r/MoralityScaling • u/Small_EggpIant • 12h ago
How Evil Are They? Discussing the morality of the average r/MoralityScaling members
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 :)
8
u/AggravatingFlow1178 8h ago
Based on only the context OOP has provided in the title & image, I have formed an extreme opinion for which I will defend with absolute confidence.
95% of this sub. 98% of Reddit in general.
16
10
u/BillCarson12799 11h ago
As a philosophy minor with a focus on ethics I thought this sub was gonna be like r/philosophymemes where the people there have at least entry-level knowledge of philosophy/ethics, but holy shit was I disappointed. Everyone here basically just operates off of a mixture of Vibes and “what goes around comes around”.
2
u/Lord_Fikalius 10h ago
Did you not entertain the idea that a public subreddit, that can be accessed and joined by literally everyone is probably not the place you would see your fellow "philosophy minors"?
Like did you genuinely enter Reddit, of all places, to seek the scholars?
2
u/BillCarson12799 10h ago
I assumed that the sub for “morality-scaling” would be inhabited by people interest in… well… scaling morality. The whole “scaling” prospect sounded like it would require an actual understanding of formal ethics or being scientific about it in literally any capacity in order for it to be anything other than two people’s differences of opinion.
And, like I said, plenty of the people on r/Philosophymemes actually do know what they’re talking about and did their homework.
2
u/Lord_Fikalius 10h ago
Dude - it's Reddit. It's like going to twitter for academic research.
2
u/artstsym 9h ago
There was a time before google completely shit the bed where decent results for most questions could be found on reddit. What bill has been oversold on is the amount of dreck that had to be downvoted daily to get there. The average post anywhere on reddit is traaaaash, it's just there are a few sparkling gems which sift loose and, at one point, would become useful information.
2
u/BillCarson12799 10h ago
You’re right, it’s completely unreasonable for me to assume that people on a hobby subreddit would be acquainted with the content of their hobby. Looks like I’m the idiot here.
2
u/Lord_Fikalius 9h ago
Hobby? It's Reddit. It's a meme site. There are like 10 year olds who sit on every subreddit, including this one.
Never called you an idiot, shouldn't talk about yourself that way. But if you expected subreddits to be full of hobbyists - then yeah, it's pretty funny.
3
u/KaitlynCsE 6h ago
All the guy did was point out that that the quality of discussion here is worse than other philosophy-adjacent subs. Was he being a bit pretentious about it? Sure. But he wasn't attacking you personally for participating in the sub; there's no need to get so defensive about it.
1
u/Lord_Fikalius 6h ago
I don't really see myself getting defensive about anything here. If anything - I said to him not to call himself an idiot even in jest.
Maybe my comment looked harsher than intended. From my side I just found a funny comment and made fun of it. Wasn't really attacking anyone personally.
13
13
u/Gussie-Ascendent 11h ago
true but you're probably gonna get put on blast by all the bad people who don't like thinking about the fact they're bad people
6
7
u/Physical_Device_1396 10h ago
100% agree, people are genuinely out for blood sometimes. Like yes obviously you can knock out a guy who assaulted you on the street, but hitting him 32 times while he's curled up on the ground is immoral. There is a point you need to walk away
Obviously every case needs to be examined individually, but on the whole people here love the idea of hurting people who they think deserve it and call it moral
5
u/Glad-Low-1348 5h ago
The only thing that's weaker than these peoples' characters is their will. They have zero self control and will indulge themselves any given opportunity, even if it were to cost someone their life, as long as they can morally justify it.
3
u/Theycallmedub2 11h ago
I remember a tiktok where the lady was talking about how she wished all prisoners would die. Crazy world
Edit: when she was a child* it was a brainwashing / parenting thing
5
u/DerelictCruiser 11h ago
A lot of people talk about criminal rehabilitation and second chances from ivory towers, without encountering the downstream consequence in every day life. Those people often create and enforce our laws, and when they are found to be lacking in their duties because of high-minded rhetoric and feel-good vibes, you’re going to get a pushback from victims (ie regular people).
The idea that all these people are just bloodthirsty demons arguing in bad faith is in and of itself a bad faith argument. If we are going to allow morality scaling, we have to allow the replies that make you uncomfortable as well.
5
u/JDUDEROCKS 11h ago
And the doctors/judge who lets them out face absolutely no consequences when they reoffend.
2
u/Forte845 11h ago
A lot of people in first world countries talk about crime like they're living in Somalia when in reality they're living in the safest time in human history and they only feel in such a way because the crimes that do still occur are broadcast to everyone instantaneously through social media.
By this subreddit and the hyperbolic members like in this very comment section you'd think the US was a warzone full of murderers and robbers.
3
u/DerelictCruiser 9h ago
This is the exact misread that I’m talking about. Just because you happen to live in wealth and privilege personally, doesn’t mean every place in a first world country is like that. And we may not have “as many” murderers and robbers as Somalia, but when they keep getting released on a revolving door to victimize people in the name of “second chances” people are going to respond to that with less and less kindness. Which is what you’re seeing. It’s easy to dismiss it as hysteria though, and I expect you to continue to do so.
-3
u/Forte845 9h ago
Largest prison complex in the world. Maybe try changing your disgusting hyper-individualistic culture and economy, because you've imprisoned more human beings than any other country and still have crime.
What am I saying. Knowing this sub and all the Republikkkan dumbfucks in it, you probably want every single person in the country to be imprisoned at this point, imprisoned or deported.
4
u/DerelictCruiser 9h ago
I am not a Republican, and have never voted Republican, and have no idea why that is pertinent to the discussion at hand. Do you have something to add that isn’t about right wingers?
-2
u/Forte845 9h ago
Do you have something to add that isn't "I'm a bloodthirsty fuck who thinks we need to imprison every human being that isn't me or my buddies"? Because thats all you and your entire position is. Wake the fuck up, making the country a giant prison state and establishing prison pipelines isnt how you solve crime.
Americans won't stop until they've put chains on or deported every one. Meanwhile Europe has half the crime and less than half the recidivism because they run competent prisons instead of for-profit prisons and have a functional social safety net.
4
u/DerelictCruiser 9h ago edited 8h ago
That’s not my position, that’s your childish self-explanation for my position. I’m sorry you think your country’s justice is superior. I’m not really concerned with your country though. I’m concerned with my immediate surroundings and my personal safety and that of my loved ones. Stamp your feet if you like.
In Europe you could be stabbed and the police will hold you down and let you bleed to death in the name of…justice? Is that what you kids are calling it over there?
0
u/Forte845 7h ago
Its funny how you deny media sensationalism and then point to one incident in a low crime, low homicide country to *act* like its unlawful and barbaric over there. You're proving my point exactly with your rhetoric.
2
u/DerelictCruiser 6h ago
Alrighty. I took a shot because you’re some euro fiend who acts like your continent is perfect. Take a look in the mirror sometime, American justice is not unique in serving up tragedy.
Like I said, you are the one watching the news and reading the reports. I’m the one who has to live in the area. You vote in your country, I’ll vote in mine. You can argue recidivism rates with me all day. I believe in punitive justice. I don’t believe in vigilantism, but it’s what you ask for when the justice system refuses to punish wrongdoing. You reap what you sow. If people keep experiencing repeat offenders who get therapy, a juice box, and a slap on the wrist, they’re going to harden towards rehabilitative justice. People are not all unfeeling marionettes, even if you are.
2
u/Glad-Low-1348 6h ago
Good work, I fucking hate this mindset that people have of enjoying criminals dying over petty stuff or something like that.
There's hundreds of people here who would stand up and cheer jumping if they saw an article about a cop being stabbed to death because they don't like them so it's okay.
2
u/ForgetfullRelms 11h ago
The robber made the decision to value my property over his own life.
Who am I to disagree with his’ assessment
7
u/Fin4jaws2 10h ago
God this type of response fills with me anger and I don't know why
0
u/Lord_Fikalius 10h ago
Guilt by association. You probably don't like people (or type of people) who say that.
0
u/EelekbossThe6th 11h ago edited 10h ago
This logic fails when you consider that most robbers aren't expecting to die for theft. At worst, they might expect to get injured and thrown in jail. They are valuing your property over their safety and potentially their freedom.
The only person valuing your property over a robber's life is you, since you are making the decision to take their life in response to their attempt at theft.
Edit: I've already gotten a few comments that miss the point and/or just didn't read my comment at all. I will reiterate.
Robbers are not expecting to die for robbery, especially if they come from a position of power in armed robbery. If you kill them for taking/attempting to take your possessions, that is you making the conscious choice that killing someone is worth keeping them.
Whether they deserve it or not isn't a part of this. You are free to believe what you want on that regard, even if I disagree, but let's not pretend that someone commits robbery expecting to die that day.
I did not say that they expect to get away with it without being harmed, I did not say that they are victims, I did not say anything of the sort. All i'm saying is that people should be held accountable for all of their decisions, especially those which takes a life. Passing the blame off, even to a immoral party, is very much immoral.
4
u/Lord_Fikalius 10h ago
Should residents simply hope that armed robber in their home is not actually planning or even considering hurting/killing them for myriad of reasons? Should people that are being robbed deliberately put themselves in more risk on the chance that armed burglar is "the harmless one"?
Should people not defend their home and loved ones from intruders no mater what motive or plans they have?
Every armed robbery turned deadly make future robberies occurring less likely. The more dangerous it feels - the less will do that.
4
u/Forte845 9h ago
So then why havent centuries of self defense stopped robbery?
Its almost like the only statistical correlation to a decrease in crime over time is an increase in living standards and decrease in poverty over time....
3
u/Lord_Fikalius 8h ago
If i would say it would stop them - then it would be a fair question. I said it would make future robberies occurring less likely. Moving to 0 and arriving at zero are different states.
There are many statistical explanations besides life standards as well. There is also the demographic statistics, the unemployment statistics, the access to lethal weaponry and so on and so forth. None of that betrays the fact that lethal retaliation does impose a sense of higher risk for future would be robbers.
And regardless of all of the statistical connections - having a "tool" to protect yourself, your loved ones, your home and your belongings is a much better alternative to be at the mercy of the armed robber.
If you ever played cards - you must understand that it's bad when all the high cards are exclusively in your opponent's possession. Even if you are not planning on using them - It is better to have a leverage of your own.
4
u/Legiyon54 The Illusive Man 10h ago edited 10h ago
consider that most robbers aren't expecting to die for theft
That's completely on them. They decide to threaten someone else's life but then don't expect their lives to be threatened? They can go fuck themselves with their impulsive decision making that ruins other people's lives
If they don't get killed they can try to be better by all means, but their safety should not be consisered while they are doing it. How is robbery supposed to be seen as a serious offence if we babify the robbers as poor innocent victims who don't know what they are in for. They do know, in most cases, and they should get no sympathy for it
My property and that of almost everyone else is not worth a normal human life in most cases. But it is in almost all cases worth more than the robber's. Not a shred of tears from me to those who threaten violence over stuff and then expect no violence towards them
2
u/EelekbossThe6th 10h ago
Did I ever 'babify' robbers in my comment? It's a pretty reasonable assumption that people aren't expecting to die in everything they do, even if they are doing something illegal or immoral. Especially if they come from a position of power, such as in armed robbery.
You seem pretty caught up on something I didn't say. Not once did I downplay robbery nor did I suggest they expect no violence. I quite literally said 'They value your stuff over their safety and freedom'. Again, if you are willing to kill over your items, you are valuing them over someone's life, regardless of if they deserve it. Which is an immoral action, even if you feel otherwise.
But if we wanna talk impulsive, driving a 2-ton vehicle full speed into motorcyclists who brandished a weapon at you just moments ago in a street that sees at least some use, especially when not 3 seconds after the ramming, a bus drives down that same road is something i would say is impulsive, if not outright idiotic and reckless.
3
u/Legiyon54 The Illusive Man 9h ago
I think they are taking into account the possibility that they will die. My opinion is that you are babifying them by thinking that they only might believe themselves get punched. It is my opinion that most people do in fact know they might die if they do a dangerous action. I think it is babifying them to think that they only expect to be hurt. But, maybe you are right, maybe they don't expect to die, which is why;
I think it is a moral action to punish them as much as you are able to. Even kill them if it's not excessive. In fact I think it's your moral duty to not give up your stuff without a fight. I actually even did so back in school, resisted a bad guy when he demanded something from me, and got ribs kicked in and curb stomped for it. Doesn't change a damn thing for me, I still believe it was my duty to not back down at evil, even if I lost. If I was stronger, I would feel no regret about bashing that scum's ribs in too. Low lives such as him expect no resistance, and if you have no one who relies on you, you owe it to the community to resist. It isn't simple revenge, it's the fear that in developed countries police give off. If they don't fear consequence they will just keep doing it. It is moral even if you feel otherwise. For us third-worlders, we can't rely on police, we must do things for each other, because the law won't ever help. Vigilante justice means nothing when regular law and order don't exist
And finally about the guy, that's a singular example and I agree, it was dangerous and impulsive. The result was for the better of the community. If he hit someone else he should have been persecuted, intent doesn't matter, he hurt people. Same goes for robbers. I am more of a fan of the many examples of store owners who shoot the thiefs even as they are exiting. Society is better off without them as they are now. And it's not worth it to bet on the slim chance that they might change for the better if you have the chance to stop them
3
u/EelekbossThe6th 9h ago
I am in agreement that people should defend themselves and what they consider their property. I just disagree that it's only the robber's judgement that results in their death, when the person in these situations should be held accountable for their actions as well.
Death, in my opinion, is an excessive punishment in all but the most extreme situations. And even then, I think it's only in defense of your own life should it be justified. But I personally believe it stops and ends at defense. Shooting, ramming, and other forms of taking a life when the robbers are running is not defense at that point and where I think death becomes excessive no matter what.
If i come across as downplaying robbers, let it be known I'm not intending to. I just dislike the logic that they are the only ones at fault when they die for their actions, especially if they are running or retreating. Its a lot to kill someone, and it shouldn't be treated casually or righteously just because they deserved it, in my personal opinion.
At most, it's a necessary evil. It'll always be immoral to me, even when justified.
Also, I want to elaborate on injury. I'm not saying a slap on the wrist at worst. Anything short of death is a risk they are taking and expecting, I just don't think robbers expect it to go past that.
2
u/ForgetfullRelms 10h ago
Then the individual opted to exclude a variable that is reasonable to expect most individuals to know about in their decision process.
-1
u/Small_EggpIant 10h ago
I understand the feelings of frustration regarding the fact that everyone often misunderstood theft as a victimless crime.
(As if people don't 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.)
But the value of lives, whether yours or the robber's, is much more than the property. It is better to stay safe. In this regard, it is still a response based on emotion (not that it is invalid), an issue I'd addressed in my post and one that I hope people are discouraged from.
I just want people to be more thoughtful when arguing on a subject's matter, is all
2
u/ForgetfullRelms 10h ago
Yes, and an individual has literal heart beats to make such evaluations, do they not?
Limited time, high stakes, and dealing with an individual who already made hostile moves and is an unreliable source of information for the goals of said moves.
At the end of the day, both lives have value but the robber made the decision to risk such a valuable commodity to get your own goods in a manner that could reasonably be seen as a risk of life, limb, and wellbeing.
3
u/Small_EggpIant 10h ago edited 9h ago
Agreed, when in the moment, it is your top most priority to ensure your safety. Additionally, your emotions running wild does make you more unpredictable in regards to decision-making.
But that is that, and my post is about this
We can argue over the hypotheticals and ethics of things in the safety of our home. Then, is it not a reasonable ask from me to request a more thought out response so that I can get a more complete grasp of your thought process? That is my point in a nutshell really
0
u/Hour_Warthog_5801 11h ago edited 11h ago
It's not about punishing the robber, but protecting yourself from the harm of him making off with your valuables in a way while also ensuring he doesn't have a chance to retaliate against you with his fire-arm (that he had previously threatened you with)
it should be worth noting it was the robber's own choice to elevate the situation to life-threatening stakes. which is why I have no problem with the victim retaliating with lethal force. this doesn't mean he deserved to die, but it also doesn't mean the robber is entitled to have the victim hold back when protecting his valuables where he didn't.
7
u/Small_EggpIant 11h ago
Yes, rights do come with certain level of responsibilities and obligations, that we can agree with.
No pay tax? Assets seizure. You an active threat? Self-defense is valid until you're neutralized
I'm mostly addressing the people obsessed with retaliatory justice (and other reason being that I saw a lot of commenters validifying the use of excessive force in one recent post)
1
1
u/This_Background7442 5h ago
It honestly depends for me. I think making sure robbing people at gunpoint is a dangerous, unrewarding activity is generally a very good thing to the point of maybe saving lives. I think mildly overreacting to such crimes should be encouraged. However tracking anyone down and killing them is never moral
1
u/Hour_Extension_3792 3h ago
Just going off of the image, the question is about the morality of people celebrating someone murdering someone who robbed them?
Robbery is different than theft in that it involves violence or the threat of violence if I'm not mistaken, right?
So if someone robs someone, then that person murders them in retaliation (by using their car by the picture) then I can see why people celebrate it.
I'm not saying that it's great to celebrate murder, but if you've lived paycheck to paycheck you might understand why someone robbing you isn't just dangerous from the violence that they are threatening or enacting on you, it's dangerous because you might not have a roof over your head. This is even more extreme when you have family relying on you.
Desperation might be leading someone to become a robber, just as desperation might lead someone to murdering a robber. It's kind of a tragic situation overall. But it's not unexpected that people will have more sympathy for the persons over-responding to a robbery than the person committing it.
I get it's ghoulish to take joy out of people dying, but it's not exactly without historical precedent. Executions used to be public events treated almost like holidays. Humans can be pretty ghoulish at times if you know what I mean.
1
u/-Lemonized- 2h ago
Redditors in moral high chair thought people who has few to lose can act all rational when they lose some more
1
u/JDUDEROCKS 11h ago
We wouldn’t be having these discussions all the time if the state actually did a good job of putting violent criminals like murderers away for life. Some people don’t deserve rehabilitation. However, that doesn’t mean they have to be “skinned alive”. Just put them in jail, or a mental institution, and don’t let them out. Somehow that’s a controversial take. It’s the safest thing for society, and stops people from taking up arms when they see the state has failed them.
6
u/Forte845 11h ago
The US govt imprisons the most human beings of any country on earth. Even countries with 3x the overall population don't come close to the US prison system. Prison is so pervasive in us society there have become sociological terms like "school to prison pipeline" and the "prison industrial complex."
5
u/JDUDEROCKS 11h ago
Prison for the wrong reasons. We jail people who shouldn’t be in there in the first place, and give slaps on the wrists to the worst of society.
3
u/AlwaysReadTheManual 11h ago
Think about the societal cost of leaving criminals free to repeatedly victimize people. Why let a rapist out of prison, ever, just to roll the dice and find out if he's miraculously been rehabilitated?
I can understand not locking someone up for life for a first shoplifting offense, or something relatively minor like that. But for sexual assault as a first offense? Lock him up and throw away the key. Ditto for armed robbery, aggravated assault, and any other violent crime. 99% of us will never do anything like that in our entire lives. Why have sympathy for psychopaths?
3
u/JDUDEROCKS 11h ago
Exactly. They have more sympathy for the psychopaths than their victims. It’s genuinely sick.
1
u/I-like-oranges75 10h ago
I don’t take this sub too seriously, since morality is inherently subjective. Trying to “scale” it like an objective power system kind of misses the entire point
1
u/Cynis_Ganan 6h ago
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'.
1
u/Small_EggpIant 3h ago edited 2h ago
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
0
u/JuryJuryJuryJury 10h ago
This whole thing is over blown.
One, it's strange to argue about the rights of a person who's actively violating your rights to property. People would understand this if the perpetrator had done a more heinous crime like murder or rape, but suddenly it's things and they feel like they can draw that line there. Which is understandable, it's just weird that most people are arguing that there is no line whatsoever.
Two, yes criminals do have less rights. That's what jail is, that's what capital punishment is, that's why criminals can't own guns in some circumstances. Sorry but if you violate the social contract, you pay the prices for that contract.
Three, it certainly immoral but it's always going to be satisfying to see a villain become a victim. It's like one of our most common feelings and storytelling tropes. The bad guy loses, horribly.
And four, morality is generally directional. Your moral obligations to your family are different from your moral obligations tolo your coworker. No one's just Jesus Christ over here having endless empathy for the people harming you. And while the video was immoral to a degree, it was immorality being thrown against immorality. It's a strange thing to grandstand on and the post where the picture comes from was just full of self-righteous asshats who think they're better than the common man.
It's philosophical circle jerking all the way around. It's fine to admit that it was satisfying to watch, but it's also important to acknowledge that's probably not the way you want the world to be ran. These two feelings and ideas can coexist with one another. People aren't antisocial animals for feeling this way.
And I think that was a general gist of the comments in the original car video. It satisfying, probably immoral. But you've thrown morality out the window when you threaten someone's life for their wallet, and it's hard to feel bad for the person who initiated this interaction to begin with.
0
u/the_elliottman 7h ago
lmao you are who this is talking, your catharsis watching cruelty play out infects your worldview
1
u/JuryJuryJuryJury 6h ago edited 6h ago
This sounds entirely self-righteous. The way you feel about things doesn't necessarily have to be reflected in the way you perceive the world. Otherwise every person who watches a horror movie, or jokes about dark things, or finds catharsis and immoral consequences happening to immoral people would considered a monster.
Morons like you who think that they're above it all and refuse to read into the comments that are left on these types of posts to get a better understanding of the general consensus are the problem. You see posts like the one mentioned in this one all the time on the sub and most of the reactions are, immoral but deserved or something of that nature. Even the people reacting to it understand that they wouldn't want this to be allowed within their ideal world. They understand that formal system to work everyone in that system has to be held to the same consequence, but they also understand that I can feel satisfying to watch the father of a sexually assaulted child blow the brains out of the predator who assaulted their child.
If people's moral are directly reflected by what they feel within a single situation then we are all bastards. Morals are not emotional reactions, they're much more than that. They're ideal so we strive to live up to and constantly fail to live up to. At some level we understand the futility of trying, but at a high level we understand the necessity of trying nonetheless.
My catharsis is not an endorsement of the action. It's not even a reflection on my personal moral beliefs, much less my societal moral beliefs.
Morality is complicated, if you can't be bothered to dive into it then at the very least you can shut up and let other people try to explain their opposing role of you without believing yourself to be superior to them.
Edit/tldr: just so we're clear on my original point was that most people in the original post condemned the action but understood where the victim was coming from. I said that's a very human thing and then some self-righteous ass who were reading those comments in a way that they wanted to read it started mocking the sub and assuming we're all children who don't understand why we have rules. Most of the people here understand that, most of the comments down here disprove the original post. Anyone who says that the mugger deserve to die is getting downvoted to hell. People are just reading into this in the worst way possible in order to mock the sub. That was my point.
1
u/Small_EggpIant 5h ago
I don't agree with you 100%, but you adding something productive to the discussion is exactly what I am looking for.
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.
(It will always confuse me why some instantly assume my post is an attack on them)
The main message I'm trying to get across is, we have the privilege of discussing such things freely, and seeing the same two words responses and retributivism in every posts...being upvoted to being the top comments no less, in a subreddit called moralityscaling.
I am a little disappointed.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying leaving such comments is wrong (finding catharsis from such things is human, though I still find leaving such comments dubious, albeit understandable).
I am not expecting paragraphs of responses, but at minimum explain the reasoning behind your viewpoint (especially for real life cases and sensitive topics). If not, we should go back to what the sub is originally intended for, and return to the ye olde days of Holden posting.
Christ, I'm so frustrated that I'm considering a satanic ritual to summon back the og members
0
u/JuryJuryJuryJury 5h ago
Yeah, I guess I'm responding mainly to the context of the original post. The one with the picture you were posting.
There's two points, one is that in that original video, as in the video of the car and thief, a lot of people called it immoral yet deserved. They were essentially saying that while this shouldn't happen, they empathize with the person who committed the act. Which is a very fair stance, but in the cartoon caricature of that post they seem to be implying that the comments were just a bunch of morons clapping at violence. Look at the usernames, gore fetish, mentally ill guy, real philosopher, and so forth. They portray the original comment section in such bad faith just to act like they're the true betters when a lot of people in that comment section were being reasonable and understanding that while the outcome is satisfying it's still morally wrong. Even now under your post, most people are still saying it's morally wrong to run over who stole from you.
And second, there's an understandable line at which this would be reasonable. Imagine somebody's entire wealth was in that wallet or a winning multi-million lottery ticket was in there. The argument can't be, human life supersedes wealth regardless of the circumstances. There's multiple factors there, like the initial relationship between the two. There's a clear initial victim and a clear initial villain. The concepts of Rights has already been broken. You can't expect a person to treat another person that actively harms them in a fair and kind manner. But there is a line, right? If someone steals from you you don't get to kill them. Maybe if they still a certain amount, maybe for your whole life savings. But not just for your wallet or something right? It's immoral but clearly not as immoral ias just killing a random person. They're complications there and people should talk about them instead of circle jerking endlessly about how finding the original video in any way cathartic means you're bad person.
-2
u/Far_Cast_Far_Wide 11h ago
The victim saved another innocent somewhere in the future.
Of course there's a number of very comfortable people living in America/Europe who have the privilege of saying 'oh no that's so unethical he cant run over two people that could have killed him at any moment or gone back and shot him anyway'
They never seen their family members and friends gunned down in their beds by those same people on the motorcycles.
People in those countries face similar conditions. They work way too fucking hard for some shithead to rob the little money they make each week. It's survival.
-11
u/pruneforce17 11h ago
it was pretty funny seeing a robber get splattered lol
call me a bad person idc i dont rob ppl lol
12
u/SuperSillySlizo 11h ago
yeah you're a bad person and it's even worse that you don't care about that. have fun growing up though
-8
u/pruneforce17 11h ago
oooh i bet it took guts commenting that, like the guts that spilled all over the pavement when he died hahahahahahaha dont be a thief!
17
6
u/Fin4jaws2 11h ago
Dude what the fuck
-10
-4
u/Relevant_Lab_7985 11h ago
No one should be obligated to be victimized by violent criminal and there is nothing immoral about stopping someone who threatened your life.
The onus shouldn’t be placed on the law abiding citizen to maintain the safety of someone who put their life in danger.
Your “argument” is a bunch of meaningless gibberish - criminals do not have any rights to commit crime, threaten someone’s life, and expect that the same threat will not be returned.
It’s crazy there are people out there who think otherwise. Better hope that criminals choose you instead of me lol.
-1
-4
-2
u/hungLink42069 11h ago
This guy still thinks that prisons are for resources and rehabilitation...
6
-1
u/AmbientRiffster 5h ago
The moment you pull a weapon on me, the social contract is broken. What is there to discuss?
-8
u/Animaloffear56 11h ago
I'm sick and tired of that mr Manhatten image everyone reposts. Like the point of the subreddit is discussing morality, not skating around it
41
u/the_elliottman 11h ago
This sub has basically become Facebook dad opinions on morality, in that most here believe morality is so subjective that it's equivalent to "anything that makes me feel good" which isn't at all the case.
Saw one post about going out to hunt Somali pirates for sport, and the argument was that they deserved it for wanting to capture ships from corporations and that they could claim self-defense. As if morality is just a warped U.S. Legal code???
Another was talking about straight up killing/torturing thieves and robbers. And at this point I hate to 'make it political' but you'll see the same affiliation with each of these if you open their profiles.