Not a trick question: Why is violence bad?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CRGreathouse
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the philosophical question of why violence, particularly nonconsensual acts like assault and theft, is deemed bad by society. While the social contract theory, particularly Hobbes', is often cited as a rationale, it is considered insufficient because it does not fully address internal threats or the complexities of human interactions. Participants argue that violence can be seen as a natural and effective means of achieving goals, yet it complicates societal cohesion and ethical standards. The conversation highlights the need for a clearer definition of violence and the subjective nature of moral judgments regarding it. Ultimately, the debate raises fundamental questions about the role of violence in human society and its implications for social order.
  • #91
poor mystic said:
Surely we might have disposed of the question of free will in another discussion, for in accepting that good and bad exist don't we imply the liberty to be good, to be bad?

Disposed of the issue of free will? Because you objected to my disposing of it, I now raise the issue of intentionality. See the post above. I was saving it to see if you or anyone else might bring it up to 'save' free will. The existence of objective good and evil by humans has in no way been accepted since they require willful action.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
JoeDawg said:
Determinism just means things will follow from what has gone before, it doesn't mean they have already happened.

If things will follow from what has gone before, then where does the causal chain begin? Why isn't this a script for predetermination?
 
Last edited:
  • #93
SW VandeCarr has brought us the following link :http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/27/34/9141.
In a paper in neuroscience I found following the link, an area of the human brain is found to have been excited during decisions whether or not to act.
I'm not sure how to interpret it, though.
I don't think that locating this set of cells proves anything about consciousness, but what of relevance does it prove?
 
  • #94
apeiron, you seem to generally take the behavioristic line of reasoning in questions regarding ethics. Purely in interest of hearing your opinion about it; how do you make up for the loss of individual perspective?
 
  • #95
poor mystic said:
SW VandeCarr has brought us the following link :http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/27/34/9141.
In a paper in neuroscience I found following the link, an area of the human brain is found to have been excited during decisions whether or not to act.
I'm not sure how to interpret it, though.
I don't think that locating this set of cells proves anything about consciousness, but what of relevance does it prove?

Your posts are getting tiresome. Either you strive for more accuracy in your posts or will have to report you. What I quoted above is considered a side comment referencing me by name in a negative way. This is a clear violation. I will report you if you do it again,

1.The issue is intentionality, not consciousness..

2. This or any investigative paper provides evidence, not proof.

3. If you don't know how to interpret something then don't try (as you did in the following sentence.)

If you have something intelligent to contribute, do it. Otherwise don't post in response to any of my posts again. I will consider that harassment, another violation.
 
Last edited:
  • #96
JoeDawg said:
Spiritual?? I don't even know what that means. If you mean some supernatural mumbo jumbo, then I don't see how it is even useful to talk about it.

There is more to Shakespeare than genes... there is more to you and I than genes, we have our whole lives, and the whole world, as influence, how we grew up, a very complicated process. Genes is just the starting point, but spiritual... that just sounds like magic. Spiritual is an empty word that explains nothing.



If you manage to unambigously define what 'physical' is, i will unabiguously define what 'spiritual' is.



If it can't be... we're just puffing around about nothing.


You thought we were making progress on what free will is?



This is where I think you are making the mistake. Like many others you have a self-contradictory view of what 'freewill' is. You imply that because we make choices based on a history, we are not free. But that is how choices get made.



This is a description, not an explanation and deterministic causal events predclude free will.



We are not billiard balls, we don't just react to force and velocity in the things around us. We have internal processes. That is where choice is.


Yes, we have deterministic internal processes. How exactly does that point to free will? What kind of logic requires you to use reductionistic approaches to emergent behavior? And what makes you think it will EVER work?


And no, its not magical.


So free will is determined by our internal processes(i.e. we don't have free will), but in the end you are saying we somehow have free will. You just proved that it must be a magical process, even by your own standards.



But you see that's the flaw in your logic. There is no script. We write our own script.

So the deterministic internal processes cause 'free will'? What exactly are you talking about??



What most people forget with this kind of analogy is that there is a writer for every script. That is us, and no one, even us, knows what we are going to write, until we do it.


And 'we' is simply the deterministic internal processes as you said. Sounds vey contradictory if you push the free will notion.



Determinism just means things will follow from what has gone before, it doesn't mean they have already happened.


Happened or not, deterministic causal events are pre-determined at the dawn of history(that includes your 'internal processes' that you believe cause you to have 'free will').




Many people want freewill to be some magical thing... and if you look to history... the main reason for this idea of freewill is the sin blame game. The world is imperfect, there is suffering, if god is good... then why ... but...humans are free... so its our fault. Its a theological shell game.


As far as free will is concerned it must be magical if no one can explain it. Your own theory is self-contradictory and the best you could say is that we don't have free will.



If that is the kind of freewill you think must exist... then yes, you'd need to be spiritual, because that makes no sense at all.


Oh i see, it doesn't make sense. So what? The universe with observers originating from a quantum fluctuation makes sense? Or a whole galaxy being reduced to the size of an atom or even zero by a black hole makes sense? Or single molecules going through 2 separate slits makes sense? Or a universe that has a malleable 'structure' makes sense? Which fundamental concept makes sense at all?

What is it about 'making sense' that makes it so obsessive that you appear intent to push it everywhere at all costs? Do you believe you are in the reality of common-sense? If you think so, you need to find yourself another reality.
 
Last edited:
  • #97
Jarle said:
apeiron, you seem to generally take the behavioristic line of reasoning in questions regarding ethics. Purely in interest of hearing your opinion about it; how do you make up for the loss of individual perspective?

Not sure that I understand your question. But my view is that dichotomistic divisions intensify both the local and the global, so it is never a matter of either/or, always both. And that would mean here that greater social constraint would also produce greater individual autonomy.

It sounds paradoxical perhaps, but the more developed the social context regarding our actions - our knowledge of what should be done - the more starkly we must be aware of the fact we are making individual moment-to-moment choices. So there would be a gain in the individual perspective from culture encoding really strong principles.

For example, in some asian cultures, there is a high tolerance of social ambiguity. The social rules are not so clear cut and the sense of self is likewise more muddy. Ethics occupies more the middle ground of what is good for the family, the clan.

Western society created a much stronger separation so that the rules of society became the abstract laws of the land, and individuals became completely "free" to behave within that now very rigid framework of law.

So generalising the constraints creates the counter-move of an even more heightened sense of individuality. Freewill is then the effort we have to make to negotiate a path through all the extra choice we seem to have.

Really, this is why it is bizarre to have a constant debate about freewill when we perhaps have so much choice it is perhaps confusing.

Chance and necessity, randomness and determinism, are a correct dichotomy for micro-physics, the simplest systems. But when we are talking about brains and societies, the dichotomy is really spontaneity~autonomy.

Complex systems seem to have a creative spontaneity (developing to the edge of chaos) which allows bottom-up "unchosen" behaviour that is neither random nor determined. And they also have a top-down power of "chosen" behaviour.

More is different, as Polyani said. Complexity has its own character that just does not reduce neatly to micro-physical concepts.
 
  • #98
DaveC426913 said:
Right. I was simply laying some groundwork to establish that we all pretty much agree that right and wrong are entirely human (subjective) concepts - rated by humans about humans.

Fine.

DaveC426913 said:
Well I'm hypothesizing that cause and effect are reversed.
You: our ethics lead to a stable society
Me: a stable society defines our ethics
We define right and wrong by what works. And that "what works" is directly proportional to how prosperous society is.

That's not my position. I have no interest in "what works" except insofar as modern ethics matches that. ("What works" as discussed here won't translate into my application at all.)
 
  • #99
apeiron said:
Chance and necessity, randomness and determinism, are a correct dichotomy for micro-physics, the simplest systems. But when we are talking about brains and societies, the dichotomy is really spontaneity~autonomy. More is different, as Polyani said. Complexity has its own character that just does not reduce neatly to micro-physical concepts.

Apeiron, we clashed once before, but these are concepts that I can agree with. Determinism is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. It's an assumption that most scientists feel comfortable with, but it cannot be proven to a scientific standard. When it comes to complex or chaotic systems, science will adopt deterministic models and that's fine if you don't confuse the model with reality. QM is also deterministic, but it's probabilities, not outcomes, that are well determined. I'm certainly not anti-science by any means, but I recognize its limits.

In terms of this thread, this philosophical view of scaling is important. We can't talk about objective good and evil if we can't make a non-theistic case for the possibility of willful action.
 
Last edited:
  • #100
In regard to the original question of why violence is bad.

Given that this forum is materialistic, perhaps the challenge is to derive a moral theory from materialistic axioms.

I think a simple set of arguments involving the irrational destruction of order and implicit loss of energy to a parent society could be mounted. We could start from the judgement that "waste is bad" and carry on from there.
 
  • #101
poor mystic said:
I think a simple set of arguments involving the irrational destruction of order and implicit loss of energy to a parent society could be mounted. We could start from the judgement that "waste is bad" and carry on from there.

In fact, as I have already argued, a materialistic or naturalistic perspective might have to say the opposite - the purpose of life and mind (bios) is to create waste. Life exists to dissipate energy gradients. This is the basis of dissipative structure theory and the maximum entropy production principle. So waste is in fact "good" if we mean what is most natural to life as a system.

This is counter-intuitive of course. But that is where science shows its strengths.

Having said that, out of control growth/waste can be "bad" for a particular species or ecosystem. Humans, for example, may shortly blow up because of their exponential entropification habits. And this would also be "bad" for the planet's Gaian level dissipation if it knocks the ability to create entropy as a biosphere.

So it is wasting energy at a sustainable long term rate (or in a fashion that ultimately produces the most entropy) which would be "good" for a material system - a dissipative structure.
 
  • #102
So, apeiron: "the purpose of life and mind (bios) is to create waste?" I do not hope to argue you from this amazing belief.
 
  • #103
poor mystic said:
We could start from the judgement that "waste is bad" and carry on from there.

But what is waste? If it's household refuse, then destroying all households would seem a natural solution.
 
  • #105
GeorgCantor said:
If you manage to unambigously define what 'physical' is, i will unabiguously define what 'spiritual' is.
That's just evasive.
You thought we were making progress on what free will is?
I think we are. Neuroscience is in its infancy, but there are interesting things almost daily with regards to consciousness.
deterministic causal events predclude free will.
That is your opinion, and it is based on a self-contradictory definition of freewill.
Freewill requires determinism. Random events don't allow for choice.
Yes, we have deterministic internal processes. How exactly does that point to free will? What kind of logic requires you to use reductionistic approaches to emergent behavior?
It doesn't point to magical-freewill, but that is a contradiction in terms.
Freewill is about an individual having the ability to choose their course of action based on their own judgement. The fact you might be able to predict their choice, given some magical omniscient knowledge doesn't change the fact they are making the choice.
And what makes you think it will EVER work?
Optimism?
So free will is determined by our internal processes(i.e. we don't have free will)
When you define freewill in such a way that it can't exist, then yes it must be magical to exist. I don't define freewill that way, however.
So the deterministic internal processes cause 'free will'? What exactly are you talking about??
In simple terms, autonomy. But I'm thinking the problem here is that you are stuck on your magical 'spiritual' definition, and refuse to entertain any other definition as 'true freewill'.
Happened or not, deterministic causal events are pre-determined at the dawn of history
No, events are 'determined' by cause and effect. PRE-determined involves teleology, knowledge of events, and directed purpose, before they happen. And there are plenty of arguments against quantum level determinism, not that it matters really, unless your magical freewill involves atomic particles with freewill.

I don't believe that atoms have freewill, so quantum level examples aren't really useful.
As far as free will is concerned it must be magical if no one can explain it.
Huh?
Your own theory is self-contradictory and the best you could say is that we don't have free will.
Obviously I disagree... and its not my own theory. Its called compatiblism. Its not even new.
The universe with observers originating from a quantum fluctuation makes sense?
The fact we (you) still don't know or understand things doesn't mean you are justified in believing whatever takes your fancy.
Do you believe you are in the reality of common-sense? If you think so, you need to find yourself another reality.
Common sense is a myth.
 
  • #106
SW VandeCarr said:
If things will follow from what has gone before, then where does the causal chain begin? Why isn't this a script for predetermination?

Pre-determination implies a teleology. Its really a different concept than determinism, although easily confused.
 
  • #107
I don't believe that atoms have free will either, but neither do I believe that they do not.
The notion that matter is in the control of consciousness is one of the very few sufficient explanations for such observed phenomena as the dual slit experiment.
The question of whether such notions are admissible within Physics would appear to be answerable by any physicist for himself on the grounds of his own experience, for is not Physics the study of that which is?
In the larger forum, debate runs hot but never on this issue, for in accepting that consciousness (especially 'shy' consciousness) may be the fundamental determining force in the world we are left with no means of determining anything at all... our curves and relationships are shown to be evanescent; at the whim of incomprehensible, volitional forces.
I believe that Physics maintains a carefully policed disbelief in consciousness as an explanation for physical behaviour. Did it not, we could have no technology.
Yet the "conscious matter" hypothesis continues to attract all who hear of the double slit experiment; it is a watershed in our understanding of the world around us..
 
  • #108
Disclaimer #1: I have not read this thread beyond the OP and a few responses.

Disclaimer #2: Not being formally trained in Philosophy, I can not promise that what follows rises to the level of sound philosophical argument.

My opinion is that, as with the truth of a mathematical statement, the truth of any philosophical statement can be determined (modulo Godel) only within the axiomatic structure that it resides in. In other words, one must accept certain philosophical axioms or premises as true (given that they are legitimate, i.e., not mutually inconsistent), and then be able to "derive" the statement in question from these axioms.

I think that for most modern cultures, a relevant premise that is almost universally held as true, is some variant or other of the assertion that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are good things for an individual to be able to have. I also believe the given such a premise, it should be possible to rigorously derive the statement that violence, as defined in the OP, infringes on the above "good", making it "bad".
 
Last edited:
  • #109
JoeDawg said:
Pre-determination implies a teleology. Its really a different concept than determinism, although easily confused.


Instead of saying 10 times what free will is NOT, why not actually tell us what free will is, according to compabilism? As far as i can see, compabilism posits an illusion of free-will or soft/weak free will(whatever that means).
 
Last edited:
  • #110
Gokul43201 said:
Disclaimer #1: I have not read this thread beyond the OP and a few responses.

I think that for most modern cultures, a relevant premise that is almost universally held as true, is some variant or other of the assertion that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are good things for an individual to be able to have. I also believe the given such a premise, it should be possible to rigorously derive the statement that violence, as defined in the OP, infringes on the above "good", making it "bad".

Gokul

Your view is close to the one I expressed in post 55. However, I don't consider a rigid axiomatic system. Rather, I consider a work in progress governed by a legal code which evolves.
 
Last edited:
  • #111
GeorgCantor said:
If you manage to unambigously define what 'physical' is, i will unabiguously define what 'spiritual' is.


JoeDawg said:
That's just evasive.



Well no. I asked you to unambiguously define what 'physical' is because it's impossible to define. Actually, it's much more likely that the spiritual(mind, self-awareness and free will) is all that exists, not physical structures in time and space. Consider the following example and let's make it more dramatic so that the philosophical implications of the thought experiment are more obvious to everyone:


We want to test 'physical matter' and prove that it is non-contextual, non-relational, non-observer-dependent, etc. so that we can have evidence that matter is real and Mind is a secondary by-product of matter.

Let the chosen object for our gedanken experiment be your dog which has just died(and you naturally assume the dog existed out there in what you call the 'universe' prior to his/her death). Decoherence is an observed process and a pretty well established fact of nature. The biggest objects that have been put into a superposition are tetraphenylporphyrin molecules which are some 50 times smaller than the HIV virus. Teams are working on larger objects like viruses and bacteria and will likely put them into a superposition within a few years. For the purposes of the thought experiment, let's assume for a moment that we have already overcome the technical difficulties for putting much larger objects into superpositions. The popular opinion is that the physical human body is responsible for the appearance of mind, awareness and free will. So, for the thought experiment we will keep your dead dog at a very low temperature(so that thermal radiation isn't emitted and which-path information could not be obtained and consequently no observer effects be present) and seal off your dog from the environment. Even without running your dog through a double slit experiment to show the interference pattern, we know the quantum behavior is now visible. There is no dog. For as long as we manage to keep your dog in a coherent state, your dog's dead body doesn't exist. Increase the temperature and the quantum effects will disappear and there you have your dog again.

The painful question is NOT where the dog was during those seconds when he/she was gone.The really fundamental question is where the dog was, when the dog was in a decohered state(i.e. seemed to be real and out there)? Don't bother to answer me, that was a rhetorical question. There is no real, non-contextual, non-relational universe 'out there'.





I think we are. Neuroscience is in its infancy, but there are interesting things almost daily with regards to consciousness.



No. We are not making progress on free will at all. You are a primitive human being(like the rest of us), and concerning the issue of free will and self-awareness, you simply don't know what you are talking about.


Most of the issues discussed in the philosophy forum are about asking questions, they are not about giving answers. We don't know what reality is or how reality is(or even who exists and what exists), so most philosophical issues should be approached with the disclaimer that "we mostly don't know what we are talking about on these issues".
 
Last edited:
  • #112
A "legal code" which evolves?

It seems to me that in its completeness, such a code must provide perfect guidance in the matter of how to avoid social disharmony, inefficiency and other troubles. Then isn't that code useful for other purposes?
If the code of behaviour accurately predicts how Jill will feel if Jack does the wrong thing, it must also be useful in determining what the right thing is, for Jack to do.
The code must also provide for Jack, helping Jill (and himself) do the best thing for himself, in every situation.

Then:
The code can become a functional substitute for Jill in Jack's life, and for Jack in Jill's.
The code becomes the decision-maker, for it has been raised above the man, who is thereby disenfranchised of himself, for he may only enact the decisions of the code.
 
  • #113
And, really amazingly. if the code is perfect he only wants to enact the decisions of the cde!
 
  • #114
poor mystic said:
A "legal code" which evolves?

The code can become a functional substitute for Jill in Jack's life, and for Jack in Jill's.
The code becomes the decision-maker, for it has been raised above the man, who is thereby disenfranchised of himself, for he may only enact the decisions of the code.

You are giving an opinion. I'm referencing to a legal system that actually exists and functions. It's not perfect. That's the point I'm making in post 55. It's a work in progress.

You seem to be saying that we shouldn't have laws. Well, if you prefer anarchy, I suggest you leave this forum because IT HAS RULES.
 
Last edited:
  • #115
"You seem to be saying that we shouldn't have laws"
I have never said that, and in fact my idea that "if the code is perfect he only wants to enact the decisions of the code" only demonstrates a desire for order.

First attempting to distance myself from my upset feelings due to being misrepresented, I ask myself what it is about being (textually) yelled at in the last post that I object to.

Am I upset because rules are being broken? No, I am upset, the broken rules (if they are broken) are of no consequence to me.
 
  • #116
GeorgCantor said:
Most of the issues discussed in the philosophy forum are about asking questions, they are not about giving answers. We don't know what reality is or how reality is(or even who exists and what exists), so most philosophical issues should be approached with the disclaimer that "we mostly don't know what we are talking about on these issues".

You keep coming at things from a wrong, or at least not useful, perspective.

Yes, we would widely agree that we cannot know the truth of reality in some direct, unmediated, sense. But then what. Do we spend the rest of time shaking our heads sadly, saying we just don't know anything? Or instead get on with modelling reality as best we can discover?

I would take you more seriously on our lack of practical understanding of freewill, self-awareness and other aspects of mind if you could demonstrate some particular familiarity of the many ways in which we do in fact have a good understanding of things.

If you knew what we do know, then you might be able to speak more accurately about what we don't yet know.
 
  • #117
Anything that humans deem negative to themselves or anybody is considered "bad" =) so there you have it.
 
  • #118
kramer733 said:
Anything that humans deem negative to themselves or anybody is considered "bad" =) so there you have it.
Well ... no. Therein lies the rub.

See, an act that's bad for th do-ee is not necessarily bad for the do-er.

We apply things like the Golden Rule to decide why we think we shouldn't inflict it upon the do-ee, but that's not to be taken for granted. Thus the reason for this thread.
 
  • #119
GeorgCantor said:
Well no. I asked you to unambiguously define what 'physical' is because it's impossible to define.
Something that can be measured and maintains an identity.

But you don't really want a definition, you want spiritual mumbo jumbo.
Actually, it's much more likely that the spiritual(mind, self-awareness and free will) is all that exists
And this is likely because I'm sure you can define 'spiritual' unambiguously. Its only likely, because it suits your fancy.
No. We are not making progress on free will at all.
Actually, the more we know about consciousness in general, the more we know about 'freewill', and we are learning more every day.
Most of the issues discussed in the philosophy forum are about asking questions
Asking questions endlessly is what psychiatrists do, not philosophers... but, then again, you might benefit from the former, since you seem to have reality issues.
 
Last edited:
  • #120
GeorgCantor said:
Instead of saying 10 times what free will is NOT, why not actually tell us what free will is, according to compabilism? As far as i can see, compabilism posits an illusion of free-will or soft/weak free will(whatever that means).
Well its certainly not unambiguous spirituality, but no illusion necessary.
 

Similar threads

Seeking psychological help: Tricks to deal with being really envious?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Is Scotland's Ban on Guns the Solution to Ending Violence?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
Job Skills Possibilities of a Career in Physics/Engineering
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
A story, and a couple of questions
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Focus all of your ire on me, if you would
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Why Can't I Find Out Who Compromised My Bank Card?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
News Is War Sometimes Necessary to Achieve Peace?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Photon-Foil FTL Drive theory
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
788
My girlfriend, her family, and human dysfunctionality in general
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
15K
Other How do I convince myself that my ideas are bad?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K