At what point does it become moral for a collective to do immoral things?

[gt1guy]

If it is 'for our good' it is moral. We are allowed to define what is good and that definition is ever changing and tends to be determined if you are the one acting or being acted upon.

Example: We had American citizens put in camps the same time nazi's were loading jews into cattle cars.

We eventually sent them back home, we didn't gas them to death. They got benched for the game.

If China attacked the US tomorrow, you don't think folks wouldn't look twice at the Chinese living here, wondering if they were spies?

 

[DWT]

The world has been dealing with the Jews a lot longer than the wagon burners. Here in the US we have to deal with wagon burner bullshit exponentially more than Jews so I understand that perspective.

 

[blakes]

If China attacked the US tomorrow, you don't think folks wouldn't look twice at the Chinese living here, wondering if they were spies?

Lol

They would pass a law basically making it a hate crime with severe punishment protecting the Chinese folks if the Chinese were to attack us.

 

[Lilyota]

Aren't we already there?

I only say that because of the French thread.


Those people aren't even supposed to have firearms according to their government.


But the do and they're fed up .

And making a statement.


And then you have poke and some white monkey arguing over getting off the porch

Nobody wants to be the first because no body is willing to risk their possessions

I'm not so here I sit.


But until somebody does this is where we sit.


Rubbin our trophies.



Did I goof this all up

 

[[486]]

Diffine morality.

I don't think that really matters

pedo muslims, cannibal africans, sexually communal eskimos, east-asian bug-men (how they act as if the individual is entirely worthless, like ants)

the question posed can be relative to any zero-point

 

[[486]]

So, how hard is it to justify eliminating people who do evil that hurts many people?

Example: would you dispose of (insert name of congressperson) based on their bad deeds?

Counter; the person who seeks the job of executioner is morally bankrupt and clearly a danger

Similar with prison guards, they've chosen a career path which has them confining people against their will. Are they not clearly the sorts predisposed to keeping someone chained to the radiator?

Police, choosing to shoot people for not wearing their seat belt.

congress/presidents; the decisions which lead to millions of deaths in war
Also, easily to pass blame onto for all authoritarian rules that those working beneath them enforce.

 

[[486]]

Usually, when you agree with them.

That's what I keep coming back upon.

I really hate it as an answer though, because it basically means propagandists are the actual leaders of a society. Strength is nothing without will, after all.

 

[Kyle]

Research the “Noble Lie” from
Plato and correlate it to today. Small lies influence major changes.

 

[[486]]

Never. If you cross that line, you’re no better than the people you despise.

<3
This is why I can't support any sort of system dependent upon coercion.
Man cannot lord over man, simple as.


Sometimes dickheads do need to be murdered (rapists, murderers, thieves, abusers, etc), but it is both so very situational and personal that there's no way that an impersonal bureaucracy could ever be trusted with the power to carry out such a task.
To offload the responsibility of policing society is to create a caste of immoral monsters, it also makes punishment impersonal or 'just a job' which can only result in a more stark and severe divide between that caste and the society they are nominally a part of.

 

[ExWrench]

<3
This is why I can't support any sort of system dependent upon coercion.
Man cannot lord over man, simple as.


Sometimes dickheads do need to be murdered (rapists, murderers, thieves, abusers, etc), but it is both so very situational and personal that there's no way that an impersonal bureaucracy could ever be trusted with the power to carry out such a task.
To offload the responsibility of policing society is to create a caste of immoral monsters, it also makes punishment impersonal or 'just a job' which can only result in a more stark and severe divide between that caste and the society they are nominally a part of.

Though the reality is far from it, do you like the idea of judgement coming from a disinterested 3rd party?

Related question: if the judgement of a lynch mob is ~wrong to the community, do you form a gang to take them out?

 

[arse_sidewards]

Never. If you cross that line, you’re no better than the people you despise.

Someone has to take the fall though.

How much better would society be if all the commies, Roc Docs, authoritarians and pedos (ignoring the difficulty of identifying those unsavory types for a minute) were sharing a hole?

Is that kind of work moral? Hell no. Does someone gotta nut up and do it? Of fucking course.

Now think about a fractional middle ground between that and just letting them run around unchecked. That's where modern society exists. Modern society doesn't give undesirables a free shower. But it also doesn't give them a free ride. It makes life hard until they get on the "right" path. We jail them and harass them with the state and all sorts of other stuff. Does that make modern society evil? IDK. Fractionally evil at the very least...

Similar with prison guards, they've chosen a career path which has them confining people against their will. Are they not clearly the sorts predisposed to keeping someone chained to the radiator?

Police, choosing to shoot people for not wearing their seat belt.

congress/presidents; the decisions which lead to millions of deaths in war
Also, easily to pass blame onto for all authoritarian rules that those working beneath them enforce.

They're all evil but to some degree those types are a necessary evil (not necessarily in those roles or with that authority) and the best we can do is curtail them. We let them vote and have rights and shit because that's easier than articulating why they shouldn't to the masses.

 

[[486]]

Though the reality is far from it, do you like the idea of judgement coming from a disinterested 3rd party?

Related question: if the judgement of a lynch mob is ~wrong to the community, do you form a gang to take them out?

people are generally 'good'

meaning, there's always going to be less victimizers than victims on the whole

 

[[486]]

They're all evil but to some degree those types are a necessary evil (not necessarily in those roles or with that authority) and the best we can do is curtail them. We let them vote and have rights and shit because that's easier than articulating why they shouldn't to the masses.

bullshit, when is it necessary to put someone in prison for 25 years

if they're irredeemable then they'll eventually try and take from someone that ain't having it and end up dead
if they're going to 'mend their ways' how does forcing them to associate with similar outcasts speed that along? you become who you associate with

 

[gt1guy]

Lol

They would pass a law basically making it a hate crime with severe punishment protecting the Chinese folks if the Chinese were to attack us.

That wouldn't surprise me. At the same time the FBI/CIA would illegally create a folder on every single one of them too.

 

[gt1guy]

bullshit, when is it necessary to put someone in prison for 25 years

if they're irredeemable then they'll eventually try and take from someone that ain't having it and end up dead
if they're going to 'mend their ways' how does forcing them to associate with similar outcasts speed that along? you become who you associate with

There shouldn't be life without parole, life, 20+ year prison terms. All that shit should be death. You've had a jury of your peers agree that you should no longer be a part of society. Bullet, cremation, ashes thrown in the trash.

No reason to keep someone alive who isn't allowed to be part of society.

 

[ArTi54N]

makes me think of music videos, cher wearing a seat belt dancing on a battleship wasn't recieved well.. now look at what women get away with..

 

[Landslide]

My brother's in laws are "old school" religious.

I mentioned drinking some beers around the campfire and they looked at me like I'd just told a story about clubbing puppies and bald eagles.

You’re using a blanket statement when it’s more then likely just one or two religious factions that disapprove of alcoholic beverages.

 

[Landslide]

I'd say when your children are directly threatened, most morals go out the window.

Something like, say michael brown’s parents?

 

[Landslide]

Never. If you cross that line, you’re no better than the people you despise.

 

[Landslide]

How’s it moral to kill unborn babies and behave like it’s a right to do so?

 

[gt1guy]

How’s it moral to kill unborn babies and behave like it’s a right to do so?

Because the human race is actually still no different than any other animal walking the earth. Our big ol brains have allowed us to lie to ourselves into believing that we've evolved so much in a few hundred thousand years. At our core, not a lot of evolution has taken place, we've just built a lot of shit.

 

[78bronco460]

My short answer is never. The immoral thing may still need done, but let’s not pretend it’s moral. Own it.

 

[Landslide]

We eventually sent them back home, we didn't gas them to death. They got benched for the game.

If China attacked the US tomorrow, you don't think folks wouldn't look twice at the Chinese living here, wondering if they were spies?

My issue with this is, how do you know what nation the Asian you’re looking at came from?

 

[Landslide]

Aren't we already there?

I only say that because of the French thread.


Those people aren't even supposed to have firearms according to their government.


But the do and they're fed up .

And making a statement.


And then you have poke and some white monkey arguing over getting off the porch

Nobody wants to be the first because no body is willing to risk their possessions

I'm not so here I sit.


But until somebody does this is where we sit.


Rubbin our trophies.



Did I goof this all up

Well, that one Frenchman stood up against the rioters to protect his property and they broke his bones and cut off one of his hands. That’s a pretty good deterrent for others to stand up against them.

It’s no different here really, people who stand up or get caught in the middle of riots here don’t fair very well and never have.

 

[gt1guy]

My issue with this is, how do you know what nation the Asian you’re looking at came from?

Anyone who runs is a VC, anyone who doesn't run is a well disciplined VC.

 

[IowaOffRoad]

OP asks a question that seems simple but individuals and societies have been grappling with for years. I've been personally grappling with this as well for most of my adult life, and it has definitely been at the forefront of my mind since I've been raising kids as I want to arm them with the most moral principles that I can so the complications of life won't cause them to be suicidal and depressed. Here's what I've come up with:

All societies are tacitly based on consent and trade-offs. Even the most totalitarian government of antiquity could be overthrown by a large enough mob (losing consent) though they would only throw them off if the regime in power failed to attend to the needs of the governed for long enough (the trade-off). It's really only in the last 100 years that technology has really been able to isolate the elite from the rabble in such a way that regimes like N.Korea and Xi's China can exist.

The founding fathers of America added something else to this equation: The idea that Man as an individual had inherent rights regardless of government (endowed by their creator) so any government that had intent to rule the people had to serve this other master, as encapsulated by the preamble of the Declaration of Independence: "...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

No longer would it be implicit that the .gov had ultimate authority, in this mode the people have ultimate authority but 'loan' that authority to the elected .gov in order that things that are difficult to impossible for the individual to effectuate have the power of the collective. Every thing the US government should be doing is encapsulated by this: "...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." -from the preamble of the Constitution.

One of the issues with this that has been brought up in this and other threads is all of this relies on a single precept: The "people" need to have some agreement on what is "moral", which used to be defined by Christian values as understood by everyone then and now if you are being intellectually honest. Regardless of what you think about religion in general and Christianity in particular (or Judeo-Christianity, there's certainly precedent for lumping them together and IMO the values are the same, Christianity just reinforces the morals of the Torah). At John Adams said: "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other".

There's a line from the Book of Revelations that illustrates the problem with being ambiguous with where you stand regarding morality. "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth." This has been interpreted as being ambivalent towards religion or God, but it has also been interpreted as the danger of being a "moral relativist". This is also what Abraham Lincoln meant when he stated in the "house divided" speech:
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."

This as all a preface to the answer to OP: Doing immoral things as a collective is wrong. A government shouldn't be so powerful that 'the collective' is capable of signing off on "immoral things". For a government to get that powerful is a sign it is too powerful.
However, if you are a Quaker you will say that doing anything that may kill another being is wrong. If you are a pacifist you feel the same. If there was a majority of Quakers or pacifists then we would have a government that would reflect that. Good luck protecting your borders.
If you are Hindu you think that it's immoral for the individual to kill cattle so the government reflects that. Hope you don't care for cheeseburgers.
Also, one of the reasons why the head of the executive is supposedly "commander in chief" as well as technically being the head of the enforcement arm of the federal government is that person, that single person, can bear the burden of making the decision, which is what the executive is supposed to do, moral or not. If you are truly a moral person who shares those morals with those who elected you then the weight of "immoral things" will be such they should only occur under duress and in the most limited way possible. If they were truly immoral and without justification that person can be removed. I think the problem is definitional which is why I prefaced it with so much background. One persons "murder" is another persons "submission hold that went awry".

So, we will adopt a set of morals collectively and have a government that reflects those morals; we have to agree on some basic principles or we will be "lukewarm" or "half and half". We will find ourselves in a hot civil war where neither side will really have the moral high ground if they do what they have to in order to win it, but if you truly believe your moral superior you will have to win it or the reprehensible side will win out. What comes out the other side will cease to become ambiguous and this conversation will enter the rhetorical realm again.

 

[Landslide]

Because the human race is actually still no different than any other animal walking the earth. Our big ol brains have allowed us to lie to ourselves into believing that we've evolved so much in a few hundred thousand years. At our core, not a lot of evolution has taken place, we've just built a lot of shit.

“Civilized society” and all that.

 

[Landslide]

OP asks a question that seems simple but individuals and societies have been grappling with for years. I've been personally grappling with this as well for most of my adult life, and it has definitely been at the forefront of my mind since I've been raising kids as I want to arm them with the most moral principles that I can so the complications of life won't cause them to be suicidal and depressed. Here's what I've come up with:

All societies are tacitly based on consent and trade-offs. Even the most totalitarian government of antiquity could be overthrown by a large enough mob (losing consent) though they would only throw them off if the regime in power failed to attend to the needs of the governed for long enough (the trade-off). It's really only in the last 100 years that technology has really been able to isolate the elite from the rabble in such a way that regimes like N.Korea and Xi's China can exist.

The founding fathers of America added something else to this equation: The idea that Man as an individual had inherent rights regardless of government (endowed by their creator) so any government that had intent to rule the people had to serve this other master, as encapsulated by the preamble of the Declaration of Independence: "...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

No longer would it be implicit that the .gov had ultimate authority, in this mode the people have ultimate authority but 'loan' that authority to the elected .gov in order that things that are difficult to impossible for the individual to effectuate have the power of the collective. Every thing the US government should be doing is encapsulated by this: "...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." -from the preamble of the Constitution.

One of the issues with this that has been brought up in this and other threads is all of this relies on a single precept: The "people" need to have some agreement on what is "moral", which used to be defined by Christian values as understood by everyone then and now if you are being intellectually honest. Regardless of what you think about religion in general and Christianity in particular (or Judeo-Christianity, there's certainly precedent for lumping them together and IMO the values are the same, Christianity just reinforces the morals of the Torah). At John Adams said: "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other".

There's a line from the Book of Revelations that illustrates the problem with being ambiguous with where you stand regarding morality. "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth." This has been interpreted as being ambivalent towards religion or God, but it has also been interpreted as the danger of being a "moral relativist". This is also what Abraham Lincoln meant when he stated in the "house divided" speech:
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."

This as all a preface to the answer to OP: Doing immoral things as a collective is wrong. A government shouldn't be so powerful that 'the collective' is capable of signing off on "immoral things". For a government to get that powerful is a sign it is too powerful.
However, if you are a Quaker you will say that doing anything that may kill another being is wrong. If you are a pacifist you feel the same. If there was a majority of Quakers or pacifists then we would have a government that would reflect that. Good luck protecting your borders.
If you are Hindu you think that it's immoral for the individual to kill cattle so the government reflects that. Hope you don't care for cheeseburgers.
Also, one of the reasons why the head of the executive is supposedly "commander in chief" as well as technically being the head of the enforcement arm of the federal government is that person, that single person, can bear the burden of making the decision, which is what the executive is supposed to do, moral or not. If you are truly a moral person who shares those morals with those who elected you then the weight of "immoral things" will be such they should only occur under duress and in the most limited way possible. If they were truly immoral and without justification that person can be removed. I think the problem is definitional which is why I prefaced it with so much background. One persons "murder" is another persons "submission hold that went awry".

So, we will adopt a set of morals collectively and have a government that reflects those morals; we have to agree on some basic principles or we will be "lukewarm" or "half and half". We will find ourselves in a hot civil war where neither side will really have the moral high ground if they do what they have to in order to win it, but if you truly believe your moral superior you will have to win it or the reprehensible side will win out. What comes out the other side will cease to become ambiguous and this conversation will enter the rhetorical realm again.

Power and money corrupts forcing morals out the window. Rinse and repeat most all country governments that’s ever existed and ever will.

 

[[486]]

There shouldn't be life without parole, life, 20+ year prison terms. All that shit should be death. You've had a jury of your peers agree that you should no longer be a part of society. Bullet, cremation, ashes thrown in the trash.
No reason to keep someone alive who isn't allowed to be part of society.

How do you have an organized and formal death sentence without the state having a letter of marque to kill its citizens?

Big part of why I'd prefer to see it left to society directly rather than justified through uncaring and untouchable bureaucracy. If someone is truly irredeemable then an effective jury of their peers will see the logic in what needed to be done. That "jury" being anyone who would stand by them.

It's how society worked before power-seeking maniacs decided to institutionalize murder.

 

[[486]]

You’re using a blanket statement when it’s more then likely just one or two religious factions that disapprove of alcoholic beverages.

many of them do

using food to make alcohol instead of using it to make more mouths to feed doesn't grow the patronage of the church, also cuts into the available surpluses (which clearly god would like to see given to the church)