMW is more popular, and will result in increased sexual activity for you. The Yugo will be nippier in traffic, and get better gas mileage. These differences are objective, but the relative valuation of those differences is subjective [by definition].

A car has a function.  I believe that if you ask most people "which car is better" without qualification, they will assess "better" in terms of its quality as a car or perhaps in terms of which one they'd rather have, unless they have some very narrow set of interests that makes them hostile to the advantages a BMW has.

Quote from: EngineUh, police? The influence of 10,000 years of human civilization? The influence of 4 billion years of natural selection? It's not the existence of objective morality, I'll tell you that!

The police can be fooled and evaded.  I'm not 10,000 years old and I'm certainly not 4 billion years old.  And during periods of human history where there were no police and no history and no formal civilized culture, people still acted decently to each other, at least within their family or clan unit.

Quote from: EngineAre you saying the only people who commit murder and mayhem are psychopaths? Because, seriously, that's so not true.

No.  I am saying that psychopaths are disproportionately responsible for murder and mayhem and often uniquely responsible for the most disgusting and shocking murder and mayhem.  ADDED:  Not all psychopaths are horrible mass murderers but the worst of the horrible mass murderers are all psychopaths.

Quote from: EngineThat's an interesting assumption.

It could be wrong.  Feel free to self-identify as a psychopath if you want.  If that's true, it would make sense that you believe in moral relativism (it would be how you experience the world).  It would be unusual to talk about letting your mother drive your car or showing enough interest to know and care about what she thinks about your car and I'd find it odd that you'd prefer to be surrounded by more psychopaths rather than less, but I suppose it's possible.  If so, please ignore what I'm saying and carrying on using whatever utilitarian reasoning it is that you find persuasive to keep you law abiding.  If it works for you and makes you happy, then it's a win-win for everyone.

Quote from: EngineI mean a single way in which a correctly functioning brain will behave.

I think there is a range in which a brain can said to be correctly functioning and a range in which a brain can be said to be abnormally functioning.

Quote from: EngineI definitely do not believe that. Do you really think there's one right way all that works, and it's identical in all people who aren't psychopaths?

For the most part, yes.  Don't believe me.  Feel free to review the research.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIn the first place, that's just plain cowardice.

I don't disagree with you on that, but cowardice can motivate people.

Quote from: Kyle AaronLastly, only 14 Germans in all of WWII killed, sent to a concentration camp, or punished in any serious way for refusing to kill civilians. The vast majority who refused were able to just walk away. As described in this article (http://itech.fgcu.edu/&/issues/vol2/issue1/german.htm),

That should probably be required reading to encourage people to stand up in situations like that.

Quote from: Kyle AaronNow, I give the example of the Nazis because let's face it, if they weren't killing soldiers for refusing to kill civilians, who would?

I suspect several communist and Asian regimes, past and current, probably would have.  North Korea, for example, is probably the pinnacle of terrorizing their own citizens.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThere's the excuses people make for their vile behaviour, and then there's the real reasons. Often those are different things. This strongly affects Morrow's laying out of the way the brain handles things. Peer pressure is strong than self-preservation, and can be stronger than inherent decency. Well, if you're a spineless coward, anyway.

I would agree that peer pressure is an important component and it may certainly have been why so many soldiers stayed and went along.  In fact, I suspect that Hoffman's comment about how they should be shot single-handedly discouraged other soldiers from stepping forward who might otherwise have in the example that you gave.

Quote from: Stuart@Hinterwelt:  It's not a problem yet (my kids are happy and unaware of things we notice).  There are definitely social norms that I see changing in our  North American society (don't know about the rest of the world) and is likely to continue to change.  Things always change, but I'm not the only one noticing a lot of these changes aren't very positive.

And if you ask me, that is the sign of a concerned parent. Being aware is important. Being involved is good as well. North America is a pretty big area though. I am not sure you could isolate children from all that but again, I believe it is more about your immediate community when they are young and as they grow your strategy must evolve.

Bill

Quote from: John MorrowThe "problem" is the reason why I doubt the situation you presented is workable or would produce good results.

Yeah, but I never asked about results.  Even if a person were tilting at windmills, what would you think of the morality of a person who applied utilitarianism in a way that wasn't self-centered, but took into account the utility to everyone?

It may very well be impractical.  I'm not trying to solve the world's problems here, John, just understand your point of view.

Quote from: John MorrowAs for the utility of suicide, if one person's organic parts can save a half-dozen other people, what's the utility of the saved people compared to the utility of the one person who was sacrificed?

Depends on how much good the one person could have done by living and helping others, of course.

Quote from: TonyLBYeah, but I never asked about results.  Even if a person were tilting at windmills, what would you think of the morality of a person who applied utilitarianism in a way that wasn't self-centered, but took into account the utility to everyone?

I would think that they have good intentions but I would have concerns about the results that their perspective would produce in practice.  There is a reason why people say, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Quote from: TonyLBDepends on how much good the one person could have done by living and helping others, of course.

Of course.  But you can at least imagine situations where it would be a good trade, right?

Quote from: John MorrowI would think that they have good intentions but I would have concerns about the results that their perspective would produce in practice.  There is a reason why people say, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

So is the whole "utilitarians = psychopaths" vibe from earlier because you'd been considering utilitarianism as inherently using a self-only measure?  Or do you still consider those two linked, no matter what measure of utility people apply?

Quote from: John MorrowOf course.  But you can at least imagine situations where it would be a good trade, right?

Like one guy jumping on a live grenade in order to save the rest of his platoon?  Sure.  They give medals for that, don't they?

Quote from: TonyLBLike one guy jumping on a live grenade in order to save the rest of his platoon?  Sure.  They give medals for that, don't they?

Giving up your own life or limb for another is considered heroic, giving up someone else's life and limb, not so much - especially if they're asking you not to.

Quote from: John MorrowI would agree that peer pressure is an important component and it may certainly have been why so many soldiers stayed and went along.  In fact, I suspect that Hoffman's comment about how they should be shot single-handedly discouraged other soldiers from stepping forward who might otherwise have in the example that you gave.

When reading it, I certainly had the thought cross my mind if the Major was only waiting until he was certain that *all* the people needing to be shot had stepped forward.

But it's really not needed, as this classic experiment shows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Quote from: TonyLBYeah, but I never asked about results.  Even if a person were tilting at windmills, what would you think of the morality of a person who applied utilitarianism in a way that wasn't self-centered, but took into account the utility to everyone?

Did you not read the quote John Posted earlier about utilitarianism? There are examples there of were the path "utility to everyone" runs.


I'll requote it.

To a connoisseur of normative moral theories, nothing says “outmoded and ridiculous” quite like utilitarianism. This view is so widely reviled because it has something for everyone to hate. If you love honesty, you can hate utilitarianism for telling you to lie. If you think that life is sacred, you can hate utilitarianism for telling you to kill the dying, the sick, the unborn, and even the newborn, and on top of that you can hate it for telling you in the same breath that you may not be allowed to eat meat. If you think it reasonable to provide a nice life for yourself and your family, you can hate utilitarianism for telling you to give up nearly everything you’ve got to provide for total strangers, including your own life, should a peculiar monster with a taste for human flesh have a sufficiently strong desire to eat you. If you hate doing awful things to people, you can hate utilitarianism for telling you to kidnap people and steal their organs. If you see the attainment of a high quality of life for all of humanity as a reasonable goal, you can hate utilitarianism for suggesting that a world full people whose lives are barely worth living may be an even better goal. If you love equality, you can hate utilitarianism for making the downtrodden worse off in order to make the well off even better off. If it’s important to you that your experiences be genuine, you can hate utilitarianism for telling you that no matter how good your life is, you would be better off with your brain hooked up to a machine that gives you unnaturally pleasant artificial experiences. No matter what you value most, your values will eventually conflict with the utilitarian’s principle of greatest good and, if he has his way, be crushed by it. Utilitarianism is a philosophy that only… well, only a utilitarian could love.


In effect anyone who was capable of applying utilitarism across the board (i.e in all things) in a way that would not be morally objectional, would be someone who was not really applying utilitarism- but rather a bastard version of it combined with some heavy old school morality.

Quote from: Kyle AaronGiving up your own life or limb for another is considered heroic, giving up someone else's life and limb, not so much - especially if they're asking you not to.

Yes, but John and I were talking about variants of giving up your own life, not of killing others.  He's disturbed by the hypothetical in which a healthy person might volunteer themselves to be harvested for their organs in order to save others, and I'm pointing out that many utilitarian systems can explain in penny-pinching detail why that's an immoral/inefficient thing to do.  Thassall.

The weight of keeping people who want to chime in apprised of what the actual discussion has been keeps getting heavier and heavier.  Long, active threads ... I tellya.

Oh, I was in on what you were talking about.

But you went from organ donors to someone throwing themselves on a grenade - not a course of action calculated to leave useful organs intact for the use of others.

You can't drift off-topic in your own post and then complain when people follow you there.

Quote from: gleichmanWith Serious Paul, I was making a point by taking the devil's advocate's stance and displaying one of the final end results of the mindset he's taken. He's not too happy with it, for he wanted to be taken as someone worth talking to. But there is no objective reason for him to be so valued.

At the end of that exchange, he even attempted an appeal to my Christian beliefs to keep the conversation going- having found nothing in his own worldview to manage the task.

I wonder what possible leverage he could seek in a world full of people who believe as he does. Perhaps a bribe or trade that would suit my self-interest? That seems to be Engine's currency of choice.

And once again we see the assumed moral superiority and are simply to believe that you are the best! Never mind proof. Never mind logic. Never mind rationale! Forget reasoned discussion! And while you're at it, it's okay to insult the other guys because they don't matter.

I think I know why you feel disconnected with the world around you. Because you are. This entire post shows you have absolutely no idea what I've been saying, or that you've simply chosen not to read it. I guess I'm supposed to take you seriously, and be insulted or something but really what I feel is pity for you.

You lack the conviction and ability to defend your beliefs. As such you'll continue to resort to oratory, and verbal strategy to insult and belittle the people whom you see as different from you. Luckily sticks and stones, and all that. :)

And I guess I should say this. I don't think you're a bad person Gleichman, only an ignorant person. This conversation is clearly well above your abilities and limits. That's okay.

I don't think anyone I disagree with in this thread is a bad person, but I have to admit I don't have the investment John has in this thread-I respect that you've consistently presented your points with logic and reason, even I still disagree with some of what you believe that alone is refreshing and in my book classy.

That said I think it's obvious that I don't have much more to contribute beyond playing with our troll friend Gleichman, so I'll keep reading but not posting for the moment.

I'd like to thank everyone for a thought provoking conversation.

Quote from: Serious PaulYou lack the conviction and ability to defend your beliefs.

I wasn't aware that they were being seriously attacked in this thread.

The exchange has been rather simple, to paraphrase:

John Morrow: There seems to be a growing acceptance of moral decay in todays culture.

You, Engine, TonyLB: moral decay does not exist because objective morality does not exist.


John Morrow: The viewpoint of the lack of objective morality mirrors the world view of psychopaths and other anti-social conditions? Do we as a culture wish to move ourselves closer to such world views

Myself: What is the result of the rejection of moral decay? Do we want to go to a place where all value is self-determined? What are some of the likely results? What happens Serious Paul when I as a matter of self-definition define you as worthless than thus not worthy of engagment? How does that advance your point?

Engine: At least attempts to answer both John and myself. Props to him.

You: you get mad and ask me to defend Christianity. In short, you wish to change the subject.

Sorry dude, but of all the people on your side in this- you're coming across as the less reasonable, the least committed, and now the most raving.

Quote from: Serious PaulAs such you'll continue to resort to oratory, and verbal strategy to insult and belittle the people whom you see as different from you.

I'll certainly cop to the that which I italicized above, this is a debate. One would expect one to use oratory and verbal strategy. And I did indeed lay a serious trap for you that you fell into. It was a bit evil of myself I will admit, but I thought it a possible method to get my point across- if not to you, than perhaps others.

The end you state however is far from the truth, there was no intent to insult and belittle you. The intent was to show you the logical end of the mindset you've taken.

It's up to you now to accept it, deny it, or whatever. If however you wish to use it solely to hurl insults, may I suggest that such a course only proves my point. A world ran by self-defined morality is world prone to conflict at least as bad as anything we've ever seen. And likely far worse.

I'm not persuaded sociopathy is a pure on/off switch, or indeed a phenomenon with a single cause.  More accurately, I think some are born sociopaths (with something missing as John notes) and I think some develop sociopathy due to early life experiences.

Also, the more bizarre killers are sociopaths, but they tend not to be just sociopaths.  They tend also to have some other form of mental abnormality.  Sociopathy on its own does not drive one to kill, it merely removes barriers to killing which is quite different.  It does however promote risk taking behaviour, but that can manifest in many ways, some productive.

I would question incidentally whether sociopaths are in any sense unwell, 2% of the population may indicate a balanced evolutionary outcome, it's certainly a bit common to lightly classify as an illness merely because we dislike them.  I don't like sharks much either, but they're not ill.  I would also note it's false to state that sociopaths don't benefit society, my understanding is that many succeed in business and in particular in areas such as the financial markets, and business and the financial markets do matter.  Overall, my strong suspicion is that they are an evolved subgroup, one which either overall benefits the larger kin selection grouping or which is a form of parasite on the larger population, and if I had to bet I'd bet on the kin benefit side of the equation.

I'd make similar remarks on manic depression actually, I think it's far from clear that that isn't simply an evolved trait with group selection benefits and not an illness at all.

That aside, were people arguing upthread one could have morality without emotion?  Because, and as Brian well knows I'm distinctly in the relativist camp on these debates, that would be a nonsense.  Morality is emotional or it is nothing.

Quote from: Kyle AaronGiving up your own life or limb for another is considered heroic, giving up someone else's life and limb, not so much - especially if they're asking you not to.

Nobody ever got a medal for pushing a buddy over a grenade, even though there are situations where on a utilitarian approach that would be the right thing to do, or at least equal to throwing yourself on it.

The trouble with utilitarianism, is regardless of whether morality is objective, subjective or subjective but hardwired such that it might as well be objective, it doesn't fit very well with the moral instincts people appear to possess.

Quote from: gleichmanHistory is not kind to rich republics; they have always decayed and failed. Success brings the abandonment of those very virtues that brought that success, for virtues are difficult goals and success breeds a fondness for softer roads.


I take the words of Abraham Lincoln very seriously:

"If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be the authors and finishers. As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide."

Unless I'm missing some 10,000 year old civilisation still kicking around, don't all cultures whether they be rich republics or anything else always decay and fail?

The only alternatives are decay and failure or destruction by environment or man.  Societies, like people, are mortal.

Quote from: TonyLBSo is the whole "utilitarians = psychopaths" vibe from earlier because you'd been considering utilitarianism as inherently using a self-only measure?  Or do you still consider those two linked, no matter what measure of utility people apply?

The Utilitarian reasoning component, itself, is cold and dispassionate.  It is simply a practical weighing of the costs and benefits on the basis of what a person values.  It's like going to a grocery store and deciding whether you should buy Pepsi or Coke, the small package of cookies or the super-sized box, and so on.  It works the same way that non-moral decisions work.  

The moral emotional component adds two things to utilitarianism that I think are important.  First, the normal moral component of people increase the likelihood that consideration for things like other people, fairness, and so on are included in the utilitarian reasoning because even if they aren't a part of the explicit utilitarian equation, a person's utilitarian assessment will be weighed against their emotional moral assessment of the solution to determine what they think and choose.  Second, the strength of some of those normal moral reactions is so strong that they make certain acts unthinkable, even if they make good utilitarian sense.

What that means in practice is that it is much easier for a psychopath to make utilitarian decisions that do not take the well-being of others into consideration or, if they do, only to the extent that they serve the interest of the psychopath.  It's a lot easier to kill your friend over a slice of pizza if your friend's life is meaningless to you than if you are hardcoded to consider their feelings and value.  That does not mean that utilitarian thinking can't produce good results (your hand grenade example) or that psychopaths are inherently going to do awful things.  What it means is that an important safety is missing and the likelihood that a person will make the utilitarian decision that a slice of pizza is worth killing a friend over, or that it's OK to keep their daughter locked in a basement for a few decades because they want her, or that it's OK to push someone in the pool if you are curious enough about wanting to watch a person drown skyrockets.  Not all horrible criminals are psychopaths and not all psychopaths are criminals but psychopaths are represented well out of proportion to their numbers among violent criminals, repeat offenders, and among the very worst criminals who do the most damage.  Being a psychopath doesn't guarantee that you'll make the wrong choice (and Joshua Greene's argument in favor of more utilitarian thinking is that our emotional moral sense doesn't always make the right choice) but on average, the more coldly rational and dispassionate moral thinking is, the worse things it's capable of doing and the more frequently it will do those terrible things.

As for the value of making certain acts unthinkable, the problem is that strictly utilitarian thinking, even with the best of intentions, tends to help pave the road to Hell.  It becomes very easy to step on the rights and even lives of individuals in the name of the collective good but what the moral sense does, if we use it, is to consider the individual cost.  Now, you can artificially build all of those considerations into your utilitarian model such that you consider everything that a morally healthy person would consider only you weight them rationally.  But there are three problems there.  First, at best it would produce the same results, only more slowly.  Second, it would be hard to tell if your model was complete or not without double-checking the results.  Third, it's often difficult to weigh the pros an cons of a situation intellectually without all of the facts (see the objections to the vague hypotheticals) and utilitarian decisions made without all of the facts are like solving mathematical equations without all of the numbers.  The emotional moral component, on the other hand, readily works with unknowns.

Quote from: TonyLBLike one guy jumping on a live grenade in order to save the rest of his platoon?  Sure.  They give medals for that, don't they?

Absolutely.  But where it becomes dodgy is that you can get the same raw utilitarian benefit from throwing the guy next to you on the grenade rather than yourself, perhaps arguing that you're a more valuable member of society than they are to justify the choice.

Quote from: BalbinusI don't like sharks much either, but they're not ill.

One of the concepts behind a free society is that it benefits not only from the good that it inspires, but (up to a point)- the evil as well.

For one example, having criminals mean the society develops methods to combat them. Thus a healther society if for some reason it would come under assault by a similar force- say a foreign's power use of terrorism. The FBI's skill in dealing with common criminals certainly enhanced it's ability to guard against terrorism.

One could view this as just an extension of simple biology, one develops capablities for defense and expansion in direct relationship to what one encounters. Thus (up to a point), evil in a culture ends up strengthening it.


The question before us is not really if sociopaths are useful or ill, it's rather it would be a good idea to build one's entire culture around the same thought processes they use.

Sharks are not ill, that's simple truth. Do we all want to be sharks? That is a different question.

Quote from: BalbinusUnless I'm missing some 10,000 year old civilisation still kicking around, don't all cultures whether they be rich republics or anything else always decay and fail?

Other types of cultures in general (unless overwhelmed by outside forces) last longer than Republics, which so far tend to be short lived.

Quote from: gleichmanSharks are not ill, that's simple truth. Do we all want to be sharks? That is a different question.

Gotcha.

No, put like that obviously not, however what we consider a society we do want to live in may still of course vary quite radically.

Quote from: gleichmanOther types of cultures in general (unless overwhelmed by outside forces) last longer than Republics, which so far tend to be short lived.

I take your point.

I have thoughts on that, but will save them for later when less tired.

Quote from: BalbinusI'm not persuaded sociopathy is a pure on/off switch, or indeed a phenomenon with a single cause.  More accurately, I think some are born sociopaths (with something missing as John notes) and I think some develop sociopathy due to early life experiences.

I really haven't gone too deeply into how psychopaths happen (the nearly interchangeable terms "psychopath" and "sociopath" reflect uncertainty over that) but there is evidence that it can be seen in some people before they reach puberty and perhaps as early as 5 or so (e.g., the kid who pushed his 3 year-old friend into a pool to watch him drown was 9).  My own suspicion is that it's a lot like autism, a spectrum problem (a mildly psychopathic person is generally called a narcissist) and that it may involve a combination of inborn and environmental factors.  Some speculate that psychopaths may be caused by damage to specific areas of the brain as children, too.  Nobody has a solid answer on that but maybe the research into brain differences will reveal some answers in the future.  There is some evidence that there are actual structural differences to the brain involved (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040311072248.htm).

Quote from: BalbinusAlso, the more bizarre killers are sociopaths, but they tend not to be just sociopaths.  They tend also to have some other form of mental abnormality.  Sociopathy on its own does not drive one to kill, it merely removes barriers to killing which is quite different.  It does however promote risk taking behaviour, but that can manifest in many ways, some productive.

Correct, but I think people like the BTK killer illustrate the worst case scenario and I think that also points to the danger of particularly violent, brutal, and shocking fantasies can inadvertently pose.  Fascinate a psychopath with rape and torture fantasies that the enjoy and combine that with an absence of barriers to actually prevent them from doing that to other people and you can wind up with situations like Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka.  To which I ask, from a utilitarian as well as an emotional moral perspective, is the value in letting normal people harmlessly entertain themselves with rape and torture fantasy pornography greater than the cost that such material has if/when it triggers the occasional psychopath to go out and live out those fantasies on real people?

Quote from: BalbinusI would question incidentally whether sociopaths are in any sense unwell, 2% of the population may indicate a balanced evolutionary outcome, it's certainly a bit common to lightly classify as an illness merely because we dislike them.

Even if I agree with the overall reasoning here, I don't think it follows that psychopaths are as desirable as non-psychopaths.  And if psychopathic thinking, like autism, is a spectral disorder than it's possible that the evolutionary or social advantages of psychopathic thinking involve having a mild case of it, just as mild autism conveys certain advantages, while the full-blown version of it is largely undesirable.  Compare also with Sickle Cell, where carrying it helps ward off malaria but actually having it can kill you.

Quote from: BalbinusI don't like sharks much either, but they're not ill.

Do you consider a person with full-blown autism to be ill or unwell?  How about a person with Down's Syndrome or Turner's Syndrome?  If we accept the argument that if biology allows it to happen then it's natural and normal, then can we really call anything abnormal or undesirable and, if so, by what measure?

Quote from: BalbinusI would also note it's false to state that sociopaths don't benefit society, my understanding is that many succeed in business and in particular in areas such as the financial markets, and business and the financial markets do matter.  Overall, my strong suspicion is that they are an evolved subgroup, one which either overall benefits the larger kin selection grouping or which is a form of parasite on the larger population, and if I had to bet I'd bet on the kin benefit side of the equation.

The number of articles out there that equate psychopaths to parasites suggests that your bet may be wrong.  A Google Search for "psychopath parasite" turned up 107,000 hits and "sociopath parasite" turned up 33,500.  I'm willing to bet that some psychopaths are very good and beneficial at what they do but I suspect the main social benefit, assuming their is one, comes from narcissists rather than full-blown psychopaths.

Quote from: BalbinusI'd make similar remarks on manic depression actually, I think it's far from clear that that isn't simply an evolved trait with group selection benefits and not an illness at all.

Were you having a child, would you be just as happy if they were to be born manic depressive, autistic, or a psychopath as you would be if they had none of those things?  If not, why not?

Quote from: BalbinusNo, put like that obviously not, however what we consider a society we do want to live in may still of course vary quite radically.

Would you like to go swimming in the ocean with a bunch of sharks that consider you a suitable dinner?  I think that's comparable to the question of whether you'd prefer to surround yourself with sharks or not.  And while I can imagine preferring an individual psychopath to an individual non-psychopath as a neighbor in some cases, not knowing anything else about two people, I'd rather take my chances with the non-psychopath.

Quote from: John MorrowWere you having a child, would you be just as happy if they were to be born manic depressive, autistic, or a psychopath as you would be if they had none of those things?  If not, why not?

No, but I don't actually think that's relevant to the point I was making.

If I were having a child I would rather they were clever, handsome, athletic, but being stupid, ugly or badly coordinated is not a medical problem.

My point there was that we may be medicalising traits which are not in themselves medical problems, and that I think is a very slippery slope as the number of children on Ritalin for behaviour which used to be considered childhood can testify.

Nb.  I'm not saying ADD doesn't exist, merely that I suspect many personality types are now being diagnosed as medical issues where in fact they are merely part of a natural spectrum of behaviour.

Quote from: John MorrowWould you like to go swimming in the ocean with a bunch of sharks that consider you a suitable dinner?  I think that's comparable to the question of whether you'd prefer to surround yourself with sharks or not.  And while I can imagine preferring an individual psychopath to an individual non-psychopath as a neighbor in some cases, not knowing anything else about two people, I'd rather take my chances with the non-psychopath.

Not my point, all I was saying is once we accept we don't wish to live in a society of sociopaths, that still leaves vast room in which to disagree as to what kind of society we do want to live in.

For example, a British politician once famously said "the permissive society is the civilised society".  Although it can be taken to absurd lengths, as can any quote or argument, I broadly agree with that principle.  My non-shark society would not preclude for example gay marriage or adoption, others might have issues with those things, but neither me nor my more conservative counterpart are voting for swimming with sharks (even if neither of us might like the other's preferred society very much).

On Downs etc by the way, I consider someone to be unwell when they reach the point that they can  no longer cope within human society.  Thus, Autism when full blown, yes.  Aspergers, no - I'm not wholly persuaded Aspergers is anything more than labelling what previously was part of the spectrum of normal human experience.  Sociopathy, well, most do in fact manage to cope  in society.

Incidentally, I didn't talk about desirability in my posts at all.  I don't think we should judge human beings on the desirability of their behaviour or personalities, although we can and should judge them on their acts.

Quote from: BalbinusGotcha.

No, put like that obviously not, however what we consider a society we do want to live in may still of course vary quite radically.

Indeed. Sort of the point of this thread. My major goal in it is to present the argument that want one may wish for, is not what way may get.

How anyone can think that removing objective morality from the cultural foundation of a society will produce a more 'moral' society (which has been the claim of some here) is something of a mystery to me.

Every historical attempt to do this has failed, and produced if anything the completely opposed result. And as John points out, the characteristics of such a shift is amazingly close to the worst any culture has historically displayed.

The proponents of this come across to me as previously proponents of communism/socialism came across. Willfully ignoring indictors of error, guided by fantasies of end results that would be there "if only people would enact their concepts correctly". Lacking totally in any data point to suggest success other than their personal one (which they insist I take their word for).

In a way this is consistent, a world view that defines for the holder that only his self perferences matter should be expected to produce this exact result. It's the vice of Pride presented as a virtue.

Quote from: BalbinusNb.  I'm not saying ADD doesn't exist, merely that I suspect many personality types are now being diagnosed as medical issues where in fact they are merely part of a natural spectrum of behaviour.

While I agree that various behaviors might be a natural part of the full spectrum of human behavior, I don't agree that all places along that spectrum are equally desirable.  I'm not sure if that's the case you are making but I think it's an important point to clarify.

Quote from: John MorrowI really haven't gone too deeply into how psychopaths happen (the nearly interchangeable terms "psychopath" and "sociopath" reflect uncertainty over that) but there is evidence that it can be seen in some people before they reach puberty and perhaps as early as 5 or so (e.g., the kid who pushed his 3 year-old friend into a pool to watch him drown was 9).  My own suspicion is that it's a lot like autism, a spectrum problem (a mildly psychopathic person is generally called a narcissist) and that it may involve a combination of inborn and environmental factors.  Some speculate that psychopaths may be caused by damage to specific areas of the brain as children, too.  Nobody has a solid answer on that but maybe the research into brain differences will reveal some answers in the future.  There is some evidence that there are actual structural differences to the brain involved (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040311072248.htm).

Quite, this is broadly what I said in my post, I agree with all of it.   Psychopath by the way is basically a hollywood term, sociopath is the more correct term.  I share your suspicions above, though I wouldn't call a sociopath-lite a narcissist personally, to me those are slightly different phenomena.

Quote from: John MorrowCorrect, but I think people like the BTK killer illustrate the worst case scenario and I think that also points to the danger of particularly violent, brutal, and shocking fantasies can inadvertently pose.  Fascinate a psychopath with rape and torture fantasies that the enjoy and combine that with an absence of barriers to actually prevent them from doing that to other people and you can wind up with situations like Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka.  To which I ask, from a utilitarian as well as an emotional moral perspective, is the value in letting normal people harmlessly entertain themselves with rape and torture fantasy pornography greater than the cost that such material has if/when it triggers the occasional psychopath to go out and live out those fantasies on real people?

I don't know.

Here's what I think though.  I think that free speech is important, and I don't think we should preclude the sane majority from activities which may be inflammatory to an insane minority.  That way lies banning video games, violence on tv and cinema, questionable content of all times.  It's a deeply slippery slope.  I don't think I should be banned from something merely because it may be inappropriate for someone else.

Not that I have anything but revulsion to the material you mention, but then free speech is worthless if it's only in relation to that we agree with.

Quote from: John MorrowEven if I agree with the overall reasoning here, I don't think it follows that psychopaths are as desirable as non-psychopaths.  And if psychopathic thinking, like autism, is a spectral disorder than it's possible that the evolutionary or social advantages of psychopathic thinking involve having a mild case of it, just as mild autism conveys certain advantages, while the full-blown version of it is largely undesirable.  Compare also with Sickle Cell, where carrying it helps ward off malaria but actually having it can kill you.

Desireable isn't relevant to my points really, given I don't believe in medicalising or "improving" the population to get rid of undesirable personality traits.  On the spectrum issue, you may well be right, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Quote from: John MorrowThe number of articles out there that equate psychopaths to parasites suggests that your bet may be wrong.  A Google Search for "psychopath parasite" turned up 107,000 hits and "sociopath parasite" turned up 33,500.  I'm willing to bet that some psychopaths are very good and beneficial at what they do but I suspect the main social benefit, assuming their is one, comes from narcissists rather than full-blown psychopaths.

I'm indifferent to hits on the internet, most of which will be relating to people without the slightest understanding of the terminology or issues involved.

When you refer me to studies and such like that I pay attention to, as I do to good arguments.  Weight of numbers of opinion though just tells me that when I die I shall reincarnate back onto this flat Earth we inhabit.

Quote from: BalbinusSociopathy, well, most do in fact manage to cope  in society.

What do you consider "coping in society"?  A Google search for 'psychopath "support group"' turns up 47,700 hits.  They are worth looking at.  Many psychopaths who manage to cope in society manage to leave quite a wake of emotional and financial destruction in their wake.

Quote from: BalbinusIncidentally, I didn't talk about desirability in my posts at all.  I don't think we should judge human beings on the desirability of their behaviour or personalities, although we can and should judge them on their acts.

How do you detach a person's acts from their behavior and personality?  Isn't their behavior what they do -- i.e., their acts?

Quote from: John MorrowWhile I agree that various behaviors might be a natural part of the full spectrum of human behavior, I don't agree that all places along that spectrum are equally desirable.  I'm not sure if that's the case you are making but I think it's an important point to clarify.

Agreed, I just get nervous when we start categorising behaviours, or indeed people, as desirable and undesirable.  It has a dubious history.

One can, and indeed must, do it but I think one must do it carefully and ideally with some degree of humility - a trait rather out of fashion but which I think is quite important when dealing in other people's lives.

Quote from: John MorrowWhile I agree that various behaviors might be a natural part of the full spectrum of human behavior, I don't agree that all places along that spectrum are equally desirable.  I'm not sure if that's the case you are making but I think it's an important point to clarify.

I'll side here with Balbinus for a second.

It may not be individually desirable, but it may for mankind as a whole be desirable to have the full spectrum. This concept is key to a non-religious objection to eugenics.

Quote from: BalbinusHere's what I think though.  I think that free speech is important, and I don't think we should preclude the sane majority from activities which may be inflammatory to an insane minority.  That way lies banning video games, violence on tv and cinema, questionable content of all times.  It's a deeply slippery slope.

Passing on the loaded "sane" and "insane" for a moment, what is the great harm you're avoiding here?

For the type of censorship you decry above as a slippery slope was once the cultural norm of this nation. If that slope slipped, it did so not in the direction you're worried about, be in the direction that concerns people like John and myself.

The bugbear that outlawing fantasy child porn will outlaw Romeo and Juliet has never happened in the US to a significant extent. Sure there will be those who would seek to censor Huck Finn, but I (back at a time when husbands and wives on TV had separate beds) was still able to find that book in my school library in the heart of the bible belt.

Quote from: BalbinusI don't think I should be banned from something merely because it may be inappropriate for someone else.

Historically, very little was 'banned' in the US, even in what you'd likely think of as the dark ages. Access then however took effort, where now it takes effort to avoid.


To bring this back to a rpg focus, I not all that interested in your playing Torture Porn- RPG in your home with your gaming group.

I am however concerned that Torture Porn the RPG seems to be a growing movement that demands unlimited public visibility and even acceptance.

Quote from: BalbinusQuite, this is broadly what I said in my post, I agree with all of it.   Psychopath by the way is basically a hollywood term, sociopath is the more correct term.  I share your suspicions above, though I wouldn't call a sociopath-lite a narcissist personally, to me those are slightly different phenomena.

Psychopath is not a Hollywood term.  It was the legitimate medical term until it was replaced by sociopath, to suggest that it was a socialization problem rather than a mental disorder.  Dr. Robert Hare and others have returned to using the word psychopath and it's becoming far more commonly used again.  It's also been called "Antisocial Personality Disorder" and "Malignant Narcissism".  None of those terms is necessarily more correct than the others.  You can also find plenty of psychologists that link narcissism to psychopaths and if you review Hare's diagnostic checklist of behavior, the similarities are pretty obvious.  

Quote from: BalbinusHere's what I think though.  I think that free speech is important, and I don't think we should preclude the sane majority from activities which may be inflammatory to an insane minority.  That way lies banning video games, violence on tv and cinema, questionable content of all times.  It's a deeply slippery slope.  I don't think I should be banned from something merely because it may be inappropriate for someone else.

Slippery slope arguments are found on lists of logical fallacies for a reason.  Just because there is a slope doesn't mean you have to slide all the way down it, nor does it mean there is no value trying to pin down a point on the slope.  And why shouldn't we preclude from the sane majority activities and material that's inflammatory or dangerous in the hands of a minority when the activity or material serves no significant positive purpose for the majority?  

Do you believe, for example, that private individuals should be able to own machine guns, explosives, poison gas, and so on without regulation or restraint?  Do you oppose speed limits on the grounds that they restrain people who could safely drive faster and that any speed limit is just a slippery slope to prohibiting driving?  How about the web site listing the names and addresses of abortionists, including their pictures with gun targets on them (or "X"s if they were already dead)?  Is that OK on the grounds that sane people won't rush out and shoot an abortionist if they look at the sight?

Quote from: BalbinusNot that I have anything but revulsion to the material you mention, but then free speech is worthless if it's only in relation to that we agree with.

Do divide material only into the category of things that we agree with and things we don't agree with ignores the vast differences of degree and vast differences in reasons to agree with it that may exist.  For someone who insists on viewing the full spectrum of psychopathic thinking, why is it unfair to look at the full spectrum of offensiveness of the material in question and not simply assume that the only reason to oppose it is that we disagree with it in some way.

Quote from: BalbinusDesireable isn't relevant to my points really, given I don't believe in medicalising or "improving" the population to get rid of undesirable personality traits.

So how do you feel about educating children to encourage or discourage certain personality traits?

Quote from: BalbinusI'm indifferent to hits on the internet, most of which will be relating to people without the slightest understanding of the terminology or issues involved.

You'll find that plenty of those links point to books and articles on psychopaths as well as criminology articles.

Quote from: BalbinusWhen you refer me to studies and such like that I pay attention to, as I do to good arguments.

Have you read Hare's checklist or the various other articles that I've posted throughout, including this excerpt (http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780767920209&view=excerpt) from Martha Stout's book The Sociopath Next Door which includes the quote, "Characteristically, they can charm others into attempting dangerous ventures with them, and as a group they are known for their pathological lying and conning, and their parasitic relationships with 'friends.'"?