Does your moral code compel the capable to act against evil?

[ZeCommissar]

How exactly does this work? I don't want to be the "erm ackshullay evil is subjective" guy, but its not a wrong statement.

Listen, I would just LOVE to snap my fingers and have every single Pedophile, unjustified murderer, rapist, corrupt politician, gangbanger, traffickers, and all the other sorts of subhuman scum of the Earth be killed, REGARDLESS of whether they have already been punished by going to prison or not. (IMO death is the only just punishment for those I just described)

However, plenty of people think Life Imprisonment is enough, and that my actions themselves would be 'evil'. Do those same people have justification to kill me for being 'evil' if they somehow gain the power as well?

Nevermind the fact that I am a draconian bastard. I recognize this, which is why I try to keep a level head when it comes to punishing people or what I think the punishment should be, or else this flaw will control my judgment.
(and yes, being extremely draconian IS a flaw).

My moral code compels me to stop evil when I see it being carried out. It does not compel me to try to fix the world, even if I had the powers to do so. Rich people aren't compelled to help the poor either. It's just a very good idea that the ultra-rich should help the masses unless they want to end up like the French or Russian aristocracy.

Divine retribution is one thing, but I am human and therefore flawed. I cannot sit in judgement over good and evil without becoming a bloodthirsty tyrant.

Pretty much the only answer one needs at the end of the day.

Never mind the fact that having the ability to delete people would cause many other issues besides just purging evil....like resisting the human temptation to use said power for your own ends. Why, a certain politician voted for something I wanted to fail because I could lose money in my business even though its what the majority of people wanted? Bye-bye.

I would say anyone in this hypothetical scenario better be prepared to put their money where their mouth is and delete themselves in the future, because I trust no human to stay sane and moral with such ability.

Finally....why wait for superpowers? Evil is right there. If your moral code compels you to act against evil, then why aren't you using the sex offender registry as a hunting ground?

 

[TayTweets]

It's generally accepted that first sign of schizophrenia is the grandiose belief that one has been given special powers to impose their special brand of morality onto others. Given that I live in my society of choice, by doing so I give this power to the judicial system, my answer is no.

 

[Fek]

I would suggest one may be better served in granting their focus to what they love vs feeding the proverbial beast.

Say one's moral code compels them to view war as evil. What would acting against war gain in this situation, aside from more fighting? The solution never lies in putting more effort/energy/emotions into what is not desired, as that will simply fuel it all the more.

A hatred of war does not bring peace.
A love of peace brings peace.

This can be applied to anything, friends. Please consider allowing the 'beast' (in whatever form it takes for one's views on 'evil') to simply starve. You need not invite it into your home or allow it to walk all over you, either. There is a difference in having the love/courage to protect you and yours vs lashing out in fear/anger/hate against what is seen as anathema.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

Nope, I will decide on an individual basis if someone deserves my help.

If some faggot is gonna bend over and take it up the ass from a Bully without even attempting to stand up for themselves why should I stick my neck out?

Because blessed are those who. Or persecuted for righteousness, and blessed are those who defend. The defenseless.
Blessed are those who defend the weak. And I mean that in a general sense of the words. If you see someone bullying a cripple, you should beat the living piss out of them.
But to answer the question absolutely. But from. Ivan On resistance to evil with force. It is reserved as a last resort.
Fundamentally, people make. Living in a more upstanding society? Impossible. Yes, you should defend yourself with violence.

 

[Retarded Weeb]

I feel like the topic itself is framed in such a way as to inherently cause needless consternation, which is why basically everyone has answered with "no." The point of conflict here is that the implication in most people's minds is that it's a binary. If you're not good, then you're bad. So if you have a moral duty to do good and you don't, then you're a bad person. But what's to stop someone from taking the position that proactive moral action is needed to be "good", but if you're not doing that then so long as you're not actively causing problems either you're not bad, you're just "normal"?

If we think about it, the way people tend to talk about situations without thinking mostly points to this position being the unspoken default. After all, people are praised as moral figures, heroes even in extreme situations, or doing good actions that weren't asked of them. That doesn't mean someone is evil for not striving to be one in that position of praise themselves though. So the natural conclusion is that there's degrees of "goodness" that a person can be, just as there could be degrees of "evilness". So it could stand to reason that you're morally compelled to do good and act against evil to be "good", but you're only morally compelled to not do evil so as to not be "bad".

I believe this conclusion is unsatisfying to most people though, which is why no one is immediately thinking of or saying it, because people would like to believe that so long as they're not doing things that make them ashamed of themselves, that they're a good person, and not a "merely neutral" person. But I don't particularly care whether I'm a good person or not, so I feel just fine saying my own moral code dictates that I'm a morally neutral person. So problem solved... right?

Well, there's also been some concerns in this thread over the idea of feeling compelled to act against evil causing evil in the form of moral busybodies who don't act in ways one would actually consider "good". To this I would say that striving to be a "good person" doesn't necessarily mean you are one. It often just means you desire to be praised by society. Being a good person is often more of a matter of your own innate desires to perform "good" actions for their own sake, rather than trying to do good to be good. (The same is often true of evil people as well, not that people often try to be evil.) In a way, trying to be good is something of a self-centered desire, isn't it? So it's not surprising those with the desire often lose their mindfulness of others and fail to actually be good. So I guess the final answer could be that acting against evil is required to be "good" and not "neutral", but my moral code's only moral compulsion is for you to be mindful of others in acting for your own goals.

Of course, you put specific emphasis on the "is it your duty to impart justice to unpunished evildoers?" thing with the question of whether I would kill everyone I consider evil. And to that I would say, yes, I would do that, but not because I think it's a moral duty or even necessarily a moral action. I would just do it because I don't like people I consider evil and would it serve my own desires to to kill them without making me feel bad. Whether that makes me good or evil is immaterial to me, since the consequences are too far beyond the scope of what a human mind can model to properly judge for morality (not that that would stop me). God can judge me.

 

[umseriously]

Sure, but the bigger question is: will I or people actually act out against evil when we see it happening?

 

[Beelzebub's Lawyer]

Death Note's premise but by being not-retarded and actually altruistic.

Light thought he was being altruistic. Hardly anybody believes that they're the villain.
Those soccer moms who are assaulting ICE agents on the streets genuinely believe that they're the Rebel Alliance fighting Palpatine.

if you were disgustingly rich enough, would you be compelled to donate to poor people (not methheads)

Would making them not poor bring benefit to the rest of society?
Some people... a lot of people, actually, get worse as people if they're being given free shit.
What if them dying off would be the greater good? What should I do then?
Should I be like Ozymandias in Watchmen? Sacrifice millions to save billions?

or to research that would help the less fortunate?

What kind of research? Wiping out all diseases?
But that's what we've been doing for decades now and we've created a welfare state that can't support itself anymore because the old fucks aren't dying and they hoard all the resources while still expecting the young to provide pensions.
So now, is the greater good to kill them all off? It would definitely make the lives of the young people.

This shit is subjective on many levels and you can't even predict how anything would actually affect anything.

 

[The best and greatest]

What would ground such an obligation in your view? What turns "you can improve this" into "you must"?

Probably this guy

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Probably this guy
Ver archivo adjunto 9046902

Peter Singer?
I recall briefly opining on the dude in another thread

[what Singer has] is a theory of positive obligation, saying that moral worth is measured by how much suffering you reduce. Do notice that this theory turns morality into an optimization problem without any internal limiting principle. If reducing suffering is the master value, then censorship, surveillance, coercion, expropriation, suppression etc. are all legitimate candidates for permissible action as long as someone claims they reduce suffering enough.
Under that framework, a platform is justified if it reduces more suffering than it causes. But that framework also justifies shutting it down if someone claims the inverse. Singer's framework cannot uniquely justify the [existence of the Kiwi Farms], for it equally permits its destruction.

 

[The best and greatest]

Peter Singer?
I recall briefly opining on the dude in another thread

Its the same idea in essence. Peter would have just defined evil differently than the OP

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Its the same idea in essence. Peter would have just defined evil differently than the OP

mhm
the thing is, changing the definition of "evil" doesn't do anything to ground the obligation
the missing step is still answering the question why someone else's suffering, need, or victimhood creates a claim over my action or property

genuinely, the only coherent ways I see to ground a positive obligation/duty are either a voluntary agreement or restitution following a prior rights violation. Outside of these things, "you can help, therefore thou must" is either arbitrary or quietly assuming that other people already have some standing claim over your life and your resources

 

[The best and greatest]

mhm
the thing is, changing the definition of "evil" doesn't do anything to ground the obligation
the missing step is still answering the question why someone else's suffering, need, or victimhood creates a claim over my action or property

genuinely, the only coherent ways I see to ground a positive obligation/duty are either a voluntary agreement or restitution following a prior rights violation. Outside of these things, "you can help, therefore thou must" is either arbitrary or quietly assuming that other people already have some standing claim over your life and your resources

The only way it makes sense is if you start from a position that god is real. Without that kind of spiritual context the idea of implicit humanist obligation to mankind is just atheists trying to have their cake and eat it too.

You can't cry about sky daddy's imposed moral imperatives and then in the same breath bemoan the sudden lack of care we have for one another.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Without that kind of spiritual context the idea of implicit humanist obligation to mankind is just atheists trying to have their cake and eat it too.

I agree, lots of that is just Christian duty language except without its metaphysical foundation, so you get obligations to some abstract "humanity"

The only way it makes sense is if you start from a position that god is real.

Even that does not automatically ground any positive duty or obligation.
If the claim is "God commands it", then the obligation ultimately boils down to obedience to a claimed authority
If the claim is that the duty follows from human nature, action, property, contract, restitution, etc. then the grounding has to be shown there
Like, neither theism or atheism can solve this lack of actual grounding

 

[The best and greatest]

Like, neither theism or atheism can solve this lack of actual grounding

Which is why you have man's law and its enforcement to fill the gap for those who don't find the metaphysical arguments compelling.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

Guess you should strike down evildoers. But you should have a rigid moral code of what is and isn't evil. People who? Because those sick freaks are criminals, they should be punished by having the rest of their lives. Being nothing but forced labor. And contemplation of the evil. I used to be for the death penalty. And then I watched this Russian guy who guides the worst people. In Russia, in this horrible prison, and he said. Actually, I'm against the death penalty. These people have to live with what they. Have done for the rest of their lives and work.