the problem here is i don’t think that there’s anything wrong with being a killer for what i see as being “moral” reasons (i.e. reasons that relate to my own ideas of morality and how others should be morally treated).
bollux, another ‘agree to disagree’ scenario
this also relates to my “why should i be moral to those who are immoral?” post
Hitler had the same idea.
that may be true but a. hitler was paranoid and insane in his fury and had a lack of justification against targeting the jews who had not harmed him. b. Hitler’s own personal prejudice against the jews/any ethnic/religious group was what i would deem as immoral as he has no moral justifications for the murders and is therefore immoral (in my eyes) .c. by that logic, you’re comparing anyone who has ever killed someone to protect another (i.e. for moral reasons war, self-defense etc) to Hitler which seems narrow minded and illogical to me as there are times when killing can be necessary. your logic is too pacifistic/unrealistic for me as if we followed that logic then the allies would never have won WW2 and we would all be in a state of Nazism just because we didn’t want to kill those who opposed our moral views. i believe that fighting against Nazi’s was justified and lead to the greater good of allowing jews and similar ethnic/religious groups to not be unlawfully persecuted/murdered. if that makes me a hitler then so be it, but your logic and justification there seems erroneous.
That’s entirely my point. You’re talking about justifications for why killing for your beliefs is okay, whereas killing for someone else’s is not. Hitler could make the exact same arguments.
I’m not saying people shouldn’t have fought against the NAZIs. Sometimes people don’t give us the option of taking the high road. If people hadn’t kicked NAZI arse in WW2, we’d all be saluting Hitler’s picture before breakfast and after dinner. But it’s never a must; it’s always a choice, and in such situations people choose to become killers. Some people try to justify it and think they are doing something good by killing. Personally I don’t think there is anything good about it. It’s just necessary sometimes, and for precisely the reasons you mentioned - to prevent entire groups being stuffed in ovens.
so? what should i become a nihilist? i’m not saying i’m right and everyone should follow it (cuz there are some right idiots and psychos in the world), i’m just saying that’s the way i have chosen to live by obeying a moral guideline that i deem as being the highest level of morality (no discrimination against any group, defending those who have harmed none and harming those who have through hate/abuse etc. i.e. morality through logic and reason). Hitler could not claim to have followed the same reasons of being (in his eyes) “moral” as i have so therefore i (and many others) claim that he is immoral. that is why i judge Hitler as being immoral.
the real life implications of morality are a lot more difficult to imply when placed with extreme circumstances so therefore killing can be necessary and pacifism the more immoral choice.
Exactly. what must be done has to be done. full moral justification of extreme circumstances/extreme solutions (i.e. war and death) does not always have to be done, as “the greater good” must be looked at. therefore i believe killing is necessary and i believe it is necessary to my own beliefs just like it is for yours and (maybe to an extent) Hitler’s.
i see the “necessary” as helping a grieving family member overcome their sadness of a loved ones death, which is why i believe in Capital Punishment, as it brings closure to the currently suffering (i.e. the family of those lost)
This is a good question that you guys are trying to answer. It seems to me that there must exist some true code of living, that is right for all people. What I mean is that since causing harm is justified (loosely speaking) in one situation and not in another, there must be a set of rule(s) that exist, whether we know them or not, that could basically spit out the correct action for any person in any situation. Those rules should definitely apply to everyone, irrespective of the person.
That way nobody would be right in exterminating Jews and everyone would be right in killing or otherwise “dealing with” someone who did. I guess this is just ethics, but I’ve heard arguments that cultures have different ethical guidelines, i.e. Nazi, and even here we have disagreements. All I’m saying is that there must exist a code of ethics that is above any personal differences, whether they be cultural or any other type.
You’re telling me that in trying to save your 3yr old whom this bad guy would have killed no doubt, I end up killing this guy 'cause it was the only way to save your child, and you would call me a killer and find me guilty? And where a person just killed another for the reason he felt abused by him and so felt justified in killing this other rather than removing himself from the situation which he could, you would say that this killing is the same as that done to save your child? What? Are you sure you’re in your right senses? I sincerely suggest that you re-examine the way you think. Your thinking is all Black&White. Where is the grey?
No, you’re wrong. The whole Supreme Court is wrong in prescribing Capital Punishment because even though it is justified from the victims’ family’s perspective it is not justified from the criminal’s family’s and friends’ perspective, what wrong did the criminal’s family do to lose their loved one. Sure the criminal did wrong, but not his family and friends to undergo the torture of losing their loved one for good, why should they be punished? To be specific, why should a mother be punished for what her son did or daughter did? So in my eyes, Capital Punishment should be against the law, it should be outlawed. Period! It is not justified. But the Supreme Court in many countries only looks at the rights of a few, not all. I’m not suggesting that the criminal not be punished severely, he should be punished, but no death penalty please!
PSquared,
I hope you don’t mind but in my attempt to answer your contemplative question, I must inquire into your meaning of ‘actions’. I realize that Polemarchus has already asked you about ‘defined’. I hope that you are someone with some experience and philosophy and will understand that anyone who truly cares about answering your questions as precisely and carefully as possible is going to inquire into your personal semantics of the words you have chosen to articulate your ideas. In my opinion we are always acting, always in action. This is to equate experience with action. I believe that we are the sum of our experiences/actions form the past (look into Locke for more on this in relation to memory). Caveat: this is not to mean that we cannot go beyond the experiences as they have occurred to us. What I mean is that humans have imagination, which is the ability to merge experiences in various and innovative (innovative in relation to the experience itself) ways. Hence, we can think of Pegasus because we merge the idea of horse with the idea of wings…each from our previous experiences/actions.
In order to answer your question though, I would say that if you could look at the total sum of all my experiences in life you would get 98% of who I am, what I can be defined as. But there is still 2% where you cannot know what thoughts I have had but haven’t articulated or made sensible throughout my known to you experiences. Moreover, you cannot predict with 100% certainty what I will do in the future. Furthermore, even if you could look at all my experiences through my whole life, which you can’t, it is still impossible for you to see the experiences as I did since you have your own personal bias. Hence, you would come out with a definition of me according to your bias. You wouldn’t have an objective definition of me.
PSquared stated:
Hmmm…I’m not sure that is what people mean when they say that a person is defined by their actions. There is a predicated ‘self’ assumed before the action. For example, if I say I threw a baseball, you may (based only on that information) that I am a baseball thrower. This is equivalent to saying that I am someone that throws baseball(s). But notice, in the first case I used an ‘I’ and in the second I used a ‘one’ to refer to myself. Hence, we must first define what a ‘self’ is and then try to equate it with action as Aristotle often does. To complicate things a little more, I don’t believe that you could conclude that you are a throw in general (generality assumed since you didn’t clarify). We are beings over time and I don’t think we would say that we are defined by any one single particular moment in time but by moments over time. Otherwise, in the moment of throwing I exist as nothing more but a thing that throws - but there are always multiple things going on at once and so even if we agree that we are defined in single moments, we would need to agglomerate all the things we are doing at one single moment in order to define who we are in that single moment…which is absurd because we cannot freeze that moment in order to find out.
I wish to pull back from philosophy a bit here and look at your question from a pragmatic point of view…it is true that we all define people in a sense by their actions. We have to. In order to get by there are certain assumptions, expectations, predictions, and definitions we consciously and unconsciouly make about people every day of our lives based upon their actions. I would say that there is always a very deep sense of the person present in all their actions…but it is the agglomeration of things in a single moment that differentiate those who make proper definition of people from those who make false ones. I believe that if you understand the body language, context, environmental factors, emotional factors, historical factors to a persons actions then you can come to a pretty good understanding of who a person is by very few or even a single action. I call these people ‘readers’, cause they can ‘read’ people very quickly. I consider myself one of them. In fact, I believe I can read people by their posts…though it has to be either a very personal long post, or a number of not so personal long posts. Basically I need some material to work with.
Any insights, comments, or complaints are welcome.
What’s your take?
Yes, of course you would be guilty of killing. You didn’t just award someone a fairfloss trophy. You killed. Doesn’t matter what label you give it, you killed. Now, this has nothing to do with “murder” and legal definitions. In the example you gave, by what rationale could you say that you have not killed?
Gadfly, very insightful. In response to your question about a definition for “actions,†I’ve been thinking and haven’t been able to come up with much. I agree that we must be careful, as a misdefinition (is that a word?) could create false conclusions. I am thinking along the lines of a person’s action being anything that causes any event that would not have transpired had the person not existed in the situation. I know, I know then thinking might not be an action, but I think it is…
Anyways, I will explain my logical trail so far, and will be awaiting reply. I think that if I define people by their actions, I will inevitably come to a contradiction and therefore the definition cannot stand. I think I can demonstrate with an example; say you and I are planning to go out tonight (crusin’ for chicks maybe), and we don’t want to bring Adam (since he might scare off our prospective women). You and I are getting ready to leave, and Adam calls. I tell him “I’m just going to go to bed,†while at the same time I nod my head at you as if to say, “the plans are still on for tonight.†Let’s say that you definitely get the idea, as you know that Adam doesn’t have much luck with the ladies. In this instance, am I a liar or (for lack of a better word) a truth-teller? I think we can agree that, while it is tough to find a good definition for ‘actions,’ these happenings are definitely my actions. I’ve lied and told the truth in the same moment. Then defining me (for that moment) by what I’ve done is contradictory and so is unsuitable.
“We are beings over time and I don’t think we would say that we are defined by any one single particular moment in time but by moments over time.â€â€”Gadfly. For this I would use the same line of reasoning; we will inevitably (in action) contradict ourselves over time, so a definition by actions over time must be contradictory as well. Also, how could one define a baby who has committed no actions in this world? I’ve been having a lot of trouble with this one lately, possibly I’m working with an erroneous definition of action. I mean, maybe the baby has committed an action by existing, being young, etc.
Lastly, just let me state that I am not at all trying to find a definition for people (yet), I’m really only going through the possibilities and attempting to throw out the ones that don’t make sense.
In answer to your question concerning my experience in philosophy, I’d say that I read a little (don’t have much time) and think a lot. One quick question though, Gadfly. As a ‘reader,’ I wonder what you think of me? Maybe I haven’t made enough posts to show myself. However, I can’t help but respectfully declare b.s. when I see it…
So you’re saying that if you have a choice of deciding who should live, this 3yr old innocent or this vile grown up person (who undoubtedly will get rid of this 3yr old,) and you have NO OTHER CHOICE TO MAKE, then you will not let this 3yr old live instead of this vile person? Interesting! Very interesting! 
And let me assure you that by saving this 3yr old you would not be taking the law in your hands as many would believe out there, it would be a case like you saving someone from jumping into the river to commit suicide. That’s the way I would see it. You want to see it otherwise, be my guest!