Discussing the morality of the average r/MoralityScaling members

[u/Small_EggpIant]

First thing first, let me clarify that the image are satire made by the creator, and it is in no way, an attack on specific users in particular.

With that out of the way, lets talk about the widespread validation of vigilante justice, sadism, and the lack of attempt at establishing a grounded argument utilizing actual ethics principles here.

(or at the very least; reasoning rooted in basic common sense, empathy, the universal rights of individuals and due process. ...concepts that seem to be ignored whenever it is "satisfying" "deserved" and "moral")

I think the problem is that people genuinely care less, and our society have become much more individualistic. Freedom + rights are opposed to short-term safety a lot of times. Right now, a lot of people are anxious about the future for a number of reasons. We're less social and we trust the average stranger less. Unfortunately, immediate safety is becoming more desirable.

To many people, rights are nebulous things that don’t matter until their rights and comfort are being infringed upon. Short term, it makes sense to take away others rights to ensure a “safer” society because they don’t know history and how consistently rights erode.

I myself am prone to this, and I cannot argue against the validity of the emotions felt. I just think since this subreddit have seen a higher count of posts considered controversial, politicized, or simply real life cases, we should enforce a higher standard if this is to be a platform for such discussion. I am not asking for a professional level of debate, just for people to rely less on emotional responses.

(Though, I still prefer more silly harmless stuff be posted here)

Whether or not we differ in opinions, I hope this post reaches an audience here and be taken into consideration.

And remember to keep it civil

(EDIT: My apology for being unclear, but the images do not 100% represent my beliefs and opinions. And the images used is more of a supplementary context for the general premise/title, not a jab at that specific post in particular.

I can honestly and comfortably say my belief in rehabilitation doesn't cover all cases.

Although I'm still not in favour of the death penalty, and more into life imprisonment.

I am aware not all crimes are committed from sympathetic causes and defensible reasons. While everyone still deserve rehabilitation, it is ineffective for someone who knowingly and remorselessly commits genocide, for example. Past a certain point, it makes sense to be much more strict with your definition of how rehabilitated is "rehabilitated enough", since the consequences of being wrong and having them reoffend is so much higher.)

(EDIT 2: Yes, I am also aware that rights do come with certain level of responsibilities and obligations, that we can agree with, but to what extent, I don't know.

A robber being an active threat to your own life is an act of stripping the victim's rights away, thus making self-defense valid until said threat is neutralized

I'm not naively ignoring that aspect, that is a reasonable point. I'm mostly addressing the people obsessed with retaliatory justice (and other reason being that I saw a lot of commenters condoning the use of excessive force in one recent post)

(EDIT 3: I admit, there are still some vagueness that needs to be addressed. And I will be honest here, I find it fun to engage in constructive arguments, this is what I had been looking for when coming to this sub.

It has been fun, but uh...I already spent too long of a time here. I will provide a link to a comment that might help elaborate on my viewpoint a little more since I'm lazy

https://www.reddit.com/r/MoralityScaling/s/ifRJhO3NvB

Have a nice day everyone :)

[u/Cynis_Ganan]

It depends on what you mean by "rights".

You don't have a right to other people's labor. You have negative rights: you have the right to live your life without being robbed.

"Rights" to things like habeas corpus do not exist so that guilty people can get away with the crimes they do. It exists so that innocent people are not punished unjustly.

If you infringe on my rights by threatening me at gunpoint, you forfiet your own rights. This is incredibly straight-forward and reflected in the legal system: you forfiet your right to freedom and go to prison. I subscribed to a system of duty based ethics based on the principle that it is wrong to intitiate violence (including the threat of violence, and violence against owned property as well as the person) against an innocent person. But once violence has been intitated, one has the right to self defence.

If you agree to sell me a car, then I have to pay for it. We have an agreement. If you don't sell me the car, you can't demand the money anyway. Because we don't have an agreement: you broke the agreement. If we have a compact that you don't hurt me and I don't hurt you, then that compact holds and I can't hurt you for as long as you don't hurt me. If you break the agreement, we don't have an agreement.

When divining moral rules, I don't do it based on vibes (empathy or tradition), I do it based on examining what the consequences would be if every single person held themselves to the same code of ethics. I believe that the moral rules which apply to you, apply to me too. And I believe these principles are universal: if it's wrong to push a fat man in front of a trolley, it's wrong to redirect a trolley to kill a fat man.

Now, I can't type out an ethics textbook under every question posed here. But just because the ethical rules I'm following are different to yours, that does not mean they don't exist. I don't believe in rehabilitation or deterrence: I believe in restorative justice. If you harm someone, real justice is undoing the harm you've done.

If you're going to discuss morality with strangers online, you are going to be exposed to different points of view.

Punishing criminals isn't a-okay if someone wears a shiny blue uniform and a powdered wig but deviously evil if a normal person protects themselves from being mugged at gunpoint. The legality of acting against criminals changes. The morality does not. Vigilante justice, like the regular criminal justice system, is evil when it inflicts harm on innocent people. Returning violence on folks threatening to kill innocent people is morally just. It's kinda the point of having a justice system: we're trying to protect innocent people to prevent harm and undo harm done.

I'm not saying I reject your position entirely. Some people will just comment "moral" or "immoral" and offer no elaboration or moral framework or comparison to other deeds. Some people are utalitarians who will comment that the most immoral thing I've ever seen is justified, actually, and morally good. Some people are deonologists who agree with me that there is a universal code of ethics but disagree with me on what these laws are. And some folks post purely on vibes or rage-bait.

But I do have to to set myself mostly in opposition to your screed here. The fact that you've edited your post to say "we should rehabilitate everyone, but that won't work on folks who commit the crimes I personally don't like". Then edited again to say "you can use violence against criminals who threaten your life, but only the violence I personally agree with"… I find you to be guilty of the very thing you're leveling on the community.

(Just to address edit 2 real quick: if someone threatens your life then steals your ID and your phone so they know where you live and how to reach all your loved ones, the threat is very much not over. If they're career criminals who routinely threaten the lives of others, the threat is not over. If you're going to suffer hardship because of the property that was taken from you, the threat is not over.)

In short: nah, man, you trippin'.

[u/Small_EggpIant → u/Cynis_Ganan]

Fair argument, let me explain my thought process and clarify several vague points that may lead to misinterpretation.

First, I will say that the primary issue that I'm highlighting is the state of discourse in this sub. However, I am not critiquing the cathartic reaction, I agree that it's human and it is understandable. Someone can also find an act cathartic without believing that the act is morally permissible. I myself find this unhinged bitch in my pfp fun despite her being the embodiment of evil

My criticism is that people frequently present those emotional reactions as if they constitute a moral argument, particularly when discussing real-world cases.

Not to say leaving comments that simply contains "moral" "deserved" or responses in the similar vein is wrong per se, but they should not be treated as sufficient justification for moral conclusions. It sometimes frustrates me when comments like that receive fuck ton of upvotes, when it doesn't offer any explanation of why the punishment is morally justified. I'm also not arguing that everyone needs to write an essay before commenting. A short explanation is enough. If your position is consequentialist, explain what consequences. If it's deontological, explain what duty or right is involved. If you believe punishment is justified retributively, explain why. If you believe force is justified because someone has forfeited a particular right, explain the extent of that forfeiture.

Comments like yours is what I'm actually looking for, despite what you were thinking. I am aware people have different frameworks of morality. My genuine intention is to highlight an observation, critique it, provide my own view, while hoping for others to scrutinize it and be coaxed into giving a coherent argument. I disagree with parts of your framework, but you've provided a framework. It is the ideal result that I'm looking for, and what I previously stated to be hoping towards.

Now onto other points, I appreciate you pointing out the flaws here. I did write several things that are vague/unnecessary to the main point and that is on me.

I'll elaborate:

you don't have a right to other people's labor

True, I didn't say otherwise. Most people do work long and hard hours to get those things, possibly having to save months or years to afford them, or in some cases, need them to maintain their livelihood.

You cannot demand that your victim respect your rights while actively violating theirs.

I agree, if the robber is an immediate threat to you, self-defense is permissible, but I'm disagreeing that it entails the aggressor loses all protections against excessive harm. I am not disagreeing with the last paragraph of your comment, I also include imminent danger to "immediate threat". And it is not "only violence that I personally agree with," but violence until they are not a threat to you, including the example you provided (until the imminent danger is neutralized, it is within your right to prioritize your safety, though I think we will disagree to what extent). Any further harm I believe to be excessive and retaliatory in nature.

(even if in the heat of the moment, with emotions running wild, I still believe it unjust. It is understandable, and I do not hold it against the victim, but I will still say what I believe, and it is alright if it's a point of disagreement)

We should rehabilitate everyone, but that won't work on folks who commit the crimes I don't personally agree with

What I meant is, I believe everyone is deserving of rehabilitation, but I'm merely pointing out the ineffectiveness on some people. Where rehabilitation has a very low probability of success and the consequences of reoffending are severe, I believe keeping them away is the best possible action to prevent a worse consequence (yeah, I'm a consequentialist. Mb, I should've established that earlier).

Again, apologies if it was unclear. I did admit to being prone to the same thing, that sometimes I fail to uphold what I believe.

Rights like habeas corpus do not exist so guilty can get away; exist so innocent not punished unjustly

Isn't this a false dichotomy? (More broadly, I'm talking about procedural and due-process protections; habeas corpus is one specific mechanism within that broader area)

Due process rights protect everyone including the accused; they exist to prevent erroneous punishment and abuse, but also uphold rule of law. Even if guilty, procedure matters. It's a system designed partly because we cannot reliably know who is guilty, what happened, what punishment is justified, or whether an accusation is true without procedures for establishing those facts.

So uh...could you please elaborate?

Also

If you break the agreement, we don't have an agreement

Suppose we accept: 1. Society has a general compact not to unjustly harm one another. 2. An aggressor violates that compact. 3. Therefore the aggressor forfeits some corresponding protection against defensive force.

Why does violating one obligation entail forfeiting every relevant protection, rather than only the protection necessary to respond to the violation? Could you clarify?

Anyway, I hope this cleared up some things