Ethical question: Can a member of an evil and corrupt organziation be good?

[Luz]

Indian independence came about because Britain was bankrupt, that is why most colonizers "decolonized" there is no money left to maintain them. And not bloody? How about the partition? Sepoy rebellions? Civil rights movement? So what about the black panther movement? Almost everything was built in blood sweat and tears. We do not sing kumbaya and live happily ever after.

Sure what ever you want to belive, it's because of people like you who sees violence as the only solution that we where we are.

It becomes ineffectual

And vice versa

EDIT:
"A foolish man tries to be good,
And is therefore not good.
A truly good man does nothing,
Yet leaves nothing undone.
A foolish man is always doing,
Yet much remains to be done."
-Tao Te Ching, chapter 38

Well, I rather be a foolish man then a wise man who does nothing.

That reminds me of a certain matrix. To paraphrase, people can be smart or stupid, and lazy or energitic.

Those who are stupid and lazy you either ignore or direct. They are harmless if left alone, as they will not seek to cause trouble on their own initiative, and usefull if commanded, for they will only do the least possible amount in the simplest manner, and thus are predictable.

Those who are clever and lazy, should be placed in leadership positions, for they will have necessary vision to see and solve problems, yet will naturally seek for the most effortless implementation.

Those who are clever and energetic, should be made the second-in-commands and middle-managers, for they can both comprehend the vision of their superiors and summon forth the energy to make lazier people follow suit.

Those who are stupid and energetic should be taken behind a sauna and shot, because you never know what those idiots will do.

That's.... Actually sounds kind of awesome. Who wrote this?

[anjxed]

Sure what ever you want to belive, it's because of people like you who sees violence as the only solution that we where we are.

Oh yes, we should totally not do any violence at all even if we see that other people is prepared to do violence against us. Seriously, believe what YOU want to believe that everybody just gather arounds the campfire and sings kumbaya.

[Frozen_Feet]

That's.... Actually sounds kind of awesome. Who wrote this?

The concept is attribited to Helmuth von Moltke and Erich von Manstein, high-ranking officers in Prussia and Nazi Germany, respectively.

Though the idea exist elsewhere. Replace "good" with "smart" in that Tao Te Ching quote, and it says much of the same thing.

I'd consider that a sufficient rebuttal to the sentiment (shared by you) "Well, I rather be a foolish man then a wise man who does nothing". Because foolish action is recipe for disaster. Same reason why we have the saying "road to Hell is paved with good intentions".

[Bohandas]

That's.... Actually sounds kind of awesome. Who wrote this?

I think I recall something like that in a Scott Adams book but I'm not sure if he originated it

[S@tanicoaldo]

Oh yes, we should totally not do any violence at all even if we see that other people is prepared to do violence against us. Seriously, believe what YOU want to believe that everybody just gather arounds the campfire and sings kumbaya.

I ask you then what good has violence caused that wasn't to solve or mitigate another problem also caused by violence?

[Bohandas]

Now as for the lazy incompetent phone-it-in thing, Imagine if you will someone who makes bombs for the Nazis that consistently fail to explode due to real incompetence rather than merely feigned incompetence.

[Spanish_Paladin]

EDIT:
"A foolish man tries to be good,
And is therefore not good.
A truly good man does nothing,
Yet leaves nothing undone.
A foolish man is always doing,
Yet much remains to be done."
-Tao Te Ching, chapter 38

I think the "wu wei" teaching of Lao Tze refers to not "force" any action on others or the world. To be with the Tao is to flow not to resist, but it doesn't mean the lack of any action.

EDIT: sorry, this post is a reply to Luz not Bohandas.

[Bohandas]

Imagine if you will someone conscripted into the nazi or confederate army who deserts out of cowardice. Is that not good or at worst neutral?

EDIT:
NVM, that negates the premise. Ok, how about someone who stays with the nazis or confederates solely to steal supplies?

[AMFV]

Imagine if you will someone conscripted into the nazi or confederate army who deserts out of cowardice. Is that not good or at worst neutral?

EDIT:
NVM, that negates the premise. Ok, how about someone who stays with the nazis or confederates solely to steal supplies?

Oooh, what about somebody who is conscripted or joins an evil organization to protect somebody close to them like a family member, and they only act in the interest of protecting their family?

[Frozen_Feet]

Now as for the lazy incompetent phone-it-in thing, Imagine if you will someone who makes bombs for the Nazis that consistently fail to explode due to real incompetence rather than merely feigned incompetence.

Mere ineptitude makes no-one good, otherwise, not enough information to decide.

Imagine if you will someone conscripted into the nazi or confederate army who deserts out of cowardice. Is that not good or at worst neutral?

Again, mere ineptitude (which cowardice is one form of) makes no-one good. Otherwise, not enough information to decide.

How about someone who stays with the nazis or confederates solely to steal supplies?

Amoral. Anyone who is in anything solely to steal supplies is at best operating on 1st level of Kohlberg's moral theory. That is, they're doing it to benefit themselves under the premise that they don't caught.

Oooh, what about somebody who is conscripted or joins an evil organization to protect somebody close to them like a family member, and they only act in the interest of protecting their family?

Two different scenarios are presented here. Conscription implies enforcement. It implies refusal or failure to be conscripted entails failure of the goal "protect your family".

Such implication is absent if a person joins out of their own will.

Regardless, mere desire to "protect family" does not make anyone good. See Heinz dilemma (which aforementioned Kohlberg's moral levels were based on) to see all the various ways in which other considerations may be considered (or considered not to) trump "protect family" as a moral goal.

Anyways, absent of other information, someone who works only "to protect family" is at best on third of Kohlberg's moral levels and quite likely amoral.

[AMFV]

It's important to note that you are arguing from a moral theory that is NOT, and I repeat NOT universally accepted as a solid moral theory. Or even a solid ethical theory.

I'm not particularly fond of Kohlberg, I could probably figure out a way to frame a desire to protect my family that could fit in any of his stages. I'm not sure that you can use Psychology in absence of philosophy as a source of moral reasoning, at least not without making really shoddy unstated assumptions about morality. And that's the problem with Kohlberg.

He makes the assumption that a system of ethics that is based around Consequentialism is the superior system of ethics, ergo we're looking at the harm principle, and then he assumes everyone is harm motivated and the better ethics is the system where somebody is considering harm to fewer and fewer people. That's why things that value the good of humanity is considered the highest on his moral scale.

But it completely falls apart once you have any different valuing systems, and that's why psychologists make really ****ty moral philosophers. Because they don't look at the understated assumptions about things.

What if it is morally good to follow orders? To obey one's direct superior? There are moral philosophies that have argued that, not new ones really, but certainly they exist, in which case Kohlberg's Stage One, is suddenly the best stage and everybody else is worse. See you can't have moral philosophy if you don't philosophy and Kohlberg pretty clearly doesn't have the background to effectively assess morality.

[Frozen_Feet]

I'm not particularly fond of Kohlberg, I could probably figure out a way to frame a desire to protect my family that could fit in any of his stages.

Uh, that is the entire point of Kohlberg's theory of moral development and the use of Heinz dilemma to begin with: to see the different ways in which people justify whether to steal or not to steal.

The thing you miss is that while you maybe could BS an explanation to fit any level, not all people can, and in fact narrow majority fail to consistently operate on levels above three.

More, as these being called stages of moral development suggests, the stage a person operates on correlates heavily with maturity and cognitive skill.

And that's a pretty important observation when you start comparing various moral philosophies. Your statement that Kohlberg favors consequentalism is, in fact, wrong. If anything, Kohlberg's ideal system would've been Kantian, but there are both consequentalist and deontological systems that fit higher stages of his theory. The point is that when you look at how those ethical systems are constructed, you can make a difference between something that literally could've been invented by a child versus something that would see serious discussion among adult philosophers. Whenever you start asking questions of someone who is only motivated by single, concrete goal, you are describing trivial morality.

In examples such as someone who is only motivated by acquiring supplies, or only motivated by protecting family, you might as well be talking about a dog. And dogs as moral operators is something that belongs in a kindergarten.

[Liquor Box]

I ask you then what good has violence caused that wasn't to solve or mitigate another problem also caused by violence?

The arrest of a non-violent criminal in circumstances where some minor degree of violence (restraining and cuffing) was necessary to bring about that arrest?

[The Eye]

The arrest of a non-violent criminal in circumstances where some minor degree of violence (restraining and cuffing) was necessary to bring about that arrest?

Is there such thing as a non-violent crime?

[Lord Joeltion]

Is there such thing as a non-violent crime?

Petty theft? Identity theft? Scam? Recommending Twilight every time you meet a stranger? 50 Shades work too...

[2D8HP]

Recommending.....

Please, they're some deeds too foul to even speak of!

[Frozen_Feet]

Is there such thing as a non-violent crime?

*blank stare*

Are you not aware that from a legalistic viewpoint, "a crime" is whatever is defined as such by the entity making the laws? "Crime" can and often does include things like standing in the wrong place at the wrong time. Then there are strict liability crimes which entitle use of force against you, not on the basis that what you're currently doing is committing violence on anyone, but on the basis that if enough people did that thing, it would lead to increased violence. Drunk driving would be one example. Speeding is another.

The inverse of that is the principle that "there can be no punishment without a crime, and no crime without the act being defined as such in the law". So a violent act is not necessarily a crime.

[Luz]

I'd consider that a sufficient rebuttal to the sentiment (shared by you) "Well, I rather be a foolish man then a wise man who does nothing". Because foolish action is recipe for disaster. Same reason why we have the saying "road to Hell is paved with good intentions".

Well, tell that to Charles XII when he was taking over Krakow.

[Bohandas]

Is there such thing as a non-violent crime?

How about pickpocketing? Dine and dash? Embezzlement? Tax evasion? Bribery? Illegal dumping?

Or was that meant as some sort of pseudoprofundity?

*blank stare*

Are you not aware that from a legalistic viewpoint, "a crime" is whatever is defined as such by the entity making the laws? "Crime" can and often does include things like standing in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Especially the wrong place. It's never the right time to be somewhere like North Korea or Saudi Arabia.

[The Ari-tificer]

This is the plot of many a story.

[Aedilred]

The arrest of a non-violent criminal in circumstances where some minor degree of violence (restraining and cuffing) was necessary to bring about that arrest?

But if the criminal isn't violent, why is it necessary to use violence to restrain them?

Yes, I suppose they could be trying to do a runner, but it's a pretty grey area. Personally I've always found at least the TV depiction of US police in action: guns out, everyone cuffed behind their backs, no matter what the crime, very heavy-handed. It probably (hopefully?) isn't like that in real life.

As for "what good has violence ever done other than to challenge other violence?" I think that depends entirely on your definition of violence.

[Tvtyrant]

I ask you then what good has violence caused that wasn't to solve or mitigate another problem also caused by violence?

Well, let us see.

Decision to renege on an agreed upon payment is not typically violent but can destroy the other person and without violence there is no way to enforce consequences.
Stealing their property is a more direct version of the above.
Allowing pollutants from your property to spill onto theirs, or into the common lands.
Use of banned chemicals.
Mining in protected areas.
Driving your cattle through other individuals properties or public property, destroying crops or wildlife there.
Diverting water upstream of another individuals property.
Drilling for oil/natural gas near anothers property without permission and endangering them or their property.
Overfishing protected regions.
Overhunting protected regions.
Poaching.
Breaking copyright/IP laws.
Libel cases.
Noise violations like playing the sounds of a jackhammer 24 hours a day.


And those are just the ones that involve unrelated individuals. Imagine how inheritance laws would work if just taking the whole property and shredding the will was nonpunishable. If divorce seems bad now, imagine if taking the kids when you don't like the courts decision is met by a "oh well, what can you do?" Unless we somehow define violence as "anything detrimental to anyone else" then you need it to enforce protections against detrimental but none-violent actions, many of which are just as devastating.

[Bohandas]

Well, let us see.

Decision to renege on an agreed upon payment is not typically violent but can destroy the other person and without violence there is no way to enforce consequences.
Stealing their property is a more direct version of the above.
Allowing pollutants from your property to spill onto theirs, or into the common lands.
Use of banned chemicals.
Mining in protected areas.
Driving your cattle through other individuals properties or public property, destroying crops or wildlife there.
Diverting water upstream of another individuals property.
Drilling for oil/natural gas near anothers property without permission and endangering them or their property.
Overfishing protected regions.
Overhunting protected regions.
Poaching.
Breaking copyright/IP laws.
Libel cases.
Noise violations like playing the sounds of a jackhammer 24 hours a day.


And those are just the ones that involve unrelated individuals. Imagine how inheritance laws would work if just taking the whole property and shredding the will was nonpunishable. If divorce seems bad now, imagine if taking the kids when you don't like the courts decision is met by a "oh well, what can you do?" Unless we somehow define violence as "anything detrimental to anyone else" then you need it to enforce protections against detrimental but none-violent actions, many of which are just as devastating.

What good is done by modern America's IP/Copyright laws. As they are they cause far more harm than good.

[Tvtyrant]

What good is done by modern America's IP/Copyright laws. As they are they cause far more harm than good.

An interesting opinion, but not one that I share. I believe the protection of authorial rights has helped us in creating an ever richer literature, not to mention allowing investment into sectors not covered by patent laws.

[Bohandas]

An interesting opinion, but not one that I share. I believe the protection of authorial rights has helped us in creating an ever richer literature, not to mention allowing investment into sectors not covered by patent laws.

I specified America's copyright laws, where protections last effectively forever for the benefit of dead men and soulless corporations

[Frozen_Feet]

Regarding "what good has violence ever done other than to challenge other violence?", I would as well ask "why would it even need to have done any other good?"

Violence is one of the most trivial ways to affect other people. The capacity for it is not something that can be removed from people in any sane way. There is, and has never been, any shortage of violent people, so even if the only good violence has ever done is oppose them, that's plenty of good to go around.

No other justification is required.

[Tvtyrant]

I specified America's copyright laws, where protections last effectively forever for the benefit of dead men and soulless corporations

So you strawmanned what I said so you could refute me and feel good about yourself? Nice.

[Maxilian]

Yes, if not that would imply that most people are somewhat evil for what those above them (that may be Evil -Selfish-) do.

[FlammySenpai]

I'd say yes, definitely. It just depends on the circumstances that this individual ended up joining. It could be that this person didn't know about the organizations illicit or shady dealings. Or maybe they are fully aware of this, but this individual is only agreeing to work for them because they are under duress, or they need the money to help their family.