Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Empiricist]

Two reasons. Firstly, law reflects society's values. Hence as it deemed physical harm to be a crime and refusal to speak to a person ever again not to be, the former may thus be considered to be worse than the latter. Secondly, because performing a possibly illegal activity is going that extra mile to be a dick.

Do you actually believe this, though?

Yes.

[IronyOwl]

Yes.

So you genuinely believe that, for instance, Stalin never did anything wrong because everything he did was, more or less by definition, legal? Whereas Ghandi was a rather unrepentant asshole because quite a few of his activities were flagrantly and brazenly against the law?

[Empiricist]

Yes.

So you genuinely believe that, for instance, Stalin never did anything wrong because everything he did was, more or less by definition, legal? Whereas Ghandi was a rather unrepentant asshole because quite a few of his activities were flagrantly and brazenly against the law?

Not exactly, I don't mean relative to the country's specific laws at a certain period of time but rather to laws that are common to most human civilizations.

EDIT: Furthermore, it is not just because it is illegal, but because it is also considered to be immoral thereby implying that it is indeed a moral transgression rather than something caused by outdated laws, abuse of power or a labyrinthine clusterfuck of mutually interfering clauses.

[IronyOwl]

Not exactly, I don't mean relative to the country's specific laws at a certain period of time but rather to laws that are common to most human civilizations.

But... what does that have to do with anything, then? Laws represent society's will, therefore they're a shorthand for morality... but they're not and what's actually a shorthand for morality is some kind of average or recurring theme in individual societies that can then be applied to all of them?

EDIT: Furthermore, it is not just because it is illegal, but because it is also considered to be immoral thereby implying that it is indeed a moral transgression rather than something caused by outdated laws, abuse of power or a labyrinthine clusterfuck of mutually interfering clauses.

For the first part, that would still mean that, for instance, homosexuality or lack of obedience to The Church would still count as terrible, whereas stoning adulteresses and chopping off thieves' hands would not be, right? Or that if they are/aren't, it's because those are/aren't common or average enough, not because of anything innately wrong/right with them?

For the last part, that still sounds like all laws to me. Even the ones you can come up with a good excuse for after the fact generally aren't in place for sound, well-measured reasons.


For that matter, if morality is an average, does that mean having an opinion that deviates from the average is morally detestable as well? Either innately since it's going against the will of the group, or by popular definition because saying unpopular things tends to be frowned upon fairly universally?

[Empiricist]

Not exactly, I don't mean relative to the country's specific laws at a certain period of time but rather to laws that are common to most human civilizations.

But... what does that have to do with anything, then? Laws represent society's will, therefore they're a shorthand for morality... but they're not and what's actually a shorthand for morality is some kind of average or recurring theme in individual societies that can then be applied to all of them?

I suppose I should have worded it better as prevalent, recurring laws reflect the moral standards of their time.

For that matter, if morality is an average, does that mean having an opinion that deviates from the average is morally detestable as well? Either innately since it's going against the will of the group, or by popular definition because saying unpopular things tends to be frowned upon fairly universally?

Depends on the degree of the transgression. But morality is, in my opinion at least, just the ideals of the majority. After all, whilst relatively minor transgressions are tolerated (outspoken views, controversial views and whatnot), there are certainly opinions and actions (crimes, atrocities and whatnot) that dissuade from the norm enough for society to be hostile to them.
This thread is starting to get derailed...

[IronyOwl]

Depends on the degree of the transgression. But morality is, in my opinion at least, just the ideals of the majority. After all, whilst relatively minor transgressions are tolerated (outspoken views, controversial views and whatnot), there are certainly opinions and actions (crimes, atrocities and whatnot) that dissuade from the norm enough for society to be hostile to them.

This doesn't seem like a useful definition to me, not least of all because it's incredibly vague.

It also sounds like you're making a distinction between morality as a general or popular concept and what would generally be described as your personal moral views on things. Certainly I'd find it surprising if you found yourself in agreement with some definition of "society" all the time.

This thread is starting to get derailed...

I dunno. The point of the thread, as far as I can tell, was always to prod interesting conversations out of a hypothetical question. And this is probably a more interesting discussion than "Doesn't matter, violence is wrong."

[guessingo]

Scenario 1
Girl cheats on boyfriend by having sex with another guy. Guy has sex with her mom.

Scenario 2
Girl cheats on boyfriend with another girl. Guy secretly records it and puts it on my the internet

Scenario 3
Guy cheats on girlfriend with her best friend. Girl boils his pet bunny rabbits.

Scenario 4
Guy dumps girlfriend he just used for sex. Girl puts naked pictures of him on a men seeking men website, says he is into BDSM, and is submissive.


Decide!

[aenri]

Who is worse?
1: Depends on who cheated first
2: Guy, secretly recording it wouldn't be that bad, but putting it on internet is just big NO
3: Guy, cheating is way worse than boiling pet rabbits and seems like pretty normal petty revenge thing (did she eat them afterwards?)
4: Girl, no question, putting naked pictures of other people on internet without their consent is pretty bad stuff

[Zangi]

I'm guessing that we are assuming the relationship is clearly understood to be monogamy / closed to others.
Scenario 1v2
Answer: 1 is worse.
I'd say beating up the girlfriend may be the 'better' scenario.  The one doing the most wrong here is the girlfriend, not the stranger...

Scenario 3v4
Answer: 4 is worse.
Ultimately, I'd say ... Equally bad.  But I went with 4, because at the very least, the 'friend' shouldn't be considered one anymore.
*Insert terrible joke about acquiring some industrial cleaners and 2 wheeled travel duffels.*

Betrayal is salty business.

[Criptfeind]

boiling pet rabbits and seems like pretty normal petty revenge thing

I think we've all learned not to cross Aenri here...

If I wanted to actually answer the questions in the OP:

1&2: The guy is equally bad in both.

3&4: The guy is equally bad in both.

[Tack]

I desperately want to put my own neanderthalic views in here and watch you squirm, but sadly I've got to join the growing crowd of "lock it, lock it now".

At the very least change the title so it looks more like a well-researched social experiment rather than a loose pile of flammable concepts.

[pisskop]

As stated above, there is no good answer.  In addition to being highly subjective it is also pretty situational.  All other factors being equal, I'll assume the female is my ex-fiance and the male some guy.

  The problem with the violence is it doesn't solve your problems in any immediate way.  Or any long-term way either.  I would strike the male before the female, not in the least because I wouldn't want to touch the female at that moment.  She would be repulsive to me.  My philosophy was always 'you can do that if you want, but then it be a reason for my actions to lose meaning as well.'
  I myself would likely go out and sleep around too.  The relationship would falter for at least a cool-down period.  If I struck the male it was for continued insult to myself, either rubbing it around or actually being found within my home.


In situation 3 and 4 we instead compare who we ignore the offender of choice and ignore them.  I would likely do neither, but would stop talking to the friend before I cut all ties with the female.

[Empiricist]

It also sounds like you're making a distinction between morality as a general or popular concept and what would generally be described as your personal moral views on things. Certainly I'd find it surprising if you found yourself in agreement with some definition of "society" all the time.

Yeah, it's because trying to talk about my personal morals on the matter kinds of just leads to a dead end where I can't adequately explain it properly >__<

[Flying Dice]

These answers fascinate me. You really perceive no difference one way or another? "He beat somebody up" so he's equally bad and his motivation and who he chooses to beat up makes no difference? Really? In scenarios 1 and 2, beating up your girlfriend is no more or less ok than beating up a total stranger? Really? Or, as both Reelya and IronyOwl point out, the guy she slept with had presumably made no commitment to anyone, whereas the girlfriend presumably had. Do you really perceive no difference between his choice of target? Retribution against someone who breaks a commitment is no more or less ok than directing your retributino against somebody totally else? Seriously? If Bob promises to do something, and then doesn't deliver on his promise...it makes no difference to you whether I beat up Bob for his failure or beat up you for his failure? Seriously?

Consider that while in scenarios 3 and 4 we can probably assume that the friend knew about the relationship, in scenarios 1 and 2 there is no indication that the guy she slept with had any knowledge of the relationship at all. Imagine being the guy in that possibility. You have consensual sex with a girl, and then some guy you don't even know beats you up for it. Now compare that to being the girl. You cheat on your boyfriend and he beats you up for it. Do you really perceive no difference between the two?

You're privileging the worth of one of the individuals he targets over the other for arbitrary reasons which weren't even part of the situations you framed. I would agree that if there was an explicit agreement of exclusivity between the boyfriend and girlfriend, he would be more justified in seeking retribution against her than against a stranger with whom he had no relationship, and likewise than against a friend (with whom he presumably didn't have an explicit agreement of similar sorts).

However, that was not part of any of the scenarios you presented. Literally all we know about the situation is that the boy and girl were in a relationship, and the boy perceived it in such a way that he considered the girl sleeping with someone else 'cheating'. There's no explicit agreement of exclusivity -- you might argue that such a thing is considered to be implied, but open relationships exist and are even somewhat common, even in some cultures which traditionally promote exclusive relationships.

Furthermore, if you do wish to presume that there is an implicit agreement of exclusivity between the boy and girl, created by a culture and society which treats exclusive relationships as the norm, then we must also assume that there is a similar implied agreement between the boy and his friend such that neither will infringe on the exclusivity of any relationships that the other may be involved in.

If that is assumed, then scenarios 2-4 are identical in terms of the justification for the boyfriend's actions, with scenario 1 standing out because of his relative lack of justification for assaulting an individual who may have been unaware that the girlfriend was in a relationship (though obviously if he was aware, scenario 1 is equivalent to the others, as you're apparently assuming an underlying societal agreement to preserve the integrity of exclusive relationships).

The thing is, all of that is related to the relative degree to which his actions are justified, or in other words, whether or not he has good reasons for assaulting another party. None of that pertains to the moral rightness of his actions. In every scenario his assault on another party is equally wrong because causing harm to other people is wrong. The girlfriend and other man are not in the right (save perhaps the stranger, if we assume that he did not know of the relationship, but that is not given as a condition for that scenario), but they are less wrong, and in any case the magnitude of their wrongful actions do not affect the magnitude of the boyfriend's own wrongful action. The justification or lack thereof is irrelevant; society does not allow him the right to physically damage another individual in any of these cases.

Though there perhaps is an argument that he is less morally wrong in scenarios 3 and 4 because he is willingly removing himself (and thus his penchant for causing harm to others) from the life of one of the other individuals.

I truly hope this isn't going to turn into some libertarian social Darwinist fantasy where he was right to beat up his girlfriend for cheating on him because he has the capability to do so and feels that he has been wronged.

[Tack]

Darwinism goes in the opposite direction.

1. Is this woman worth it?
Let's say yes.
2. Is this man a threat?
Let's again, say yes.

Ergo: beat up the man. This establishes superiority and right to claim the mate, serves to ward off the offending male, and solidifies the original man as a protective character, which will make the mate feel safer.

Thankfully we are complicated beasts and it more often than not doesn't go down like that.

It's also rather amusing that all of the guys who are saying "rah rah Neanderthals do violence" are the people most likely to be cheated on for not being "manly".

In chivalrist terms, it's better to beat up a man than a woman because fighting against a rival is more of a test of skill and power, where there's a rather noticeable potential of losing, whilst punishing your partner is simply abuse.

In Utilitarian terms, beating up your girlfriend will be more likely to stop this happening in future, compared to assaulting whomsoever they've porked recently.

In progressive terms, negative reactions to an affair is simply a manifestation of fear that someone else has something which you don't. Therefore you either have confidence that they love you so much that they won't leave no matter how they stray- or the relationship wasn't right to begin with.


My personal ethics are primarily utilitarian, although in this case I'm more progressive, 'cos my shallowness.