Not a trick question: Why is violence bad?

[CRGreathouse]

I'm looking for a sound philosophical argument in (what seems to be) an obvious case so that I can apply it to other, less-obvious situations.

Why is violence bad? I mean nonconsentual forceful interactions or transactions between people, taking something of value from another for one's own gain: assault/battery, theft, or even murder. Actually I'll even include taking things by threat of violence, like protection rackets. These seem like bad things that should not be allowed, and indeed society generally does not sanction this kind of behavior. But why?

I think the standard response is Hobbes' social contract, but this is an incomplete answer to me. Yes, these things exist in a state of nature, but a social contract could provide for protection from some but not all of these, or could provide protection from outside dangers (wildfire, other tribes) but not from internal. Alternately, a social contract could provide for protection from entirely different threats (positive rights rather than negative rights, say) without protecting from these.


Please be explicit; assume that nothing is obvious to me. Thanks. :shy:

 

[cesiumfrog]

Yes, these things [violence?] exist in a state of nature, but a social contract could provide for protection from some but not all of these, or could provide protection from outside dangers (wildfire, other tribes) but not from internal. Alternately, a social contract could provide for protection from entirely different threats (positive rights rather than negative rights, say) without protecting from these.

But agents would in nature seek to partake in the social contract that most advantages and protects them. Do we not observe people migrating from the societies that fail to protect from internal (and not just external) violence?

That and we generally appear to have an evolved strong psychological response (we feel empathy) when we witness harm.

I don't see why a social contract of positive rights might practically permit violence: murder clearly obstructs the victim exercising more rights than what not-murdering constrains the aggressor.

 

[JoeDawg]

Why is violence bad?

It isn't.

We commit violence everyday to feed ourselves... etc.

In fact, any time we seek to impose our will on the world, we do violence to the world. This is natural, and necessary to the continuation of life.

Value, good or bad, only enters into it, with regards to how we impact others and they impact us.

Humans evolved in small tribal groups. We are powerful in groups, and procreation extends that power.

As such, our primitive tribal groups needed to cooperate to continue to exist and thrive, but we also needed to maintain a propensity for violence to deal with those outside our tribe.

We are a very successful species, at least short term, and that has lead to a population explosion. Our tribes have expanded... well beyond the point where we can maintain tribal relations with every member. So in order to maintain tribal cohesion we developed things like trade and government to deal with increased numbers and tribal complexity.

It remains however, violence that benefits the tribe is good, and violence that harms the tribe is bad. Complicating this, is the fact that somethings are beneficial short term, and some are beneficial long term. Also, as individuals we often have differing ideas about who is included in our tribe... ie nepotism, racism and nationalism... etc..

 

[alt]

I'm looking for a sound philosophical argument in (what seems to be) an obvious case so that I can apply it to other, less-obvious situations.

Why is violence bad? I mean nonconsentual forceful interactions or transactions between people, taking something of value from another for one's own gain: assault/battery, theft, or even murder. Actually I'll even include taking things by threat of violence, like protection rackets. These seem like bad things that should not be allowed, and indeed society generally does not sanction this kind of behavior. But why?

I think the standard response is Hobbes' social contract, but this is an incomplete answer to me. Yes, these things exist in a state of nature, but a social contract could provide for protection from some but not all of these, or could provide protection from outside dangers (wildfire, other tribes) but not from internal. Alternately, a social contract could provide for protection from entirely different threats (positive rights rather than negative rights, say) without protecting from these.


Please be explicit; assume that nothing is obvious to me. Thanks. :shy:

These seem like bad things that should not be allowed, and indeed society generally does not sanction this kind of behavior

It seems that way .. I suppose .. but state sanctioned violence, terrorism and war, seems to be de rigueur throughout the ages. Far more people have died a violent death caused by the state (some state) than by individuals acting alone.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think the standard response is Hobbes' social contract, but this is an incomplete answer to me. Yes, these things exist in a state of nature, but a social contract could provide for protection from some but not all of these, or could provide protection from outside dangers (wildfire, other tribes) but not from internal. Alternately, a social contract could provide for protection from entirely different threats (positive rights rather than negative rights, say) without protecting from these.

You're offering reasons why Hobbes' social contract does not have to apply internally, but why are you choosing to make the distinction?

If the social contract benefits us, why would we not apply it? Establishing as system where we can be reasonably certain that we've quelled threats to our security from within benefits us as inidividuals and as a whole. (It even benefits the criminals. In a totally anarchist society, criminality would simply be an arms race of violence, cruelest crushing the less cruel. For criminals to survive, they must have a stable society to do their work in. Like a virus has to keep its host alive, or it dies too.)

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I have to agree with Joe Dawg. alt and DaveC on this. "Bad" is a value judgment. It doesn't exist in nature except insofar that humans, and our ethical principles, exist in nature. Nature is "cruel". It is the law of the jungle; the survival of the fittest.

 

[octelcogopod]

From a purely natural point of view, every action is an event, and all events are just cause and effect.. There is no inherent moral value attached to any event in the universe.
So in that sense violence is just a process..
I'm actually quite "shocked" personally because violence is about one of the easiest things a human can do just purely physically speaking.

On a purely personal note, I believe violence is crude and taking the easy way out.. Instead of debate we could just hit someone in the face, but that would not be a productive society at all. An anarchy, as stated above.. So in that way violence is like a cancer that permeats through the otherwise rational human.

 

[Borek]

Bad? From whose point of view? Personal? Society? Aggressor, or victim? I think "violence is bad" is way too general to be true.

If resources are limited and violence is the only way to survive, is it bad, or not?

 

[DaveC426913]

Instead of debate we could just hit someone in the face, but that would not be a productive society at all. An anarchy, as stated above.. So in that way violence is like a cancer that permeats through the otherwise rational human.

The trouble is that violence is a very natural and effective way for an individual to get what they want. So how do we get from there to a society, wherein we actually must eschew this highly-effective strategy?

 

[madness]

Actually I'll even include taking things by threat of violence, like protection rackets. These seem like bad things that should not be allowed, and indeed society generally does not sanction this kind of behavior. But why?

Society does sanction this behaviour, but only from the state. Laws are basically threats of coercion. Some people claim that having a "monopoly on violence" is the definition of a state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence.

 

[DaveC426913]

Laws are basically threats of coercion. Some people claim that having a "monopoly on violence" is the definition of a state

Well I see your point but it's hard to swallow. Laws are unilateral, not specious. We agreed to them by electing a government and we agree to the pre-set conditions wherein they apply.

 

[madness]

Well I see your point but it's hard to swallow. Laws are unilateral, not specious. We agreed to them by electing a government and we agree to the pre-set conditions wherein they apply.

Nope cos I didn't vote.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Well I see your point but it's hard to swallow. Laws are unilateral, not specious. We agreed to them by electing a government and we agree to the pre-set conditions wherein they apply.

Why is it hard to swallow? Governments do have a legal monopoly on the use of force, elected or not. So possible violence, in the name of the law, is a part of our social contract.

 

[BW338]

Why is violence bad?

Define the concept of "bad".

 

[cesiumfrog]

Far more people have died a violent death caused by the state (some state) than by individuals acting alone.

My understanding is that even in the most "effective" state wars (viz. WWII) the death rate due to violence was lower than that due to violence in primitive (stateless?) societies, and that this has been a positive trend through the ages. No doubt there exists archaeological data on the question.

 

[DaveC426913]

Nope cos I didn't vote.

Then you agreed to them through inaction by choosing to remain living in a country where governments are elected by vote.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why is it hard to swallow? Governments do have a legal monopoly on the use of force, elected or not. So possible violence, in the name of the law, is a part of our social contract.

Hm. OK, granted.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm looking for a sound philosophical argument in (what seems to be) an obvious case so that I can apply it to other, less-obvious situations.

Why is violence bad? I mean nonconsentual forceful interactions or transactions between people, taking something of value from another for one's own gain: assault/battery, theft, or even murder. Actually I'll even include taking things by threat of violence, like protection rackets. These seem like bad things that should not be allowed, and indeed society generally does not sanction this kind of behavior. But why?
...

Please be explicit; assume that nothing is obvious to me. Thanks. :shy:

Without reading the thread, it strikes me that you have improperly used words in your definition of "violence" that make it by-definition bad. For example, would you agree that a boxing match is violent? Is it non-consentual?

...so the discussion must begin with a proper definition of violence and once a proper definition is agreed-upon, the discussion may just have nowhere else to go...

 

[CRGreathouse]

I've attempted to clarify my request in response to various questions below. Many thanks to everyone participating on this thread; you have not let me down with your multiplicity of viewpoints. And special thanks to the moderators for keeping this thread open.

Without reading the thread, it strikes me that you have improperly used words in your definition of "violence" that make it by-definition bad. For example, would you agree that a boxing match is violent? Is it non-consentual?

For the purpose of this thread, a boxing match would not be violent. Please feel free to suggest a better term.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'​

You're offering reasons why Hobbes' social contract does not have to apply internally, but why are you choosing to make the distinction?

The distinction is *extremely* important to the situation to which I intend to apply this discussion. I appreciate any efforts you make in helping me make sense of what is (for me, at least) a complicated scenario.

I have to agree with Joe Dawg. alt and DaveC on this. "Bad" is a value judgment. It doesn't exist in nature except insofar that humans, and our ethical principles, exist in nature. Nature is "cruel". It is the law of the jungle; the survival of the fittest.

Of course my question is precisely about human society and in particular ethics, so I'm not willing to discount them here. :)

I find that there is substantial sanction in everyday life against the use of violence (as I have defined it). I bought groceries today and I paid for them rather than attempt to steal; why? In the short run, no doubt it is conditioning; but why does this system persist?

From a purely natural point of view, every action is an event, and all events are just cause and effect.. There is no inherent moral value attached to any event in the universe.
So in that sense violence is just a process..
I'm actually quite "shocked" personally because violence is about one of the easiest things a human can do just purely physically speaking.

I think that is the heart of my question. Violence is natural and would seemingly be common, but for our social contract and mores.

Bad? From whose point of view? Personal? Society? Aggressor, or victim?

Society. I'm mostly concerned with what actually happens in society.

I think "violence is bad" is way too general to be true.

Please, by all means, elaborate! And pretend I'm stupid, or maybe that I'm 'not from around here'; I'm looking to understand the very basic fundamentals.

Society does sanction this behaviour, but only from the state. Laws are basically threats of coercion. Some people claim that having a "monopoly on violence" is the definition of a state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence.

Yes, there are many discussions that this could lead to. I'm interested merely in the behavior of individuals from a societal perspective. In particular, I'm interested only in the 'states deny people the right to use violence' since of the monopoly of force.

Define the concept of "bad".

In this thread, I'll limit myself to "unsanctioned by society", and leave the definition of society intentionally vague: governments, vigilante groups, normal people looking down on people 'not acting the right way' (e.g. distancing themselves from a rapist or a shoplifter), etc.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Please correct me in my interpretations of posts. I rephrase to simplify, but mostly to see if I understand your arguments.

I assure you I have not intentionally misrepresented anyone; any misinterpretations come from my lack of competence, not my malice. :shy:

But agents would in nature seek to partake in the social contract that most advantages and protects them. Do we not observe people migrating from the societies that fail to protect from internal (and not just external) violence?

That and we generally appear to have an evolved strong psychological response (we feel empathy) when we witness harm.

Your answers are:
1. People migrate from societies that fail to protect their citizens to societies that protect their citizens, presumably because people dislike having violence used against them (at least more than they like using violence against others).
2. People protect others because they perceive that others prefer not to be subject to violence.

It isn't.

We commit violence everyday to feed ourselves... etc.

In fact, any time we seek to impose our will on the world, we do violence to the world. This is natural, and necessary to the continuation of life.

Value, good or bad, only enters into it, with regards to how we impact others and they impact us.

Humans evolved in small tribal groups. We are powerful in groups, and procreation extends that power.

As such, our primitive tribal groups needed to cooperate to continue to exist and thrive, but we also needed to maintain a propensity for violence to deal with those outside our tribe.

We are a very successful species, at least short term, and that has lead to a population explosion. Our tribes have expanded... well beyond the point where we can maintain tribal relations with every member. So in order to maintain tribal cohesion we developed things like trade and government to deal with increased numbers and tribal complexity.

It remains however, violence that benefits the tribe is good, and violence that harms the tribe is bad. Complicating this, is the fact that somethings are beneficial short term, and some are beneficial long term. Also, as individuals we often have differing ideas about who is included in our tribe... ie nepotism, racism and nationalism... etc..

Your answers are:
1. Violence isn't bad because it's natural and necessary
2. Violence that perpetuates the group (presumably, this could be as small as a family unit and as large as humanity; your examples are the tribe, the family, the racial group, and the nation) is good, and violence that hinders the group's survival is bad.

These seem like bad things that should not be allowed, and indeed society generally does not sanction this kind of behavior

It seems that way .. I suppose .. but state sanctioned violence, terrorism and war, seems to be de rigueur throughout the ages. Far more people have died a violent death caused by the state (some state) than by individuals acting alone.

Your answer is:
1. Violence is and has always been common; there is no strong sanction against it.

You're offering reasons why Hobbes' social contract does not have to apply internally, but why are you choosing to make the distinction?

If the social contract benefits us, why would we not apply it? Establishing as system where we can be reasonably certain that we've quelled threats to our security from within benefits us as inidividuals and as a whole. (It even benefits the criminals. In a totally anarchist society, criminality would simply be an arms race of violence, cruelest crushing the less cruel. For criminals to survive, they must have a stable society to do their work in. Like a virus has to keep its host alive, or it dies too.)

Your answer is:
1. Individuals benefit from a prohibition against violence. A society permitting one type of violence would (inevitably?) move to forbid it because all members -- even those comitting the violence -- prefer a state where violence is prohibited, even if it occasionally occurs. ('Criminals', that is those comitting violence, don't want other criminals to exist; they're competition.)

On a purely personal note, I believe violence is crude and taking the easy way out.. Instead of debate we could just hit someone in the face, but that would not be a productive society at all. An anarchy, as stated above.. So in that way violence is like a cancer that permeats through the otherwise rational human.

This seems incomplete. If everyone had license to use violence the state would be anarchy, yes; but we don't have anarchy. Why? And why forbid all of it... why not "no stealing, no killing, no rape, but if you don't like what someone says you can punch them in the face"?

 

[JoeDawg]

Your answers are:
1. Violence isn't bad because it's natural and necessary
2. Violence that perpetuates the group (presumably, this could be as small as a family unit and as large as humanity; your examples are the tribe, the family, the racial group, and the nation) is good, and violence that hinders the group's survival is bad.

Violence is not intrinsicly good or bad, it just is.
How we value violence depends on what we use it for, and how it affects us.

 

[madness]

Then you agreed to them through inaction by choosing to remain living in a country where governments are elected by vote.

I definitely can't swallow that. I never acknowledged their authority or the legitimacy of their voting process or their claim to the land I live in. Doing nothing doesn't equate to agreeing to the above. Reminds me of the guy who sent a letter to government claiming that he now owned all lunar and planetary surfaces in the solar system and that if they didn't respond then they had agreed to his claim.

 

[alt]

I definitely can't swallow that. I never acknowledged their authority or the legitimacy of their voting process or their claim to the land I live in. Doing nothing doesn't equate to agreeing to the above. Reminds me of the guy who sent a letter to government claiming that he now owned all lunar and planetary surfaces in the solar system and that if they didn't respond then they had agreed to his claim.

But if the barbarians were at the gate you would be happy that your compatriots had the fortitude and foersight to have formed a standing army to protect you from those barbarians - wouldn't you ? And would you try to stop them from exersising extreme violence in the act of killing said barbarians in defence of you and yours (though you had 'cold shouldered' them initially) ?

 

[Borek]

Bad? From whose point of view? Personal? Society? Aggressor, or victim?

Society. I'm mostly concerned with what actually happens in society.

I think "violence is bad" is way too general to be true.

Please, by all means, elaborate! And pretend I'm stupid, or maybe that I'm 'not from around here'; I'm looking to understand the very basic fundamentals.

What I meant was already more or less addressed in other posts. I am against violence, but if cannibal barbarians attack, killing them is a way of saving my tribe. Thus - from the point of view of the society I am a member of - violence is a good solution, as otherwise we are going to end at dinner, but as a meal.

But inside of a society "Don't do unto others what you don't want done to you" seems to be the best approach.

 

[CRGreathouse]

But inside of a society "Don't do unto others what you don't want done to you" seems to be the best approach.

Can this be enforced? Should it be? Are there limitations on the latter?

 

[Boy@n]

Only unnecessary violence is bad.

 

[Borek]

Can this be enforced? Should it be? Are there limitations on the latter?

There is an old Jewish joke that a goy promised a rabbi he will convert to Judaism if rabbi can explain Torah to him standing on one leg. Rabbi bent his leg in a knee and said "Don't do unto others what you don't want done to you, everything else is a commentary".

Back to your question - we are already enforcing it. Law system is mostly a commentary to the very basic idea of not harming others. As we (humans) are very creative, law system is elaborate to take as many things as possible into account.

Why do we do? Probably in hope that cooperation is more profitable and life is a non zero-sum game.

Not sure what to do with limitations. That is - I have some thoughts, but they are difficult to put on paper. Even in Polish

 

[apeiron]

Violence is a definitional term - it depends so much on your point of view.

If you want a better answer, you have to generalise the discussion until you are talking about "violence" as a functional/dysfunctional aspect of a whole system. As with any complex phenomenon, you have to take a systems approach.

Now what is natural to social systems, as with any dissipative structure entrained to the second law of thermodynamics, is that it will seek a stable entropic equilibrium - it will develop a balance of stability and instability that allows it to burn energy and resources in a steady, persistent fashion.

Now in terms of social systems, this translates quite nicely to the dichotomy of competition~co-operation. A social system that is balanced will have a balance of these two opposed social tendencies. Violence is clearly something we associate with the competition end of the spectrum of behaviours. It is one of the expressions of competition.

So whether it is one person striving to out-do, remove, subjugate, entrain, another, or the same happening at a group level, nation level, or even species level, it could all be called "violent" behaviour.

The integrity of the "other" as a system is somehow damaged and its own internally-achieved balance upset.

One thing that emerges from this analysis is that we can't talk about eating cows as violent behaviour perhaps. Two things in competition must be of the same scale. So a species cannot compete against individuals (or vice versa).

Cow-eating would be violent if it were a war of one species against another. But arguably agriculture is a system that has cooperative balance - cows broadly exist in such number because we farm them. It would be violent for me to go individually and kill an individual cow (that I had not farmed!), but from the society perspective, farming cows is not violent.

On the other hand, wiping out polar bears or ancient forests would be a violent, non-cooperative and integrity destroying, act on behalf of the human species.

So this is my definition of violence. Competition to the point where it compromises the internal integrity of a system of a similar physical scale. Competition that is out of line with the counter-balancing natural tendency of co-operation.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Every moral judgement is a point of view.

 

[apeiron]

Every moral judgement is a point of view.

But the best point of view is the one that is most general.

So every local point of view is as meaningless as the next. But the global point of view is coherent. Even a "random" system can be described by its macrostate.

 

[GeorgCantor]

But the best point of view is the one that is most general.

I think my previous statement successfully refutes this, as "Every moral judgement is a point of view". Thus there is no best point of view.

Even what you call 'the global view' which i take to be "the most informed view" is also a point of view. Imagine you knew everything there was to know in the universe - would your point of view be the only one correct?

 

[madness]

But if the barbarians were at the gate you would be happy that your compatriots had the fortitude and foersight to have formed a standing army to protect you from those barbarians - wouldn't you ? And would you try to stop them from exersising extreme violence in the act of killing said barbarians in defence of you and yours (though you had 'cold shouldered' them initially) ?

The state originally were those barbarians until they attained a monopoly on violence. And no I wouldn't try to them, although they would be acting in defense of the state as a power structure not me.

 

[apeiron]

I think my previous statement successfully refutes this, as "Every moral judgement is a point of view". Thus there is no best point of view.

Even what you call 'the global view' which i take to be "the most informed view" is also a point of view. Imagine you knew everything there was to know in the universe - would your point of view be the only one correct?

How does your statement refute my argument? How do you deduce the fact that there is no best point of view from what you said?

My own statement is that there is always a best point of view - and it is the holistic systems perspective. I also gave an argument with examples. That is what you would have to in turn argue against.

It should be just bleeding obvious anyway that if you stand in the place where you can see every location, you can see more than if you are located at some random place within the system.

People like to treat questions about morality, freewill, etc as either unscientific, or that as systems, they are essentially unconstrained (ie: they are not in fact systems).

But it is in fact not even difficult to naturalise these questions, to step back to a systems perspective and identify the constraints (the contextual existence, as it is described in an adjacent thread).

 

[alt]

The state originally were those barbarians until they attained a monopoly on violence. And no I wouldn't try to them, although they would be acting in defense of the state as a power structure not me.

(I assume you meant "And no I wouldn't try to help them")

It is fashionable to critisise the state and it's monopoly on violence. We all do it - I certainly do. As I said earlier on, more people have died by state sponsored violence than anything else. We could form our own state, I suppose - then devise a way to protect it, as we would ultimatley have to.

 

[GeorgCantor]

How does your statement refute my argument? How do you deduce the fact that there is no best point of view from what you said?

Moral judgements are subjective, hence your argument about best point of view is wrong. Now if you are religious and the Bible is your moral code, then you could say that there is a best point of view. Outside of religions, there is no such thing as "best point of view on moral questions".

My own statement is that there is always a best point of view - and it is the holistic systems perspective. I also gave an argument with examples. That is what you would have to in turn argue against.

It should be just bleeding obvious anyway that if you stand in the place where you can see every location, you can see more than if you are located at some random place within the system.

What does this have to do with moral categories and judgements?

People like to treat questions about morality, freewill, etc as either unscientific, or that as systems, they are essentially unconstrained (ie: they are not in fact systems).

But it is in fact not even difficult to naturalise these questions, to step back to a systems perspective and identify the constraints (the contextual existence, as it is described in an adjacent thread).

I understand that there appears to be a 'something' that everything else adheres to in this universe, and we don't know what it is. What are the global constraints in your view? Hidden variables? Underlying reality? Master equation? The Mind of God?

 

[Borek]

For the "best" point of view to exist you have to define what is "good", such definition will be always arbitrary.

 

[apeiron]

For the "best" point of view to exist you have to define what is "good", such definition will be always arbitrary.

On what grounds are these things claimed to be arbitrary or subjective? It may be a customary response, but I mean where is the actual argument?

I put forward a specific argument, and so that is something concrete to try and knock down. Just stating that there are no general approaches to moral issues is not philosophy. It is faith.

 

[Boy@n]

Using violence to destroy something or someone just to gain more for oneself is bad. Violence for survival and protection (of life, property etc.) violence is not bad.

 

[JoeDawg]

Using violence to destroy something or someone just to gain more for oneself is bad. Violence for survival and protection (of life, property etc.) violence is not bad.

Why?

 

[apeiron]

I understand that there appears to be a 'something' that everything else adheres to in this universe, and we don't know what it is. What are the global constraints in your view? Hidden variables? Underlying reality? Master equation? The Mind of God?

None of the above. Constraints are what emerge at a global scale to limit the degrees of freedom found at the local scale.

So when the magnetic field arises in a cooling bar magnet, the mass action creates an organisation, a global alignment, that then entrains all local dipoles. That is an example of self-organisation via the emergence of global constraint.

A system is a system because it is recognisably organised in this hierarchical fashion.

 

[Borek]

On what grounds are these things claimed to be arbitrary or subjective? It may be a customary response, but I mean where is the actual argument?

I put forward a specific argument, and so that is something concrete to try and knock down. Just stating that there are no general approaches to moral issues is not philosophy. It is faith.

Actually I haven't seen a specific argument in what you have posted, perhaps I have missed something. The closest I was able to find was that

the best point of view is the one that is most general.

But it doesn't say anything about the real situation. From my POV it is good when cows are eaten, from cows POV it is good when I am vegetarian. Obviously there is a conflict here. General point of view will seek some equilibrium between me craving for beef and cow wanting to live. This is kind of an optimization problem - but to find optimum you have to assign some weights/values to both sides. I don't see how these can be done in a systematic, objective and general way - that happens whenever we deal with things that are not well defined and not measurable.

Also note that it was you who have stated it is possible to do these things in a general way, so the burden of the proof is yours.

 

[apeiron]

Actually I haven't seen a specific argument in what you have posted, perhaps I have missed something. The closest I was able to find was that

But it doesn't say anything about the real situation. From my POV it is good when cows are eaten, from cows POV it is good when I am vegetarian. Obviously there is a conflict here. General point of view will seek some equilibrium between me craving for beef and cow wanting to live. This is kind of an optimization problem - but to find optimum you have to assign some weights/values to both sides. I don't see how these can be done in a systematic, objective and general way - that happens whenever we deal with things that are not well defined and not measurable.

Also note that it was you who have stated it is possible to do these things in a general way, so the burden of the proof is yours.

Are we talking about violence or goodness? It matters because I was talking about how to generalise a particular situational judgement so that it made more sense as part of a systems description.

Good is already a generalised concept, and I would agree, fundamentally meaningless. The reason being that it is a simple metaphysical symmetry (good and evil - which is the global and which is the local here?). Systems based approaches require metaphysical asymmetry - something that is the local to complement the something that is the global. You have to be talking about a hierarchy which results from an interaction between bottom-up constructive actions (such as competitive ones) and top-down global constraints (such as cooperative ones).

As to POV, yes you can say there is your point of view, and the cow's point of view. Then the most general would the view which successfully incorporates both of these, equlibrating whatever you take to be the desires represented by the two POV.

You could say the desire is for you both to survive. But this is not sufficiently general (and not even true of the cow). You have to step back to the evolutionary view, and then even the thermodynamic view. Which is as general as we know how to go.

Theoretical biology would frame this in terms of entropy maximisation principles. And then we really are in a position to measure things.

And if you actually look at the kinds of interactions that societies traditionally deem violent, it is not hard to see that they are max ent oriented.

Societies, like ecologies, develop a dissipative equilbrium balance. And they attempt to maintain them. Moral actions are ones that increase the functioning of the system, immoral ones are those that degrade its capacity to produce entropy.

If a farmer kills a cow, he does it as part of an organised system that has achieved some kind of optimal dissipative balance. If I kill a farmer's cow, I am disrupting the functioning of that system and so can expect the system to feel justified in taking corrective action. If I refuse to eat cow because I am vegetarian, than this system will again not be happy at a disruption to its organisation.

So again, the argument goes that societies can be described as a necessary balance of competition and cooperation. The balance is in fact a max ent dissipative balance - we have the theory to measure these things. Violence is then our description when the cooperative aspect has gone missing and the competitive one becomes over-represented. The system is becoming self-destructing (and so less efficient at dissipating).

What would we call the situation where this is reversed - where cooperation dominates to a self-destructive extent? Peaceful? Senile? Homogenous? Bland?

The opposite of violent probably is bland. Peaceful perhaps, but in a bad way, not a good way (heh, heh.)

A last point, competition~cooperation are terms that could of course do with further definition in this discussion. They themselves can be generalised to deeper ideas like differentiation~integration - terms that we can begin to see as measureable.

If something differentiates, it becomes different from what is around it. And vice-versa. So now we are into the realm of boolean networks and other edge of chaos or self organising criticality models. We have generalised all the way to the maths of complex systems.

 

[GeorgCantor]

None of the above. Constraints are what emerge at a global scale to limit the degrees of freedom found at the local scale.

So when the magnetic field arises in a cooling bar magnet, the mass action creates an organisation, a global alignment, that then entrains all local dipoles. That is an example of self-organisation via the emergence of global constraint.

A system is a system because it is recognisably organised in this hierarchical fashion.

But this is just a description of what is happening, not an explanation or understanding thereof.

the mass action creates an organisation, a global alignment, that then entrains all local dipoles...

...sounds exactly like:

Something(X,Y,Z) causes mass action to create an organization, a global alignment, that then entrains all local dipoles.


If you don't have an understanding of what the constraints really are, it will not do to pull out a mere description of your observations and call it an 'explanation'. You could explain anything using such a powerful method. Example:


"So when the magnetic field arises in a cooling bar magnet the mass action creates an AIRPLANE, a global alignment, that then entrains all local dipoles"

Why wouldn't the so-called "global constraints" cause the emergence of an airplane or a werewolf?

We need an understanding of the process involved, not a description and such an understaning lies probably somewhere in the 21th century or later.

 

[apeiron]

But this is just a description of what is happening, not an explanation or understanding thereof.

What is it about symmetry breaking, phase transitions, and the global limiting of local degrees of freedom that you do not understand?

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm going to take this in a slightly different direction.

First, some housekeeping, to clear the way:
1] There is (and can be) no objective good or bad unless there really is a higher power that can judge.
2] In the absence of this higher power (or this higher power exhibiting its will), we are left to decide for ourselves what suits us.

So: good and bad, violence and non-violence are human-rated concepts.

Now:
3] Because it is humans doing the rating, and because it is humans upon which this rating impinges, that makes it a self-organizing system. It is a system that evolves to best maintain its own component parts. That being the case, the "best" plan is that plan which makes the system (society) prosper - whichever plan that is.

4] It would seem that the system that we are evolving is the Prisoner's Dilemma. Everyone being compassionate all the time means we only win a little. Everyone being violent all the time means we destroy.

The system that is working to create the most component parts (more humans) is the classic prisoner's dilemma solution: mostly cooperate, betray occasionally. But rather than each person changing back and forth, what we get is specialization. Most people cooperate most of the time (do good, non-violent, obey laws), and a few people betray most of the time (do bad, violence, flout laws).

This is stable and self-governing (in the steam-engine sense). And that is how we humans are defining "good".

 

[GeorgCantor]

What is it about symmetry breaking, phase transitions, and the global limiting of local degrees of freedom that you do not understand?

That which you do not understand - the physical causes that bring forth the emerging new properties. I have no doubt that you can describe, sort and label them hierarchically.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

How about a real down to Earth example of the ambiguity of "bad" as a social concept?

A woman is forced out of her home of sixty years by sheriff's deputies to enforce a foreclosure. The woman didn't make her payments. You might ask why the woman still has a mortgage after sixty years. Let's just say she refinanced so she could eat and feed her cats.

In this scenario good = +1; neutral = 0; bad = -1

The deputies are just doing their job and enforcing the law.= +1

The bank is simply taking possession of what it now its rightful property = +1

Points for the state; +2

The woman failed to make her payments and is in violation of her contract with the bank.= -1

The woman was notified of the foreclosure, but refused to leave the home. = -1

Points for the woman: -2

Net points for this scenario: 0

In this calculus, the actions of the state exactly cancels the "wrongdoing" of the woman. Hobbs might have been pleased. The state acted with just enough force to maintain the social equilibrium.

But who really thinks this is a neutral, not a bad outcome?

 

[CRGreathouse]

1] There is (and can be) no objective good or bad unless there really is a higher power that can judge.

Not a tenable assumption for this thread, since I'm explicitly trying to discuss ethics. I don't very much care how you come to your ethical decisions, but I *do* want to discuss them and *not* simply what actions lead to a stable society. (For my application, this distinction is important.)

I would actually like to discuss your point about societal norms as game theory, but not on this thread please...

 

[CRGreathouse]

Theoretical biology would frame this in terms of entropy maximisation principles. And then we really are in a position to measure things.

And if you actually look at the kinds of interactions that societies traditionally deem violent, it is not hard to see that they are max ent oriented.

Societies, like ecologies, develop a dissipative equilbrium balance. And they attempt to maintain them. Moral actions are ones that increase the functioning of the system, immoral ones are those that degrade its capacity to produce entropy.

Fascinating. Would you explain in more detail how you would determine, in this system, how to determine if a given action is moral? I'm not sure how to interpret entropy in this context.

For example, how would it resolve moral dilemmas like these?
http://www.friesian.com/valley/dilemmas.htm
(I choose a list from an Internet search rather than hand-picked scenarios to reduce the possibility of unintentionally biasing your result.)

 

[CRGreathouse]

How about a real down to Earth example of the ambiguity of "bad" as a social concept?

Can you explain what that example is bad? I'm curious to see by what standards we (that is, society) decides what is good/bad, permissible/impermissible, legal/illegal, etc.