Why can’t moral systemizations,cultures, and civilizations not exist without violence or forceful intimidation?
Can actual morality exist without violence? ( Keep in mind that I look at morality as an ideology.)
If morality can’t exist without the use of violence, why can’t it exist just on its own without interventing circumstances?
[b]I go back to a previous example that I have used recently:
What is even more funny is that should an escapee from an asylum should hold a gun in front of a crowd pronouncing himself Napoleon you can bet for sure that the crowd out of fear would indeed call him emporer shouting to the highest heavens as if his pre-conceived notions of himself being Napoleon was indeed reality.
What has my Napoleonic story taught everyone? :
It teaches that with an effective amount of violence, intimidation and threats of death people are easily manipulated, especially if they are intimidated to be moral.[/b]
Throughout human history violence and force have been used in virtually every facet of our existence to censor those of our peers who did not agree with our viewpoint. I have locked Johnny in a prison cell because his viewpoint that my lovely grandma needed an axe in the back of her head did not sit well with my viewpoint. If every person in a given area (a small town, a city, the world, however big you want your sample to be) were to truely believe in a certain moral code (not to put axes in the back of grandmother’s heads for example), then there would be no reason to force this viewpoint on everyone. It is a uniformely accepted belief, and thus violence is not needed. However, if the belief is not universally accepted, force must be applied.
So in conclusion, I would venture to say that if a society could completely agree on all points, that no force would be needed. But let’s be realistic for a moment, shall we? With all the conflicts of religious beliefs, and difference in moral codes, will we ever live in such a world? Possibly - I doubt any of us will see it in our time. But the potential is there.
What is even more funny is that should an escapee from an asylum should hold a gun in front of a crowd pronouncing himself Napoleon you can bet for sure that the crowd out of fear would indeed call him emporer shouting to the highest heavens as if his pre-conceived notions of himself being Napoleon was indeed reality.
More likely most of them would panic and run away
What has my Napoleonic story taught everyone? :
Tht your not very good at making relevant examples
It teaches that with an effective amount of violence, intimidation and threats of death people are easily manipulated, especially if they are intimidated to be moral.
Yep and people are also motivated by rewards. people are motivated by many things, but again you fail to be able to properly asociate any of this to morality.
Are we talking about violence strictly in terms of doing harm to one’s physical wellbeing?
If I catch the drift of the original post, it seems “violence” might include any punishment leveled against those whose actions are incongruent with the moral ideology.
Off the top of my head, I guess morality is possible without violence in accordance with some individual concept of morality which construes all violence as immoral. Violence is only wrapped up in morality if that particular moral ideology involves active enforcement of its standards.
It’s just as easy to imagine a morality that one accepts for oneself as a personal ideology or worldview without feeling compelled to enact it on others. How long this paradigm would last at a large-scale social or institutionalized level is unclear.
Yes. A society can remain in a state of perfect (or nearly so) morality without the actual use of force, by instead using religion, which is basically the threat that you’ll be punished by infinite force after your death for any improprieties you committed while living (a punishment that doesn’t occur, of course, because the religion isn’t really true). It’s like, rather than threatening to beat your sibling up if he steals your candy, you tell him that when he goes to bed the monsters in his closet will tear him to infinite tiny shreds and then set him on fire and then poke him in the eye with a sharp, flaming stick. Though the violence threatened is more severe, in actuality less violence will likely be performed.
Hey, whatever works for others to leave you the fuck alone, right! Mind over matter: the strongest mind/will dominates the outcome, and the lesser mind concedes, or pays the price for the unsuccessful challenge…
Elaborate. As it stands, I do not see why each cannot.
As morality is only preference, I believe it can exist without many a thing; violence being one. Even in an ideological sense, violence is an unnecessary part of the system.
Who says it cannot exist without intervention? It would appear that you are trying to say something, but you are holding back. You are holding, and allowing discussion for whatever purpose. Perhaps I am wrong. In the instance that I am not, please, tell me why?
We can ‘bet for sure’ that the crowd, out of fear, would x, instead or y, z, q, t, and so on? I guess. So far as betting goes, the odds would be chaotic unless the situation were elaborated further. For instance, lets say that this ‘escapee’ held his gun in front of a crowd, which consisted of you, me and a few other select guinea pigs. He then proceeds to ask the crowd to call him emperor - we would assume the gun is loaded, but this would probably not matter. He asks us, his crowd, and then we pull out our guns and proceed to shoot this ‘escapee’ where we see fit. In this situation, should all the information be readily available, the odds would be on the armed crowd, who far outnumber the ‘escapee’.
Conversely, should the ‘escapee’ be the only one with the gun and the crowd consisted of just one person - in this instance, we’ll call this person Detrop - I’m quite sure that no matter what the ‘escapee’ demanded with his gun, Detrop would prefer to take a few shots and possibly death just for the chance to beat the shit out of, and eventually kill this escapee.
Whatever the case, a lot has to be taken into account. My examples probably appear extreme - but no more so then your own. Sure, there are many who, in this situation would cower and enter a slave like mindset to prolong themselves for whatever reasoning they may have, but we cannot forget that there are also many of those who would act in defiance regardless of outcome. There are those who would act strategically, those who would act emotionally, impulsively and so on.
The variables are endless.
Yes. I don’t disagree - but this is only one teaching in a few of the many variables of your story.
Apparently [see mentalism, neuro linguistic programming], the power of suggestion can be a very potent force in persuasion. making the requirement for violence moot.
The threat of violence, when used, is a highly intimidating and successful tool in persuasion. When you meet a mind which has attained a certain state, through whatever means; threats of violence, the power of persuasion and any physical attempt to impose your will on this person is void, because the person will quite simply not submit. Some eventually will, but there will always be those who quite simply, will not.
‘When you will have made him a body without organs,
then you will have delivered him from all his automatic reactions
and restored him to his true freedom.’
Yes, it seems that morality can exist without violence, but only within societies and cultures that have an integrated populace who work cohesively together. In today’s world, the population is too large and disconnected from one another, so morality rules through force, violence, and fear to coordinate the masses.
Mind over matter: the strongest mind/will dominates the outcome, and the lesser mind concedes, or pays the price for the unsuccessful challenge…