Violence

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Michael, Feb 24, 2012.

  1. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Is it moral to use violence against an innocent person?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    What do you think?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Can you provide some context?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Well, for example. We think income tax on personal wealth is moral. But, is it?

    Suppose three people were on an island. All three spend all day fishing by hand trying to catch a fish. On average, they catch one a day. One day one of the three decides to forgo his fish and he makes a net instead. While making the net, the other guys laugh telling him not to expect any of their fish and if he keeps trying these harebrained ideas he'll starve. While in the past, yes, he's went without to no avail. But, this time, having learned a thing or two from his past endeavors, he makes a net and is able to catch three fish in two hours.

    In this small island scenario we could think of fish as currency. The man with three fish has two spare. Compared to the other two he's "rich".

    Suppose one asks for his net. I mean, he's got two fish, he doesn't need it the next two days. He could give his net, but, that's taking a risk. The other person may not give it back. He could give his two spare fish to the two men so they can eat and make a net. But, he shouldn't have to. He could salt down his fish and save them and take a couple days off fishing. He could make more nets and trade them for something those guys have. He could offer to make nets, in return for a few fish per net (seeing as in those guys will be more productive).

    Whatever he chooses to do, should be up to him. He made the net. He made this small society a bit more prosperous.

    What should NOT happen is those two come over and use tyranny of the majority and force him to fork over his extra fish. That's wrong. You should not feel you are entitled to someone else's private property. You surely should not feel you can use violence against them and take it.


    Is it moral to use violence against an innocent person?
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Sure.

    Like in your story - if the guy lends his net, and the other guys beat it up a bit but catch a lot of fish, the guy who made the net is entitled to a few of those fish to tide him over while he fixes the thing.

    You can't just take somebody's net, use it to catch a lot of fish, and keep all the fish for yourself. That's wrong.
     
  9. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Innocent, of what in your example? If there's a law that is part of the society that says everyone should help pay for certain things then those things should be paid for if within reason. The problem is that SOME people do not pay anything into the system and use everything to their adavantage. Then some take advantage and only take from the system and never put anything back. Their are some that are paid to do nothing or just take up space somewhere for nothing more than a job to do so that some managers and supervisors can make loads of money telling those people what not to do.
     
  10. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Suppose the guy does NOT want to lend his net. Then what?

    You just going to take his fish? Take his net?
     
  11. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I disagree. You can not force someone to pay for something.

    Which is why we have free-market. It means if people really do want something to help society, someone will provide that something at a price that's fair "within reason".

    I disagree again. In a just society they will pay for what they use. They'll pay a fair price (for them) or they simply won't use it.

    No, because they'll have to pay. There won't be a system to game. That's the whole point of a free society.
    If the business is profitable then that's obviously perfectly fine. So long as the market is FREE then competitors will create similar (or better) products that they'll offer to the market cheaper because they won't have the waste of managers not doing something that is worth while.


    If you want a free and moral society, I think the first thing you have to do is stop using violence against people to take their private property.


    It should be noted, in a free society, we would not be tied to central banks. But would be free to carry our money in any currency we deemed suitable.
     
  12. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I don't see how your example relates to the question. Taxes are not collected by violent means.

    Why not just come out and ask if we think income tax is fair? Why the subterfuge?
     
  13. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Take a person's private property under threat of violence, is violence. IOWs, if I hold a gun to your head, and tell you to give me your wallet, I may not actually shoot you, but the threat itself is a violent act. Calling my stealing "tax" doesn't make it any less than what it is.

    Try not paying your income tax. The State will send you to prison. That's violence. That's a gun to your head. It doesn't matter if the people doing the violence are wearing Blue Police uniforms and have titles like Sergent. They could be wearing pink leotards and titles like SillyFace. It's still violence.

    One would think it's therefor immoral. I'd rather we focus on that as terms like "fair" have varying degrees of meaning to various people. I think most people know violence when they see it.

    Think of it as starting from first principles and building from there.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2012
  14. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    so you think you deserve peoples labor for free do you? Government employees deserve pay too, if you dont want to use those services you dont have to pay, there is an apsolute international right to leave any country. So you are free to fly to Sub Seharran Africa and see what its REALLY like to live in a libitarian paradise where there is no laws, no government services and suprise suprise, no society
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The first principle basis of human society is not betraying your fellows. The second is gratitude. They are related.
     
  16. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    In a life or death situation, it is altruistically viable to use violence. IN a free choice event, persuation should replace violence.
     
  17. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Asguard,
    I certainly did not day "labor for free". Exactly the opposite. All labor, or any trade in service or product, would be through volunteerism. Like the way you buy your phone. You don't get a "free" iPhone. You decide if you want it, then you buy it or you don't.

    Libertarians are fully supportive of the Law.

    Government services is an interesting one. Can you think of anything the government does that no other group of people couldn't also do? There's really only the initiation of violence as I see it. Other that that, any service the government provides, could be provided by another group of people.

    However, that's really not the Libertarian ideal. They support limited government. One that supports property rights and Civil liberties. The government would secure the boarders but not engage in offensive war.


    Not that this matters, Libertarians is just a label. Everyone has some measure of all ideology. You probably don't mind the government taxing your wealthy neighbor, but, you'd have a problem with it sticking it's nose into your bedroom.


    What this thread is about is this: Is it moral to use violence against an innocent person? My inclination is no it is not. You seem to be leaning towards, yes it is, for the "greater good". Seeing as in most people want those same goals: Peace, Prosperity, Freedom, Liberty, etc... it's worth thinking about ways to achieve these goals that are non-violent.

    As I said in another post, we're living in your ideal Statist society. Things should be pretty good for you. You have a large State that taxes about 30-40% of your income and redistributes it accordingly. Life should be wonderful for you. Ideal even :shrug:
     
  18. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    Taxes are the natural fee that the government deserve for keeping the society above the hardships of nature. Violence is a fact of life and a method of persuation among all species. We work hard to put our lowly origins behind us, but only a post-capitalistic, resource based economy with no human labour [use of machines and robots + human experts in the knowledge, operation and organisation of a particular field] can truely transcend the stamp of nature that becomes so obvious during a riot or a war.
     
  19. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    So your stance is violence is acceptable for the "greater good"?

    That aside, government is a group of humans. Not a "thing". A collection of people. It doesn't keep society above the hardships of nature at all. Entrepreneurs do that. Scientists working in labs do that. Farmers working in fields to that. Teachers in schools do that. Government doesn't actually DO anything other than pass Laws and regulate the actions of people like Entrepreneurs, scientists, farmers and teachers. Often making a mess of things in the process.
     
  20. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Tax isn't theft or violence, it's a fee payable for being a mber of society x, if you don't wish to pay you can leave because the country belongs to the society and is rented by you not owned. Refusing to pay tax is theft because you believe you should revive the benefits of the society without paying for them.
     
  21. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    For one, it isn't violence. No physical harm comes to you for not paying your taxes. Yes, you could/will lose your freedom, but the act of imprisoning someone does not count as violence. You need to move on from that, because it doesn't work.

    As for whether or not taxation is "moral," I don't think morality plays into it at all. The question would be whether or not it's fair, and the answer is unequivocally "yes." To live in society, one must contribute to its maintenance. That's the deal.

    Of course, if you want to talk about how tax codes need to be reconsidered, I'm right there with you. But taxation as a concept is necessary for society to function.
     
  22. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Wow, how far people will fall over themselves to advocate violence... quite astounding.


    So, let me get this straight, some white people come over to Australia.
    These white people claim the land.
    These white people then FORCE the original Australians to pay a tax.
    This tax is their "privilege" granted to them by the majority White Australians (tyranny of the majority) so they can "RENT" their place in this "society" you're creating.

    AND if they don't like it, they can what Asguard? Die? Go to prison? What exactly?


    And you have no moral problems with this at all huh?



    I really don't know what to say. Yeah, you're a Statist. Pretty close to an Imperialist or even a Communist - both of which are Statist. Which is probably one of the worst forms of human organization ever invented. Well, lucky for you, you live in a society of public school indoctrinated Statists just like yourself.

    I'd like to paint a different picture of the future, but, people like me are in the minority. I'd like to see a free society based on peace and not violence. Where free exchange between individuals in a free market produces a prosperous society through volunteerism.

    Oh well... more violence it is. No surprise there :shrug:
     
  23. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596

Share This Page