Pacifism, Fault, and Veganism

[Purple Knight]

If a society of pacifists allows a gang of bandits to exploit them, bandits who would have otherwise died, are the pacifists partly to blame when the fattened and pampered bandits go out again, to another society, and have greater success?

If so, if part of the blame falls on a pacifist for his pampering of brutes, then I fail to see the ethical merit of pacifism.

However, if not, because presumably people are never responsible for what others do even if they knowingly caused or enabled it, then I fail to see the ethical merit of veganism, since you can easily buy meat without killing the animal yourself.

To my mind, at least one of these things doesn't work.

[Purple Knight]

The extreme outliers are always in the very small minority.
We already been over the fact that complete pacifism is a broken ideology.
Superman, Goku like ideology and kind of partial pacifism is preferred.
We intervened to forcefully pacify the extreme outliers.

We don't let the very small minority to get a greater genetic share in the future.

Then we need to stop resource squanderers from breeding.

[Mae von H]

If a society of pacifists allows a gang of bandits to exploit them, bandits who would have otherwise died, are the pacifists partly to blame when the fattened and pampered bandits go out again, to another society, and have greater success?

I think they foolishly make all human the highest value such they refuse to defend the defenseless, which is the greater wrong.

If so, if part of the blame falls on a pacifist for his pampering of brutes, then I fail to see the ethical merit of pacifism.

Pacifism only has merit under particular circumstances.

However, if not, because presumably people are never responsible for what others do even if they knowingly caused or enabled it, then I fail to see the ethical merit of veganism, since you can easily buy meat without killing the animal yourself.

Well I see no ethical merit to veganism at all and am more likely to see that way too much attention is given to eating.

To my mind, at least one of these things doesn't work.

I agree.

[Purple Knight]

Pacifism only has [practical] merit under particular circumstances.

Well, yes. Note the part I added. The problem is what you do about someone who concedes that pacifism will lead to more violence in other circumstances, but doesn't care and insists that pacifism is the highest morality. They don't care about practical good; they espouse what is morally highest for morality's sake alone, and screw us and our families getting eaten by barbarians they pampered.

I don't see how you can beat them.

The best I can do is force them to choose between pacifism and veganism on the purely logical basis of fault. If you're at fault for what you cause, morally culpable for it, then pacifism fails whenever pacifism wants to give resources to brutes who will use them to hurt people. But if you're only at fault for what you do, not for what you cause, then you cannot make veganism a moral imperative because I didn't personally kill any of those animals I ate.

[Mae von H]

Pacifism only has [practical] merit under particular circumstances.

Well, yes. Note the part I added. The problem is what you do about someone who concedes that pacifism will lead to more violence in other circumstances, but doesn't care and insists that pacifism is the highest morality. They don't care about practical good; they espouse what is morally highest for morality's sake alone, and screw us and our families getting eaten by barbarians they pampered.

I don't see how you can beat them.

The man who stands by and let’s horrible suffering being inflicted upon others although he could prevent it doesn’t have the higher moral ground in anyone’s eyes. He fails to understand right and wrong. He fails to defend the weak, an action Godrequires of him.

The best I can do is force them to choose between pacifism and veganism on the purely logical basis of fault. If you're at fault for what you cause, morally culpable for it, then pacifism fails whenever pacifism wants to give resources to brutes who will use them to hurt people. But if you're only at fault for what you do, not for what you cause, then you cannot make veganism a moral imperative because I didn't personally kill any of those animals I ate.

There are times when a man cannot participate in matters whether he caused them or not. There are people, for example, who refuses “blood money” although they didn’t murder. Accepting stolen merchandise (that you know is stolen) is a crime in some places.

Veganism is a different matter.

Nice discussion by the way…thanks!

[Purple Knight]

The man who stands by and let’s horrible suffering being inflicted upon others although he could prevent it doesn’t have the higher moral ground in anyone’s eyes. He fails to understand right and wrong. He fails to defend the weak, an action God requires of him.

It depends on what morality is. If it's just God's command, then God can command us to make people suffer and that makes it right. And it matters why. If it's just, whoever's name happens to be God, then it might as well be whoever's name happens to be Blake. If it's because God is powerful (and then it wouldn't be Blake, because he isn't) then it's not morality at all, but might-makes-right, at the very foundation.

If we're obeying God because we're confident God is moral and knows better, then we're just ignorant and we might as well be obeying evil, unless there's a good reason to trust. The devil, too, could insist that trusting him is moral, and questioning him is evil. If you've believed in God all your life, worshiped and praised him, and it's turned out well for you and the people around you, that's an example of trust being built, and it's sufficient and quite logical, but it's also personal, and someone who does not have that trust, is not obligated.

Now, once you're trusting someone, we do say it is okay to make people suffer. The brute suffers when someone knocks him down to stop him stealing and it's for the greater good. So we don't say, knocking someone down is never good; we say it's situational depending upon the outcome. So if someone else knows best and we're just trusting, we knock down whoever they say and we don't know that it will be a better outcome and it doesn't matter. So God may well demand making people suffer.

If morality is simply a code, and following it is moral while breaking it is immoral, then causing horrible suffering might be at least permissible. When two people both hurt each other, it often falls back on, well, that one broke the code and that one only did what was fair play, so he is in the right. A good example is that not many people think it's morally necessary to lie if the truth hurts somebody. That's an example of the codified nature of morality and that if someone is clever, they may inflict as much harm as they wish, as long as they do so within the rules.

There are times when a man cannot participate in matters whether he caused them or not. There are people, for example, who refuses “blood money” although they didn’t murder. Accepting stolen merchandise (that you know is stolen) is a crime in some places.

There's at least one reason for it to be a crime to knowingly accept stolen goods, and that's the idea that this way, you will get less theft and racketeering. Saying it's morally wrong though, is another matter. Looking at the consequences (which in this cases includes a worse world with more theft) and trying for the least suffering might be morality, but even if morality is something else, trying for the best world we can get is probably at least permissible.

[Mae von H]

The man who stands by and let’s horrible suffering being inflicted upon others although he could prevent it doesn’t have the higher moral ground in anyone’s eyes. He fails to understand right and wrong. He fails to defend the weak, an action God requires of him.

It depends on what morality is. If it's just God's command, then God can command us to make people suffer and that makes it right. And it matters why. If it's just, whoever's name happens to be God, then it might as well be whoever's name happens to be Blake. If it's because God is powerful (and then it wouldn't be Blake, because he isn't) then it's not morality at all, but might-makes-right, at the very foundation.

One can remove onself from the internal moral standard that is within and pretend that there is no internal moral standard, I suppose. But if a man came up to you while you were just waiting for someone one the street and beat you to a pulp, you would know without a doubt what the moral standard is. And that is the point. One can decide that there is no moral standard until one gets up from the computer and walks out the door to interact with real people. Then what the moral standard is expected of them and what moral standard they expect of us is crystal clear. No one says when so beaten, "well it wasn't wrong because it depends upon what "wrong" is defined at."

If we're obeying God because we're confident God is moral and knows better, then we're just ignorant and we might as well be obeying evil, unless there's a good reason to trust. The devil, too, could insist that trusting him is moral, and questioning him is evil. If you've believed in God all your life, worshiped and praised him, and it's turned out well for you and the people around you, that's an example of trust being built, and it's sufficient and quite logical, but it's also personal, and someone who does not have that trust, is not obligated.

Again, this denies the internal moral standard we all have built in unless we killed it for deeply selfish reasons. The thing that is so great about God is that HE is morally good. His behaviour and words match the internal standard we have inside. Those who know Him well from a life of obedience have greater understanding of good, not less. This is very clear to me as I observe people who are open to doing moral wrong, not seeing it as wrong, if it benefits them. If others do the same to them, suddenly it is "WRONG!!"

Now, once you're trusting someone, we do say it is okay to make people suffer. The brute suffers when someone knocks him down to stop him stealing and it's for the greater good. So we don't say, knocking someone down is never good; we say it's situational depending upon the outcome. So if someone else knows best and we're just trusting, we knock down whoever they say and we don't know that it will be a better outcome and it doesn't matter. So God may well demand making people suffer.

The trusting part plays no role in moral good or not. Moral good is a measure all unto itself. Trusting is immaterial.

If morality is simply a code, and following it is moral while breaking it is immoral, then causing horrible suffering might be at least permissible. When two people both hurt each other, it often falls back on, well, that one broke the code and that one only did what was fair play, so he is in the right. A good example is that not many people think it's morally necessary to lie if the truth hurts somebody. That's an example of the codified nature of morality and that if someone is clever, they may inflict as much harm as they wish, as long as they do so within the rules.

Whether someone suffers or not is not the determining factor in the moral code with some exceptions and that depends upon the innocence or guilt of the suffering party. When a man suffers the consequences of his bad behaviour even if not moral, it is just. The man who dies from liver cancer who was an alcoholic for decades can hardly claim he did not deserve that, for example.

There are times when a man cannot participate in matters whether he caused them or not. There are people, for example, who refuses “blood money” although they didn’t murder. Accepting stolen merchandise (that you know is stolen) is a crime in some places.

There's at least one reason for it to be a crime to knowingly accept stolen goods, and that's the idea that this way, you will get less theft and racketeering. Saying it's morally wrong though, is another matter. Looking at the consequences (which in this cases includes a worse world with more theft) and trying for the least suffering might be morality, but even if morality is something else, trying for the best world we can get is probably at least permissible.

Suffering is not the standard of measure for moraliy. But yes, if people refused stolen goods, it would help the whole society.

[Purple Knight]

One can remove onself from the internal moral standard that is within and pretend that there is no internal moral standard, I suppose. But if a man came up to you while you were just waiting for someone one the street and beat you to a pulp, you would know without a doubt what the moral standard is.

I would be frustrated and angry and wish there was something stopping him from doing that, but that doesn't mean I think he violated any moral standard. I wouldn't do it myself, but it's out of empathy, not morality. If what he did was legal (and it was not legal for me to fight back) I would then, if given the opportunity, go and vote that it should not be legal for him to do that, or that it should be legal that I could fight back. But I recognise this as my own selfish interest.

What I want is not always moral. I might want a cake, but that doesn't mean it's moral to steal it. Likewise, I assume, what I want in this case doesn't necessarily equal morality, either.

And that is the point. One can decide that there is no moral standard until one gets up from the computer and walks out the door to interact with real people. Then what the moral standard is expected of them and what moral standard they expect of us is crystal clear. No one says when so beaten, "well it wasn't wrong because it depends upon what "wrong" is defined at."

When I get up from the computer and go outside, if I dare do anything that anyone considers immoral, I'll be held to account for it. But I've never been able to hold anyone to account for doing anything to me, because they always think whatever they did was right. It's always a matter of either, you hurt someone it was wrong (which is kind of the default) or hurting someone is not always wrong if you're playing by the rules, and I have to admit, I don't think telling the truth is wrong, and it's often hurtful. If there is some God-given internal standard, why do people disagree? Why are there so many competing standards that all seem reasonable and even righteous?

People can do wrong when it benefits them and then defend it successfully, to themselves and others, precisely because there are so many competing standards. If there was this god-implanted standard, one of the things I think would be more obvious to everyone is whether it's good to tell the truth, even if it is hurtful. After many long hours agonising over it, all I can say is that I think we have to be able to tell the truth, it has to be at least morally permissible, or language is rendered worthless. But it oughtn't to require agony.

The trusting part plays no role in moral good or not. Moral good is a measure all unto itself. Trusting is immaterial.

I would hope. Because if I'm required to trust people simply because they are smarter than me (which I observe is NOT true, since not only do people dumber than me not have to trust me, they actively shouldn't since I might easily be out to hurt them, and their trust is a blank cheque for me to do that), then I could be in hot water when I pick the wrong person to trust.

Whether someone suffers or not is not the determining factor in the moral code with some exceptions and that depends upon the innocence or guilt of the suffering party. When a man suffers the consequences of his bad behaviour even if not moral, it is just. The man who dies from liver cancer who was an alcoholic for decades can hardly claim he did not deserve that, for example.

No, people generally don't claim they don't deserve the direct physical consequences of their actions, like liver cancer. Though sometimes I think they should. The idea that corporations can exist that basically sell addiction and death, does not sit right with me. If I started selling vials of poison and my entire business model was in making people think they needed them, I'd know what I was doing and who was at fault when they died.

There's a slight question of whether something like cigarettes bring a benefit. I don't smoke, but about once a year, if I'm having a panic attack, I do notice that nicotine calms me down. But there are other drugs that do that and won't kill you, and could be legal, but aren't. Imagine if the tobacco companies were the ones restricting access to alternatives through lobbying. Again I must put myself in their place. Imagine I sold poisoned food and made less- or non-poisonous food illegal. And now it's just, well, you must consume the poison if you want that benefit. Nobody would say I wasn't culpable.

Suffering is not the standard of measure for morality.

I'm not sure what is. It seems to me to be a code that often coincides with avoiding causing suffering, but is actually something else. Wherever that code is written, nobody will let me see it. And don't say it's the Bible because all these people seem to know, internally, that slavery is inherently wrong, and that if the Bible says otherwise, then it is wrong.

The only consistent standard I can come to is that either 1) slavery is wrong and it is also wrong for someone to be a wage-slave and not share in the wealth they generate, living paycheck to paycheck and only earning enough for room and board or 2) slavery is not actually wrong.

[Mae von H]

One can remove onself from the internal moral standard that is within and pretend that there is no internal moral standard, I suppose. But if a man came up to you while you were just waiting for someone one the street and beat you to a pulp, you would know without a doubt what the moral standard is.

I would be frustrated and angry and wish there was something stopping him from doing that, but that doesn't mean I think he violated any moral standard. I wouldn't do it myself, but it's out of empathy, not morality. If what he did was legal (and it was not legal for me to fight back) I would then, if given the opportunity, go and vote that it should not be legal for him to do that, or that it should be legal that I could fight back. But I recognise this as my own selfish interest.

How bad would a behavior have to be before you’d be more than upset? If it was legal to kill women suspected of “dishonoring” their men, would you agree it’s ok? What about the Nazi camps? That was legal so you are ok with it? Slavery? Is there no deed you’d standup and cry, “WRONG” and merely you just don’t like it on a par with disliking bananas?

What I want is not always moral. I might want a cake, but that doesn't mean it's moral to steal it. Likewise, I assume, what I want in this case doesn't necessarily equal morality, either.

Why do you say it’s not moral to steal a cake? On what basis?

And that is the point. One can decide that there is no moral standard until one gets up from the computer and walks out the door to interact with real people. Then what the moral standard is expected of them and what moral standard they expect of us is crystal clear. No one says when so beaten, "well it wasn't wrong because it depends upon what "wrong" is defined at."

When I get up from the computer and go outside, if I dare do anything that anyone considers immoral, I'll be held to account for it.

By whom? You’ve just rendered bad or immoral behavior a personal opinion.

But I've never been able to hold anyone to account for doing anything to me, because they always think whatever they did was right. It's always a matter of either, you hurt someone it was wrong (which is kind of the default) or hurting someone is not always wrong if you're playing by the rules, and I have to admit, I don't think telling the truth is wrong, and it's often hurtful.

I can see that if you don’t believe there are morals to appeal to in others, then there’s no backbone reason to call anyone “wrong,” but just you don’t like it.

If there is some God-given internal standard, why do people disagree?

Can you give examples? Perpetrators always defend their choice but that they do so tells us they know of a universal standard. So I don’t see disagreements. Abortionists insist a fetus is not a living child. Why? Because they KNOW killing a baby is morally wrong. Slave owners did the same. They called their slaves “non-human” so they could ease their moral compass.

Why are there so many competing standards that all seem reasonable and even righteous?

Like what?

People can do wrong when it benefits them and then defend it successfully, to themselves and others, precisely because there are so many competing standards.

That they feel a need to justify their (wrong) choices demonstrate there is a standard. They just insist they are excused from it this time. No one defends what all consider right.

If there was this god-implanted standard, one of the things I think would be more obvious to everyone is whether it's good to tell the truth, even if it is hurtful. After many long hours agonising over it, all I can say is that I think we have to be able to tell the truth, it has to be at least morally permissible, or language is rendered worthless. But it oughtn't to require agony.

You ask very intelligent questions. My hats off to you.
Telling the truth, loving the truth is very expensive but it is the best way.

The trusting part plays no role in moral good or not. Moral good is a measure all unto itself. Trusting is immaterial.

I would hope. Because if I'm required to trust people simply because they are smarter than me (which I observe is NOT true, since not only do people dumber than me not have to trust me, they actively shouldn't since I might easily be out to hurt them, and their trust is a blank cheque for me to do that), then I could be in hot water when I pick the wrong person to trust.

Again, very astute. Trust is dependent upon character, not intelligence.

Whether someone suffers or not is not the determining factor in the moral code with some exceptions and that depends upon the innocence or guilt of the suffering party. When a man suffers the consequences of his bad behaviour even if not moral, it is just. The man who dies from liver cancer who was an alcoholic for decades can hardly claim he did not deserve that, for example.

No, people generally don't claim they don't deserve the direct physical consequences of their actions, like liver cancer. Though sometimes I think they should. The idea that corporations can exist that basically sell addiction and death, does not sit right with me. If I started selling vials of poison and my entire business model was in making people think they needed them, I'd know what I was doing and who was at fault when they died.

There's a slight question of whether something like cigarettes bring a benefit. I don't smoke, but about once a year, if I'm having a panic attack, I do notice that nicotine calms me down. But there are other drugs that do that and won't kill you, and could be legal, but aren't. Imagine if the tobacco companies were the ones restricting access to alternatives through lobbying. Again I must put myself in their place. Imagine I sold poisoned food and made less- or non-poisonous food illegal. And now it's just, well, you must consume the poison if you want that benefit. Nobody would say I wasn't culpable.

Suffering is not the standard of measure for morality.

I'm not sure what is. It seems to me to be a code that often coincides with avoiding causing suffering, but is actually something else. Wherever that code is written, nobody will let me see it. And don't say it's the Bible because all these people seem to know, internally, that slavery is inherently wrong, and that if the Bible says otherwise, then it is wrong.

Jesus said to treat others as you would like to be treated. That rules out slavery.

The only consistent standard I can come to is that either 1) slavery is wrong and it is also wrong for someone to be a wage-slave and not share in the wealth they generate, living paycheck to paycheck and only earning enough for room and board or 2) slavery is not actually wrong.

When God judges a man, he will compare how he said he liked to be treated with how he treated other people. The words he uttered judging the choices of others will be applied to him. Seems pretty clear. Each was aware of a moral code when it came to how he ought to have been treated. That moral code will be the measuring rod against he will be judged. What could be more fair. No man will say, there is no code because we didn’t seem to agree. I think we will find we agreed…..we just didn’t live up to that code.

[Purple Knight]

How bad would a behavior have to be before you’d be more than upset? If it was legal to kill women suspected of “dishonoring” their men, would you agree it’s ok? What about the Nazi camps? That was legal so you are ok with it? Slavery? Is there no deed you’d standup and cry, “WRONG” and merely you just don’t like it on a par with disliking bananas?

I generally have to fake it when it's something done to others. I have to say that I agree putting Jews in camps and genociding them because they're Jews is wrong. But I don't see where the authority to say that comes from. I have actually been told I'm a bad person so I shouldn't have kids. I've been told that people like me shouldn't exist. And I think I agree. I legitimately feel bad for being alive - I'm taking resources from good people. If someone walked me into a gas chamber I don't think I'd be offended. Deep down, I know it's right. So if I say, well, that is probably correct, then shouldn't it at least be up for debate whether someone else and their progeny is also a blight on the world? All I can say is that I don't think it's true about Jews and all or most of the suspicious amounts of hate seems to be inspired by jealousy, but I also don't think shutting down discussion about various final solutions is the way to go. The discussion is only open about whites, and it has found that they actually do some terrible things. Critical Race Theory is probably true. I just think we need to have that discussion for everybody. (Then maybe when the full weight of the scholar's critical analysis is put to everybody's throat, we find everyone is equally awful and we don't kill off anybody.)

Why do you say it’s not moral to steal a cake? On what basis?

Simply on the basis that I expect you'll agree. I don't have any reason to think it's wrong. In fact I don't see how people can universally hold that it is wrong, and have Aladdin be such a popular hero. But they do and I have to pretend it's consistent. I have a reason to expect you'll think it's wrong, so I can use that as a starting point to prove that not everything that pleases me (like a stolen cake) is right, and enduring want of cake, which does not please me, might be moral. Therefore, morality might demand I endure that which I do not like, or even that which harms me. If I'm really a bad person, somebody really ought to take me out of the picture.

By whom? You’ve just rendered bad or immoral behavior a personal opinion.

That's how it seems to me and I'm not sure how people have coalesced personal opinion into objective truth, but they have. They agree stealing is wrong, for example. Murdering is wrong. Violence is wrong. But... violence against bad people is right.

If there is some God-given internal standard, why do people disagree?

Can you give examples? Perpetrators always defend their choice but that they do so tells us they know of a universal standard. So I don’t see disagreements. Abortionists insist a fetus is not a living child. Why? Because they KNOW killing a baby is morally wrong. Slave owners did the same. They called their slaves “non-human” so they could ease their moral compass.

The biggest example I have is telling the truth if it is hurtful. Some people insist it is permissible, but some insist it is a moral command not to tell the truth in that situation. Another very example is punishment. People agree on what is wrong to some degree, but disagree vastly on what is right to do about it.

So you might have one guy who steals a horse. The owner of the horse shoots the horse thief. This is where you would get huge disagreement. In the mind of modern people, including the most liberal and Libertarian, the reaction was disproportionate and the owner of the horse is a murderer and must be punished.

Now, I think you can get "an eye for an eye" out of pure logic. You can, at least, if you don't do what modern people do and put a greater weight on retaliatory violence.

Let's say you have a murderer, who murders Adam's wife. The townspeople gather around, and decide, the value of that life was twenty-five cents. (This is what Libertarians actually believe. Not the quarter specifically, but that monetary compensation should be the punishment, because more is disproportionate and aggression.) So the townspeople force the murderer to pony up the quarter. He of course turns out his pockets and says he hasn't got anything to pay. So, because anything worse would be disproportionate, the townspeople shrug their shoulders and walk off, leaving him free. Adam then kills the murderer. Now the townspeople want to do something really bad, like put Adam to death. But he reminds them that the value of a life is twenty-five cents, which the murderer already rightly owed to him. Is the value of a murderer's life greater? If so, why? If not, now everything is square and Adam is free to go, right?

Again, very astute. Trust is dependent upon character, not intelligence.

Thanks you, and I mean that. So you can't just trust somebody because they say they know better, even if they do. That doesn't mean they'll use that information to help. And again I quite concede that if it has been your experience that your religion helps you, well, there is the building of trust, and that's legit. But if someone else doesn't know this unknowable person, they should not automatically bend and agree to do its bidding, just because it has more knowledge.

Jesus said to treat others as you would like to be treated. That rules out slavery.

Only for those who would not reluctantly agree that enslaving themselves wasn't wrong. I think most people are enslaved. I have to ask whether a slave is a slave because someone owns him on paper, or because he toils for the enrichment of another who gains material wealth while he only gets his own upkeep. And I have to say, the latter. I have to say this because it does nothing for me to make up a sheet of paper that says I own the King of England. Now, if I go over and grab him and set him to work, or even have someone else do it, or even kidnap him and place him in a situation where he has no land or property and must toil "voluntarily" for me or starve, now that is more like slavery.

When God judges a man, he will compare how he said he liked to be treated with how he treated other people. The words he uttered judging the choices of others will be applied to him. Seems pretty clear. Each was aware of a moral code when it came to how he ought to have been treated. That moral code will be the measuring rod against he will be judged. What could be more fair. No man will say, there is no code because we didn’t seem to agree. I think we will find we agreed…..we just didn’t live up to that code.

I've had that fantasy myself about the afterlife, to be honest with you. I try to judge people by their own standards. But they're inconsistent and don't have any. So they cannot be judged.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #29]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I think we’ve reached the end of the exchange. You do not see the moral code inside. Perhaps you no longer can. It’s possible to kill the conscience so that one no longer hears any moral restraint. Doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Just means one no longer hears it.

If you’d desire to see it again, you’ll need to surrender your opinion that it isn’t there. All of us have to surrender our cherished but wrong opinions to find the truth. It’s painful but worth it.

All the best!!