Who's more immoral?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » Who's more immoral?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 09:25 am
To-day is the 4th of June, the 20th anniversary of suppression of Tian an men demonstration.
Those rulers, organisators and heads every time are being considered to be in guilt of such action. We curse Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. making from them monsters. However, I personally do not see great difference between them and modern teenagers who play strategies on PC, they also have maps, calculations, cold reasoning etc. They do not usually see the consequences of their decisions unlike the executors: soldiers, policemen... Those are deemed to be not guilty because they obey orders they cannot choose. However, these are they who kill them and this are they who have to sacrifice their inner peace and compassion to other beings. To me namely these things are immoral, not blind decisions of the heads. In fact, we do not need to obey the decrees of an insane. Who are more guilty in your eyes, friends, and why.
One remark: I am against any punishments at all and I don't want you to suggest that I desire to sue anyone.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 09:57 am
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;66544 wrote:
... Those rulers, organisators and heads every time are being considered to be in guilt of such action. We curse Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. making from them monsters. However, I personally do not see great difference between them and modern teenagers who play strategies on PC, they also have maps, calculations, cold reasoning etc.


Could you explain a bit more what you mean by these "strategies"?

Thanks
 
validity
 
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 05:13 am
@Eudaimon,
Which is probably why teenagers are not, outside the electonic world, placed in positions of power.
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 02:11 am
@validity,
I hate to rain on your little analogy with anything this drearily obvious, but surely the distinction is that computer games are virtual and reality is well...not. If somebody 'kills' a few thosand 'people' in a computer game they know perfectly well it's not real- not any more real than somebody who 'kills' that many people in a book. Whereas rulers like Mao and Hitler knew perfectly well that they were killing real people.
 
Latma36
 
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2009 10:40 pm
@Eudaimon,
Yes, avatar6v7 has got it spot on with the explanation of teenage virtuality vs adult reality lol. With regards to your question: who is more immoral, the dictators or the people following orders - it is probably wrong to be deciding who is "more" immoral, but rather to assess the nature or intention. For instance, we take Hitler as being "evil" because of his intent to harm by attempting to create his own race, whereas soldiers will follow orders to preserve the integrity and honour of their country by which they serve, and if this means killing, it is perhaps a cost that has to be made.

If we take an instance where soldiers are killing innocent people under order, we have to take into considerations other than they are immoral as to why they are doing it. Perhaps if they disobey orders, their fate will be severe punishment or any other factor. We cannot assume that they are evil and wicked based on purely their actions. Having said that, if they intend to harm on "evil" principles, they they are equally immoral as the dictators. Also, even if they do not share this vision of evil that a dictator may have, they may be unaware of what they are doing. War propaganda may state they are doing their country a national service or they are told the people they are killing are fighting against the country - anything.

It really is hard to assess immorality without knowing first what occurs inside the minds of people, and we can only see intent with leaders, as they usually make their plans quite clear with their actions.
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2009 03:57 pm
@Latma36,
Ultimatly one has to asses both the individual evil of the director of others, and the evil of the society that allowed them to gain power. Hitler was voted in. He used thugs, sure, but that there were thousands of ex-soldiers willing to do his bidding, and thousands of police officers willing to look the other way says alot. However to a great extent Lenin, and to an even greater exten Stalin, forced themselves on the Russian people- the majority of Russians were peasants, and the workers became their new masters, the peasents voted against them and were ignore, most of the peasants were religous and were ruled over by those intent on destroying it. Each different case must be assesed in its own light.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 09:04 am
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7;67036 wrote:
I hate to rain on your little analogy with anything this drearily obvious, but surely the distinction is that computer games are virtual and reality is well...not. If somebody 'kills' a few thosand 'people' in a computer game they know perfectly well it's not real- not any more real than somebody who 'kills' that many people in a book. Whereas rulers like Mao and Hitler knew perfectly well that they were killing real people.

I tell thee: Kill the person thy neighbour. Think that's my order. If thou thou dost that, I shall really not care: I can't see blood, neither have I anger. The word 'reality' does not matter, that's just a word to which we ascribe meaning only due to our up-bringing, conditioning and so forth. Feelings matters, nothing: if I do not see, there is no feeling, no sensation, therefore the fruits of evil cannot be reapen.
Latma36;67593 wrote:
With regards to your question: who is more immoral, the dictators or the people following orders - it is probably wrong to be deciding who is "more" immoral, but rather to assess the nature or intention. For instance, we take Hitler as being "evil" because of his intent to harm by attempting to create his own race, whereas soldiers will follow orders to preserve the integrity and honour of their country by which they serve, and if this means killing, it is perhaps a cost that has to be made.

We should first of all define the criterion for morality. Recall that I named these actions immoral namely because they lead to bad feelings. Whether or not people break integrity and honour of their country, it doesn't matter. I, e.g., really don't care whether or not the country where my body is abiding will or will not disappear. Immoral?

Latma36;67593 wrote:
If we take an instance where soldiers are killing innocent people under order, we have to take into considerations other than they are immoral as to why they are doing it. Perhaps if they disobey orders, their fate will be severe punishment or any other factor. We cannot assume that they are evil and wicked based on purely their actions. Having said that, if they intend to harm on "evil" principles, they they are equally immoral as the dictators. Also, even if they do not share this vision of evil that a dictator may have, they may be unaware of what they are doing. War propaganda may state they are doing their country a national service or they are told the people they are killing are fighting against the country - anything.

And this again the same: it impossible to kill others without feeling bad.
avatar6v7;67800 wrote:
Ultimatly one has to asses both the individual evil of the director of others, and the evil of the society that allowed them to gain power. Hitler was voted in. He used thugs, sure, but that there were thousands of ex-soldiers willing to do his bidding, and thousands of police officers willing to look the other way says alot. However to a great extent Lenin, and to an even greater exten Stalin, forced themselves on the Russian people- the majority of Russians were peasants, and the workers became their new masters, the peasents voted against them and were ignore, most of the peasants were religous and were ruled over by those intent on destroying it. Each different case must be assesed in its own light.

Let us not argue about history where everything depends on preferances of historians. In my position it doesn't change anything.
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 03:20 am
@Eudaimon,
Heres a novel idea, actually respond to my argument instead of writing a lot of meingless crap.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 05:55 pm
@avatar6v7,
Here's a novel idea: ask for clarification without the use of insulting remarks.
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 03:45 am
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;68004 wrote:
I tell thee: Kill the person thy neighbour. Think that's my order. If thou thou dost that, I shall really not care: I can't see blood, neither have I anger. The word 'reality' does not matter, that's just a word to which we ascribe meaning only due to our up-bringing, conditioning and so forth. Feelings matters, nothing: if I do not see, there is no feeling, no sensation, therefore the fruits of evil cannot be reapen.

I respond to intelligent debate with intelligent debate, and I respond to weird and pointless responses as they deserve. I happen to put a little bit of effort into responding to peoples posts, as opposed to spewing stuff out at random. Me being insulting is pointless, but then again, so is the above quote.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 04:37 am
@Eudaimon,
The only person whom I can honestly say is immoral is myself. But the funny thing is, I can't even remember all the immoral things I've done. I know that I have done some but there could be far more than that based solely on what I consider immoral too. To be honest I don't care about anyone else in terms of moral or immoral. I don't see the point of doing it.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 07:45 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;68507 wrote:
The only person whom I can honestly say is immoral is myself. But the funny thing is, I can't even remember all the immoral things I've done. I know that I have done some but there could be far more than that based solely on what I consider immoral too. To be honest I don't care about anyone else in terms of moral or immoral. I don't see the point of doing it.

All right, Krumple. Yet my purpose was not judge someone, but to make people see these are they, executors, who are responsible, not their rulers.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 03:23 am
@Eudaimon,
avatar6v7;68498 wrote:
Me being insulting is pointless


No sir, you are incorrect. You being insulting is against forum rules.

As a friendly moderator, I am gently suggesting that you refrain from breaking forum rules. As a friendly moderator, I am strongly suggesting that you refrain from flaunting your disregard of forum rules.
 
timunderwood9
 
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 07:14 am
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;68004 wrote:
I tell thee: Kill the person thy neighbour. Think that's my order. If thou thou dost that, I shall really not care: I can't see blood, neither have I anger. The word 'reality' does not matter, that's just a word to which we ascribe meaning only due to our up-bringing, conditioning and so forth. Feelings matters, nothing: if I do not see, there is no feeling, no sensation, therefore the fruits of evil cannot be reapen.


uh, just fyi, the 'people' killed in computer games don't have sensations--- no subjectivity.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 05:12 am
@Eudaimon,
So what? Obviously I cannot feel the things others do, I cannot suffer just knowing that others suffer. Somewhere far away from me. Just think, right now people are dying somewhere but thou art tranquil. Absolutely another situation would take place if THOU wert that man who is making them suffer (soldier, policeman) because in this case thou wouldst hear their howls, see blood as I've said. Absolutely another situation. When we play strategy on P.C. we just send our units and they are doing all the work, the same thing is with those leaders, they act much as gamers. Hitler did not see how people were being tortured, and, in my opinion, he would have never done all those things if he had had to execute his orders himself. That's my point.
The soldiers who did those crimes seem to me much immoral because they transgressed that human disgust to making others suffer whereas leaders were just playing game in reality.
 
timunderwood9
 
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 06:10 am
@Eudaimon,
That the psychology of a military leader has some relationship to that of a gamer seems plausible.

I think however a fundamental aspect of being a moral human being is being aware of when actual human beings are being affected.

Also I would not want to argue that most of us are better people than Hitler, with the basis being that we haven't had millions of people killed. We obviously have never been in the same location as Hitler, and thus have no basis for arguing that we would act differently (as a determinist I think the idea that we would be different from Hitler, if we were Hitler, is silly).
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 06:22 am
@timunderwood9,
timunderwood9;95400 wrote:
That the psychology of a military leader has some relationship to that of a gamer seems plausible.

I think however a fundamental aspect of being a moral human being is being aware of when actual human beings are being affected.

Also I would not want to argue that most of us are better people than Hitler, with the basis being that we haven't had millions of people killed. We obviously have never been in the same location as Hitler, and thus have no basis for arguing that we would act differently (as a determinist I think the idea that we would be different from Hitler, if we were Hitler, is silly).


I am a determinist too (or let's say so for the sake of argument) but although if I were Hitler, I could not be someone else than Hitler, that does not mean that if I were Hitler I could not have done something different from what Hitler did, and in fact, that does not mean that HItler himself could not have done something different than he actually did. He could have if he had chosen to do something different. That is consistent with determinism, isn't it?
 
timunderwood9
 
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 06:47 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;95403 wrote:
I am a determinist too (or let's say so for the sake of argument) but although if I were Hitler, I could not be someone else than Hitler, that does not mean that if I were Hitler I could not have done something different from what Hitler did, and in fact, that does not mean that HItler himself could not have done something different than he actually did. He could have if he had chosen to do something different. That is consistent with determinism, isn't it?


What is involved when you refer to someone 'choosing to do something'.

I'm a materialist, when I think of someone choosing something the picture I have is of a system of neurons firing in a particular arrangement, which leads to the body connected to the neurons doing something. Where is the choice here, the ability to do differently.

Also my moral point is I think it is very dangerous both intellectually and morally to think that if we were in the position of someone who made horrifically obscene choices we would act differently. Because very possible we wouldn't.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 06:57 am
@timunderwood9,
timunderwood9;95413 wrote:
What is involved when you refer to someone 'choosing to do something'.

I'm a materialist, when I think of someone choosing something the picture I have is of a system of neurons firing in a particular arrangement, which leads to the body connected to the neurons doing something. Where is the choice here, the ability to do differently.

Also my moral point is I think it is very dangerous both intellectually and morally to think that if we were in the position of someone who made horrifically obscene choices we would act differently. Because very possible we wouldn't.


I don't think I know what you are asking when you ask "what is involved". The answer differs depending on what I choose. And, yes, I suppose that choosing is a physiological mechanism, but that does not mean that, for instance, I cannot choose vanilla over chocolate ice-cream. I do that kind of thing all the time. And, of course, when I do, I know I was not forced to choose vanilla rather than chocolate, nor the other way round. It was up to me which I chose. Sometimes it is not up to me. I am compelled to make a choice, but that is not always true. Sometimes there is no compulsion at all.

It is possible that that we would not act differently. But then, of course, it is possible that we would have acted differently, since it is possible that we would have chosen differently. Of course, it is hard to be sure, I agree.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 05:52 am
@timunderwood9,
timunderwood9;95400 wrote:
That the psychology of a military leader has some relationship to that of a gamer seems plausible.

I think however a fundamental aspect of being a moral human being is being aware of when actual human beings are being affected.

Is it not mere an idea, o materialist? It's just that we are taught that we should think that no one will be abused by our actions. Had we been taught to neglect other, that we shouldn't pay attention to their suffering because they belong to, say, inferior race, we wouldn't even think of them. That would be another kind of morality, if morality is a set of beliefs, as thy definition implies that to be.
But when we kill them OURSELVES, it is absolutely another situation. The very sight of suffering, of blood, surely are different from the idea that we should think of others. This demands way more brutality that just signing an order.

timunderwood9;95400 wrote:
Also I would not want to argue that most of us are better people than Hitler, with the basis being that we haven't had millions of people killed. We obviously have never been in the same location as Hitler, and thus have no basis for arguing that we would act differently (as a determinist I think the idea that we would be different from Hitler, if we were Hitler, is silly).

I am not arguing with this. My point was that Hitler, if he wasn't an insane, could not have done all those things like killing children, old people etc., if he'd had to do that with his own hands, so to say This was done just because there is always an army of slaves whcih is ready to fullfill every command.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » Who's more immoral?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/11/2024 at 01:11:53