Discourse 24: Monsters

[Out of the Wasteland]

The prevention of the enslavement and/or death of the rest of the world, as outlined in your scenario.
The Nazis had no such justification.

According to them, they did: the protection of the purity of the human race (and hence its continued survival).

Now, given that you are a moral relativist, how do you base a claim that I should take your word over theirs?

1.  Available evidence:  In your scenario, there is no doubt of the outcome.  In the Nazis, they were flying in the face of the fact that mankind has survived the existence of Jews for ~ 6,000 years.

2.  I hope to hell that this is just a thought experiment on your part.

[Guido Finucci]

1.  Available evidence:  In your scenario, there is no doubt of the outcome.  In the Nazis, they were flying in the face of the fact that mankind has survived the existence of Jews for ~ 6,000 years.

2.  I hope to hell that this is just a thought experiment on your part.

1. Okay - sorry 'bout that. If you'll forgive the tweak - you only believe that blowing the bridge will save the day (but you do believe this with all your heart). Now there is doubt. Does that change anything? If not, why shoudl I pick your word over theirs? You each only have well-held beliefs.

2. Yes, this is just a thought experiment (although we have gone down some strange trails since we started). My personal belief is that there are special places reserved in Hell for many of those fuckers.

Edit: I'll be away for a couple of hours; work is about to get in the way. I'll be back...

[Out of the Wasteland]

1.  Available evidence:  In your scenario, there is no doubt of the outcome.  In the Nazis, they were flying in the face of the fact that mankind has survived the existence of Jews for ~ 6,000 years.

2.  I hope to hell that this is just a thought experiment on your part.

1. Okay - sorry 'bout that. If you'll forgive the tweak - you only believe that blowing the bridge will save the day (but you do believe this with all your heart). Now there is doubt. Does that change anything? If not, why shoudl I pick your word over theirs? You each only have well-held beliefs.

2. Yes, this is just a thought experiment (although we have gone down some strange trails since we started). My personal belief is that there are special places reserved in Hell for many of those fuckers.

Edit: I'll be away for a couple of hours; work is about to get in the way. I'll be back...

1.  Speaking as a retired infantryman, I'd have to know more about the situation.

2.  Yep.  Which, of course, qualifies them as monsters, IMO, which was the original debate.

See ya when you get back.

[Trollax]

1.  Speaking as a retired infantryman, I'd have to know more about the situation.

2.  Yep.  Which, of course, qualifies them as monsters, IMO, which was the original debate.

See ya when you get back.

2.

So. We, (by "We" I mean this little hotbedded discussion group) can agree that what happened in certain parts of europe during WWII was bad, possibly some of the biggest bad to go down in history (although there are some russains and pagans who would debate that, and probably a couple of historians too) What we can't seem to agree on is how we quantify the perpetrators. The question is, not whether what they did was wrong, or justifiable, but do we have the right to deny them the status of human beings and classify them as mythical?
This is where the moral relativism comes in. But not perhaps in a way that we would traditionally apply it. Normally we would ask, what would be the justification provided by a person for their actions? Additionally I'd also like to ask in this case, "Is there any way we can say with 100% certainty that we would not commit a similar action?"
I cannot guarantee that. Sure, it's highly unlikely that we would be drawn into a similar sequence of events that mirrors the events leading up to the deathcamps. But is it not possible for the same series of behaviours to be played out upon a different group? Played out in such a way that ordinary people could be suckered in by sophistry? Seemingly plausible arguments that cater to people's prejudices and amplify them. Our prejudices against politicians? Our prejudices against Fanatical Religious figures? Our prejudices against other political systems?
In situations like this, our own moral judgements damn us. and the more absolute that they are, the easier it is for us to be lead down similar roads by the blindfold of "right."
The minute you make a monster, you create a little blind spot in yourself. A little cataract on your own self-evaluation processes that can prevent you from seeing certain things, and before you know it, you're gladly burning other human beings, because they are "monsters." What they did to make them monsters is your decision.
One of the events leading up to the start of world war one was the assasination of the ottoman "monster" by a Serbian Anarchist, in retalliation for centuries of repression. It's never as easy as black and white, no matter how large the issue.

[Guido Finucci]

1.  Speaking as a retired infantryman, I'd have to know more about the situation.

2.  Yep.  Which, of course, qualifies them as monsters, IMO, which was the original debate.

1. Would you be willing to conceed that there are situations in which you'd kill innocent people for what you believed to be the service of the greater good? If not, I think you're not being completely honest. If so, how do you differentiate that from what the nazis did they also believed that they were serving the greater good? (Hint: there is no good answer to that question - if there was, morality wouldn't be so interesting to talk about.)

2. I think they're monsters, you think they're monsters. That doesn't give us the right to treat them as monsters though. After all they thought the Jews were monsters and we don't think that their say-so was good enough so why should ours be?

Thinking about this I think my original point was that Trollax was alluding to the idea that we are all capable of being inhumane and the extent to which we justify it  away in ourselves, we must also allow others to justify it. By aknowledging that we, ourselves, are capable of 'Evil' we gain the freedom to actually make real moral decisions - we can actually choose to not act in those evil ways. If we do not aknowledge that we are capable of evil then everything we do isn't evil, regardless of what others think (and IMO we aren't acting as free, moral agents).

I could be putting words into his mouth though.

Edit: Traollax asked me to explain the last paragraph (well, the last long-ish one, anyway). Here's a shot at it, "basically - if you can do bad then you can choose between doing good and bad 'cause you realise the potential for either in yourself. If don't believe you can do bad then you can no longer be moral because you never have a choice between doing good and doing bad. Or somethign like that."

[Trollax]

Thinking about this I think my original point was that Trollax was alluding to the idea that we are all capable of being inhumane and the extent to which we justify it  away in ourselves, we must also allow others to justify it. By aknowledging that we, ourselves, are capable of 'Evil' we gain the freedom to actually make real moral decisions - we can actually choose to not act in those evil ways. If we do not aknowledge that we are capable of evil then everything we do isn't evil, regardless of what others think (and IMO we aren't acting as free, moral agents).

I could be putting words into his mouth though.

Well you're certainly putting words in my mouth that I'm in some accordance with...

[Guido Finucci]

Just went back to read what Trollax originally wrote.

His was more, "we allow people the possibility of redemption when we see that they are just like us" whereas mine was much more, "Unless we see that we are just like them, we aren't free ourselves".

Apologies, where warranted, for the off-topic ranting. Thanks to all for the discussion; I'm getting a lot out of the two phrases above.

[Trollax]

Just went back to read what Trollax originally wrote.

His was more, "we allow people the possibility of redemption when we see that they are just like us" whereas mine was much more, "Unless we see that we are just like them, we aren't free ourselves".

Apologies, where warranted, for the off-topic ranting. Thanks to all for the discussion; I'm getting a lot out of the two phrases above.

I don't see much difference between the two... perhaps that is what you are getting out of it eh?  

[Guido Finucci]

I don't see much difference between the two... perhaps that is what you are getting out of it eh?

I see a bunch of difference but in a 'two sides of the same coin' kinda way.

[Out of the Wasteland]

1.  Speaking as a retired infantryman, I'd have to know more about the situation.

2.  Yep.  Which, of course, qualifies them as monsters, IMO, which was the original debate.

1. Would you be willing to conceed that there are situations in which you'd kill innocent people for what you believed to be the service of the greater good? If not, I think you're not being completely honest. If so, how do you differentiate that from what the nazis did they also believed that they were serving the greater good? (Hint: there is no good answer to that question - if there was, morality wouldn't be so interesting to talk about.)

2. I think they're monsters, you think they're monsters. That doesn't give us the right to treat them as monsters though. After all they thought the Jews were monsters and we don't think that their say-so was good enough so why should ours be?

1.  Thankfully, I have never been put in that situation, but yes, it is conceivable.

2.  No, we have an OBLIGATION to treat them as monsters, IMO.

[Horab Fibslager]

we're all monsters.

[Guido Finucci]

1.  Thankfully, I have never been put in that situation, but yes, it is conceivable.

2.  No, we have an OBLIGATION to treat them as monsters, IMO.

Hopefully you'll read this as though I wasn't hungover and was still able to be tactful.

If it is conceivable that you'd kill innocents for what you believe in and if you buy that the Nazis did terrible things, including killing innocents, for what they believed in - how are you different from a Nazi? (Aside from the (very important) fact that you haven't actually done those things...) As horab said - we're all monsters. I think that (one of) Trollax's point(s) was that we all have the potential to be that evil.

I'd be interested to know more about this obligation to treat the Nazis like monsters and where it comes from. 'Obligation' would seem to imply some moral imperative.

[Bella]

Horab's right. We're all monsters.

I believe, based on personal experiences, that evil exists.
No, believe is the wrong word - I know for a fact that it does.
I also know pretty much what I'm capable of doing myself and it isn't pretty.
It took a long time to come to terms with the fact that we're all monsters.  

It's fine to sit down and have philosophical discussions on whether or not those who practice evil are merely humans who have been wounded and are therefore worthy of pity. That doesn't change the fact that they are dangerous and that each of us is capable of doing the same under extreme circumstances. And it doesn't make the performance of an evil act acceptable or inspire sympathy on my part - pity and sympathy being two different animals by my definintion. I can feel pity for the child the perpetrator once was without feeling sympathy for the person he/she is today.

It's good to ask, as people are doing in this thread, "what would I do under this circumstance, or that circumstance?" But the truth is that you just don't know until you are faced with such a decision in real life. The bottom line is that the ends don't justify the means. And we each need to take responsibility for our own actions and learn to inflict as little damage as possible on our fellow creatures. Doesn't matter that I was hurt as a child. Nor does it matter how people judged me back then - in that it doesn't make me less responsible for what I do now or make it acceptable to pass the hurt along to someone else. Just because we all have the potential to be monsters doesn't mean we can afford to be the least bit tolerant of those who practice evil.

PS: For the sake of this argument, I'm defining "evil" as a deliberate act, or set of actions, intended to inflict pain and suffering on another sentient being for the personal gain/pleasure/etc. of the perpetrator. Torture, for instance, is evil - whether we're talking about nazis or the guy down the street who beats his dog for the hell of it everyday. It's two different heads of a many headed animal.

[Irreverend Hugh, KSC]

We are akin to being on steamrollers in motion. The question is not that anyone of us have the ability to flatten (ie. hurt) anyone else. The question is how much responsibility for taking the wheel of the steamroller and learning to navigate so that we don't flatten anyone else nor destroy ourselves in the process. And we don't get instruction manuals. We have to learn to control the damned thing oursleves.

Serial killers, people with political/religious agendas, and world leaders claim to have no choice, and therefore take no responsibility for their actions.

But the truth of the matter is we do have a responsibility for taking the wheel of our lives in hand and trying to manage a good steering job. We fuck up, but we learn from it. Those who take no responsibility never learn.

[Trollax]

It's fine to sit down and have philosophical discussions on whether or not those who practice evil are merely humans who have been wounded and are therefore worthy of pity. That doesn't change the fact that they are dangerous and that each of us is capable of doing the same under extreme circumstances. And it doesn't make the performance of an evil act acceptable or inspire sympathy on my part - pity and sympathy being two different animals by my definintion. I can feel pity for the child the perpetrator once was without feeling sympathy for the person he/she is today.

It's good to ask, as people are doing in this thread, "what would I do under this circumstance, or that circumstance?" But the truth is that you just don't know until you are faced with such a decision in real life. The bottom line is that the ends don't justify the means. And we each need to take responsibility for our own actions and learn to inflict as little damage as possible on our fellow creatures. Doesn't matter that I was hurt as a child. Nor does it matter how people judged me back then - in that it doesn't make me less responsible for what I do now or make it acceptable to pass the hurt along to someone else. Just because we all have the potential to be monsters doesn't mean we can afford to be the least bit tolerant of those who practice evil.

That is nothing I haven't said or believed myself.
A monk in the 8th century is raised in a christian environment enters the seminary and becomes a scribe. He and a group of cohorts with a gripe against the pagans creatively edit certain sections of the bible. But because his soul was born of a different breed than the rest of his friends he is subject to the laws and judgement of the very pagans he is damning. He is cursed for 1,200 years to die before he reaches the age of thirty. For ignorance of things most people never learn of in this place, he is punished when others go free.
There are both sides here. "What would we do in that situation?" I know what I did. "What should be done to us?" I know what was done to me. and I feel that while my actions were certainly unwarranted and certainly dark, I also feel that the punishment was excessive.
While my ends did not justify my means, and while the ends of this monk did not justify his means, neither did the ends of our judges justify their means. There is a certain point where what we call justice passes out of the regions of sanity and into bloodymindedness. One of the reasons I believe the reasons why are important. We cannot explain away, we cannot sweep it under the rug, but what we can do is come to understand what makes ordinary people do things that they swear they would never do.
So maybe the wheel of Samsara can be broken.