Percontations: Fear, Power, and Mortality (Robert Greene & Eliezer Yudkowsky)

[Bloggingheads]

[T.G.G.P]

Robert's definition of "fearlessness" sounds distant enough from the common definition that he should have just called it "self-control" or something like that.

I looked up his bio on Wikipedia and didn't read anything about his time in Hollywood. It didn't give any sort of background on how he gained wisdom about the world people buy his books for.

I think Eliezer is wrong about the reasoning behind those who complain of censorship. An example: Brad Delong's blog. It's not somebody in the community "gaining power", it's his blog and all the power is his from the outset. The complaint is that it's bad netiquette, like attacking someone without linking to the piece you are criticizing. One of my favorite commenters, Hopefully Anonymous, draws the censorship-power connection here.

There are a few people Eliezer has deemed trolls that I don't recall having bad grammar. Caledonian/melendwyr, Tim Tyler and mjgeddes. The last is a sort of crank like M*nt*f*x and not worth reading, but I didn't even regard him as being harmful (scrolling past comments is not very costly).

Speaking of that, does anyone else find the concept of "concern trolling" annoying?

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by T.G.G.P

Speaking of that, does anyone else find the concept of "concern trolling" annoying?

Good one!

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by T.G.G.P

I looked up his bio on Wikipedia and didn't read anything about his time in Hollywood.

Which proves his claim that he never got any credit for all the work he did.

;^)

One of my favorite commenters, Hopefully Anonymous, draws the censorship-power connection here.

Thanks for that link. I don't buy at least one of HA's claims -- that a blogger not having a comments section is sufficient reason to think said blogger cannot be trusted with power. There are many reasons not to permit comments that have nothing to do with, say, a totalitarian mindset, most of them far more mundane; e.g., resource limitations. I'll also observe that of the three no-comments-allowed bloggers he gives, the one I'm familiar with regularly prints reader emails, and many of them are dissents. (Note that I am not saying I want Andrew Sullivan to be the boss of me; that is nikkibong's fantasy. ;^))

But, if I take the post to be partly tongue-in-cheek, and partly a plea for letting as many voices as possible have a shot, I'll go along with the general theme.

There are a few people Eliezer has deemed trolls that I don't recall having bad grammar. Caledonian/melendwyr, ...

If that's the same Caledonian that's on this board, I would not say (s)he's a troll. To the larger point, I think while there are exceptions (I saw someone very accomplished at typing words get banned from Crooked Timber once, and yeah, I would have called him a troll), Eliezer's got a good rule of thumb, at least.

... (scrolling past comments is not very costly).

I agree with you 99%. But there does get to be a point where -- maybe just because you can't get everyone else to adopt the policy of Masterful Indifference -- that a troll can disrupt things to the point where it's good to take action.

Speaking of that, does anyone else find the concept of "concern trolling" annoying?

I was going to answer that in a straightforward manner, but since clay got here first, I cannot.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

I agree with you 99%. But there does get to be a point where -- maybe just because you can't get everyone else to adopt the policy of Masterful Indifference -- that a troll can disrupt things to the point where it's good to take action.

Which reminds me of something that I thought of when Robert and Eliezer were discussing policing comments sections, and also recalls your link to HA's post.

I think that there is nothing wrong, and indeed, often a lot to be gained, by a website being run as a benevolent dictatorship. I think the problem with trying to extend this discussion to other areas of human interaction is that the idea doesn't scale very well. Or, perhaps, it would be fine to run countries as benevolent dictatorships as long as there were many, many other countries a disgruntled citizen could move to, and the cost of moving was effectively zero.

[Ocean]

About the alleged association between trolling and bad grammar:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

To the larger point, I think while there are exceptions ..., Eliezer's got a good rule of thumb, at least.

What about those of us who have English as a second language? Are we going to be accused of trolling? Huh?!

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Ocean

About the alleged association between trolling and bad grammar:



What about those of us who have English as a second language? Are we going to be accused of trolling? Huh?!

No, at least not by me. I have the sense that I can tell the difference between someone who is using English as a second language and someone who is not even capable of using it as a first.

You're not even in the running, by the way. Your English is better than average, and sometimes beautiful.

Plus, just to take your joke annoyingly at face value, bad grammar is not by any means a perfect predictor of troll-like behavior. It's just that it does seem that trolls are more likely to display this characteristic than the average commenter.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

No, at least not by me. I have the sense that I can tell the difference between someone who is using English as a second language and someone who is not even capable of using it as a first.

De verdad?

You're not even in the running, by the way. Your English is better than average, and sometimes beautiful.

Me haces sonrojar!

Plus, just to take your joke annoyingly at face value, bad grammar is not by any means a perfect predictor of troll-like behavior. It's just that it does seem that trolls are more likely to display this characteristic than the average commenter.

Qué alivio!

[Ray]

Originally Posted by T.G.G.P

Robert's definition of "fearlessness" sounds distant enough from the common definition that he should have just called it "self-control" or something like that.

You're mistaking his definition of fearlessness for his mission. Not really your fault: he's purposely entangling them.

Here's what he's about: just say no to drugs.

Only, he's putting this injunction in terms that he thinks will appeal to young black men, i.e. 'you gotta be fearless to say no to drugs!'

Marketing.

[mjgeddes]

"and mjgeddes. The last is a sort of crank like M*nt*f*x and not worth reading, but I didn't even regard him as being harmful (scrolling past comments is not very costly)"

Charming. Speaking of power, there's an interesting article on libel on CNN, I understand a number of people have gotten themselves sued for online comments.

'Can the law keep up with technology?'

Cheers

[Starwatcher162536]

I don't really know how libel/slander laws interact with the first amendment.

If I had to guess, it would be that someone has to make factual claims about someone in order for libel/slander laws to be applicable.

So subjective statements like "X is a misinformed idiot" would not make one legally liable for damages against X's..uhhh...reputation.

While statements like "X was convicted for aggravated assault on December 12, 1989" would make someone legally liable for damage against X's reputation.

Anyone care to fill me in?

[piscivorous]

Here is a post of Eugene Volokh's Murderers’ Right to “Privacy” vs. Freedom of Speech that is along those lines.

[Wonderment]

Eliezer's linked article "Well-kept Gardens Die By Pacifism" confuses the words "pacifist" and "passive."

This unfortunate choice of words reflects a common misunderstanding of what a pacifist is.

Pacifists are not passive; we are politically active citizens who are robustly involved in pursuing nonviolent resolutions of conflicts. Active, active, active.

[Bobby G]

Wonderment,

What type of pacifist are you? Here's a range of possibilities:

(1) You don't think any kind of physical force (e.g., killing, pushing, punching, cutting, etc.) or emotional force (e.g., hostility, anger, aggressiveness, etc.) is ever warranted, against people or animals.
(1a) Same as (1), but you don't include animals.
(2) You don't think any kind of physical force is ever warranted, against people or animals.
(2a) Same as (2), but you don't include animals.
(3) You don't think lethal force is ever warranted, against people or animals.
(3a) Same as (3), but you don't include animals.
(4) You don't think lethal force against someone's will is ever warranted (euthanasia, though, is permissible). Also, since animals can't consent, you think that lethal force is sometimes permissible against them (either to eat their flesh, or because they are suffering intensely).
(5) You think lethal force is permissible, but you don't think wars are ever permissible.

I would guess that (5) and (4) are true of you, but (1)-(3) are not. Moreover, I guess that you're not a vegetarian. How'd I do?

[Wonderment]

(4) You don't think lethal force against someone's will is ever warranted (euthanasia, though, is permissible). Also, since animals can't consent, you think that lethal force is sometimes permissible against them (either to eat their flesh, or because they are suffering intensely).
(5) You think lethal force is permissible, but you don't think wars are ever permissible.

You did pretty well. I'm about a 4.5.

I think lethal force should be avoided at almost all costs, and that the deliberate killing of another human being (without her consent) is always morally wrong. I do believe in having a police force, however, even if they sometimes kill (i.e., commit wrongs). So you might ask, "How could a police officer who kills someone as he is about to stab a child be engaged in a moral wrong?"

I would answer that the degree of culpability of that officer is extremely low, and I would certainly be grateful to him for saving the child, but that we bear a collective responsibility for having created the kind of society in which adults stab children. (I am concerned about excessive use of force by some police officers, but that's a separate issue.)

I also have some moral difficulty with the question of intervening to prevent genocide and similar crimes. Should the UN or the USA have sent a force into Rwanda to kill a few hundred ringleaders, establish order and prevent the slaughter of a million persons? Of course, I'm tempted to go with the calculus of intervention (especially when the hypothetical outcome is so clean and free of unintended consequences), but I am far from morally comfortable with supporting a policy of taking lives to save lives.

I'm much more inclined to say that the time to prevent genocide and war is now. In other words, if we dedicate ourselves to promoting peace, social justice, conflict resolution and disarmament BEFORE things get hopeless, we won't have to worry about demonic choices (situations under which we can not avoid evil).

Once a Hitler is on the march, we have already failed. Jews didn't need to be protected by the armies of England and the US; they needed to be protected from the political stupidity, insensitivity and/or passivity of the German people during the Weimar Republic. Once Hitler started exterminating people, all the choices were demonic.

There is room for doubt and moral ambiguity within the pacifist framework, so I don't claim to have all the answers to all the questions.

P.S. You're also right that I'm not a vegetarian. I consider that to be a serious moral failure of mine though. I think eating animals (especially birds and mammals) is wrong.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I would answer that the degree of culpability of that officer is extremely low, and I would certainly be grateful to him for saving the child, but that we bear a collective responsibility for having created the kind of society in which adults stab children.

This stands out as something I disagree with and something which probably underpins much of your belief system.
It is possible that no society is capable of preventing such an act. It is possible that people are just born sociopathological, etc, without society being responsible, except that perhaps it didn't take steps to sterilize the mother or father.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

This stands out as something I disagree with and something which probably underpins much of your belief system.
It is possible that no society is capable of preventing such an act. It is possible that people are just born sociopathological, etc, without society being responsible, except that perhaps it didn't take steps to sterilize the mother or father.

Certainly the murder of children has been a fact of life for longer than there have been societies. I think placing the blame for it on "the kind of society we have created" is a pretty questionable proposition.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Certainly the murder of children has been a fact of life for longer than there have been societies. I think placing the blame for it on "the kind of society we have created" is a pretty questionable proposition.

Well, we agree, then.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Well, we agree, then.

Sure enough - sometimes that's the case.

[Wonderment]

This stands out as something I disagree with and something which probably underpins much of your belief system.

Actually not. It's an outlier on the fringe of my belief system. What often happens with pacifism is that people concoct the most unlikely and remote hypothetical scenarios to "refute" the philosophy. I concocted this one myself to anticipate the usual approach.

This never happens with warism, however. For example, if the warist says killing of innocents is wrong and then slaughters 1000 civilians in the most heinous way, we learn of new categories of exceptions to the rule (collateral damage, for example).

It is possible that no society is capable of preventing such an act. It is possible that people are just born sociopathological, etc, without society being responsible, except that perhaps it didn't take steps to sterilize the mother or father.

I think even most non-pacifists agree that sociopaths should not be exterminated. That is, in part, why most countries have abolished the death penalty. So there is some sense that lethal violence even against a sociopath is wrong. The difficulty comes in the moment of preventing violence to a third party.

Again, I don't claim pacifism is a perfectly consistent, logically flawless system. I just contend it's a viable, inspiring and pragmatic philosophy of life and political activist program. Pacifism is a better choice than the alternatives. Having a commitment to nonviolent resolutions of conflicts is morally preferable to allowing violent resolutions of conflicts (eg. so-called just wars).

[Bobby G]

What do you think of just war theory? If a state in fact tied itself to just war theory, I think it would almost never go to war, although it would be a possibility. Do you classify just war theory as a species of warism, or of something else?

Also, why do you call the alternative to your view warism? Your view isn't called peacism, after all. How about martialism?

[Wonderment]

What do you think of just war theory? If a state in fact tied itself to just war theory, I think it would almost never go to war, although it would be a possibility. Do you classify just war theory as a species of warism, or of something else?

Depends how strict your interpretation of just war theory would be. Of course, as it is, every country or non-state player like Al Qaeda, applies just war criteria to their actions. Al Qaeda believes that 9/11 was an act of Just War; Bush thought Iraq was a just war; Obama thinks Af-Pak is a just war.

Historically, just war doctrine has failed miserably.

Also, why do you call the alternative to your view warism? Your view isn't called peacism, after all. How about martialism?

I just think people who believe in war, practice war and promote militarism should own it. The US is a war-based culture. We glorify war, wage war almost perpetually and spend most of our money on warfare. Thus, we are warists and our philosophy is warism.

I like to frame pacifism vs. warism because it often highlights the problem. For example, Obama is currently engaged in his 5th recent "War Council." But only warists are in the war room. Why not have a peace council with only pacifists in the room? Or why not let just one single pacifist join the War Council? Put a modern-day Martin Luther King, Jr. in the War Council. That would shake things up.

This was the basis for the thread I started in another vlog about the "bad premises" of the war in Afghanistan. Only war proponents are permitted to participate in the conversation. This generally includes the conversation in the media as well. Even when the media bias is acknowledged between hawks and doves as on MSNBC vs. FOX, MSNBC has no pacifists. Just milder warists like Maddow and Olberman.

[Bobby G]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Depends how strict your interpretation of just war theory would be. Of course, as it is, every country or non-state player like Al Qaeda, applies just war criteria to their actions. Al Qaeda believes that 9/11 was an act of Just War; Bush thought Iraq was a just war; Obama thinks Af-Pak is a just war.

Historically, just war doctrine has failed miserably.

Of course, politicians like to say that the war they're undertaking is just; but simply believing that the war you're leading is just is not the same thing as advocating just war theory. According to just war theory, certain fairly well-defined criteria must be met before a war can legitimately be started, and certain fairly well-defined criteria continually, and perhaps even continuously, must be met for the war that was legitimately started to be legitimately waged. Now, these strictures haven't been as closely followed as they ideally should be, but of course the same thing can be said of pacifism; and you don't think pacifism is a failure.

I just think people who believe in war, practice war and promote militarism should own it. The US is a war-based culture. We glorify war, wage war almost perpetually and spend most of our money on warfare. Thus, we are warists and our philosophy is warism.

Well, as a culture we certainly don't spend most of our money on war. But I'll let that pass. Are you sure that you don't advocate "warism" because "warist" sounds like someone who is in favor of wars, as opposed to someone who is not in favor of wars in general, but thinks there are certain situations in which war is the best option?

[Wonderment]

According to just war theory, certain fairly well-defined criteria must be met before a war can legitimately be started, and certain fairly well-defined criteria continually, and perhaps even continuously, must be met for the war that was legitimately started to be legitimately waged.

I'd be in favor of almost anything that would decrease the likelihood of war occurring. So if tightening just war criteria makes going to war harder, I'll all for it.

Well, as a culture we certainly don't spend most of our money on war. But I'll let that pass.

Military spending (defense) was 21% of the budget for 2008. They also get about half of what is called "discretionary spending" and pull from other sources ("stimulus," supplementals) bringing the percentage up to "approximately 31-37% of budgeted expenditures and 35-42% of estimated tax revenues" (Congressional Budget Office numbers). This doesn't include Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and interest paid on debt incurred in past wars. So..... let's not quibble about the %.

Are you sure that you don't advocate "warism" because "warist" sounds like someone who is in favor of wars, as opposed to someone who is not in favor of wars in general, but thinks there are certain situations in which war is the best option?

Let's say you were an occassional bank robber who mostly believes in keeping a job and supporting his family by honest work. In thirty years of working life, you've only robbed 10 or 12 banks, about 1 every 3 years. You only resort to bank robbing when things get tough, like when you need a new car or your kid, your daughter gets married or needs a tuition payment for college. Is it fair to call you a bank robber or should you be referred to as an honest citizen who thinks there are certain situation in which bank robbing is the best option?

[piscivorous]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

...Military spending (defense) was 21% of the budget for 2008. They also get about half of what is called "discretionary spending" and pull from other sources ("stimulus," supplementals) bringing the percentage up to "approximately 31-37% of budgeted expenditures and 35-42% of estimated tax revenues" (Congressional Budget Office numbers). This doesn't include Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and interest paid on debt incurred in past wars. So..... let's not quibble about the %.

Don't know where you get your figures, as you provide no link only some claim that it is CBO's from but here is the MONTHLY BUDGET REVIEW for Fiscal Year 2009 A Congressional Budget Office Analysis completed November 6, 2009. In it you will see that defense outlays are just around 18% (637 out of a total of 3522 billion).

[Wonderment]

In it you will see that defense outlays are just around 18% (637 out of a total of 3522 billion).

Guess you didn't read my post thoroughly, so I won't bother taking it as anything more than the usual monkey wrench thrown into the argument. You are the Forum's #1 expert at doing that.

I will add, however, this interesting related chart:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/...RestoftheWorld

[piscivorous]

No I read your post and probably the article that it came from. it is an opinion piece, with it's nice little pie charts of the actual CBO estimates and the polemics opinion of what the should be, since you obviously were too disingenuous to actually to link to it and then try to pass it off as CBO figures.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by piscivorous

No I read your post and probably the article that it came from. it is an opinion piece ...

Yeah, Wonderment. Don't you know opinion pieces are only valid when they're preaching AGW denialism or insisting that Obama is secretly planning to form the New Hitler Youth?

[piscivorous]

I at least attribute my sources, weather you approve of them or not, instead of trying to pass their thoughts and effort as my own.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by piscivorous

I at least attribute my sources, weather you approve of them or not, instead of trying to pass their thoughts and effort as my own.

That was unsupported calumny and definitely beneath you.

[piscivorous]

Perhaps this will look familiar.

[Wonderment]

Don't you know opinion pieces are only valid when they're preaching AGW denialism or insisting that Obama is secretly planning to form the New Hitler Youth?

There was no opinion piece. He made that up, or hallucinated.

It is true, however, that Piscivorous pulls the same shit on me that he pulls on you (and everyone else). Gets really tedious after a while.

I was having a decent exchange with Bobby when Piscivorous decided his usual sniper attack was appropriate. Big yawn. It comes on the heels of another rant he directed toward me on another thread.

As my spiritual advisor JZ would say.... "

You gotta get (get), that(that), dirt off your shoulder
You gotta get (get), that(that), dirt off your shoulder
You gotta get (get), that(that), dirt off your shoulder
You gotta get (get), that(that), dirt off your shoulder

[Bobby G]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Military spending (defense) was 21% of the budget for 2008. They also get about half of what is called "discretionary spending" and pull from other sources ("stimulus," supplementals) bringing the percentage up to "approximately 31-37% of budgeted expenditures and 35-42% of estimated tax revenues" (Congressional Budget Office numbers). This doesn't include Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and interest paid on debt incurred in past wars. So..... let's not quibble about the %.

I suppose this counts as quibbling, but remember what you wrote: "The US is a war-based culture. We glorify war, wage war almost perpetually and spend most of our money on warfare." I took "culture" to be antonymous with "US Federal budget". It's clear that the GDP isn't mostly spent on war. As for the US Federal budget, it's still not spent mostly on "war" (I don't take caring for old veterans to be count as spending on war).

Let's say you were an occassional bank robber who mostly believes in keeping a job and supporting his family by honest work. In thirty years of working life, you've only robbed 10 or 12 banks, about 1 every 3 years. You only resort to bank robbing when things get tough, like when you need a new car or your kid, your daughter gets married or needs a tuition payment for college. Is it fair to call you a bank robber or should you be referred to as an honest citizen who thinks there are certain situation in which bank robbing is the best option?

That's a nice analogy but I think we should be careful when we apply lessons we draw from relatively simple real-world examples to more complex real-world examples. It's certainly true that there have been cultures that have celebrated war as an intrinsic good--the Nazis, for example, saw violence as a good because it brought people together, it was an occasion to exercise virtues, etc. That's quite a different attitude from seeing war as a necessary evil. In the bank robber case, we don't know why the bank robber robs banks, other than that he does so when times are somewhat tough. Does he refrain from robbing banks most of the time because he sees it as a wrong, albeit one that is sometimes excused or justified, or because he's simply afraid of getting caught? I think this makes a difference in how we assess the bank robbers.

Moreover, when we think of bank robbing, we think of it as a crime, full stop. And of course, many wars amount to moral crimes, if not legal ones. But there are certain circumstances in which it's far less obvious that wars constitute massive moral wrongs; for instance, humanitarian intervention, wars of self-defense, or wars of other-defense (like the 1991 war against Iraq).

So, imagine a circumstance in which a bank has taken poor people's money, used it to fund projects that enrich the bankers while doing almost no social good, refuses to give the poor people's money back, and forces poor people to deposit much of their savings in the bank, sometimes killing the poor people just to show them that it's serious. In such a situation, the intuition that robbing this bank would be wrong is far weaker, especially if you give all of the money back to the poor people who originally deposited it.

Of course, the intuition becomes much squishier when the person who robs the bank has also robbed normal banks in the past, or if the bank-robber keeps 25% of the money for himself, or if he comes in, guns blazing, and kills both the bankers and some of the poor people and then leaves the bank in a shambles for other scavengers to pick over. But you see how far we are now from your original, clean analogy.

[Wonderment]

Good job in deconstructing the bank robber analogy. Of course, it's just a rough illustration off the top of my head, so I wouldn't take it to the bank so to speak.

It's certainly true that there have been cultures that have celebrated war as an intrinsic good--the Nazis, for example, saw violence as a good because it brought people together, it was an occasion to exercise virtues, etc. That's quite a different attitude from seeing war as a necessary evil.

The lines blue a bit for me. The Nazis may have believed more fervently in war, but they sold it to the German people as a necessary evil. On the other hand, its' unlikely that President Bush or Obama would glorify war as an intrinsically beautiful life experience, but there is a lot of that in popular culture, including the miitary and especially in recruitment propaganda. Recruiters will stoop to anything to sell militarism, so in one pitch they may be extolling careers, family and safety, while in the next they are selling macho self-sacrifice and how to become a Real Man through combat.

Having said all that, I'm quite willing to concede that some cultures are more bellicose than others and that some wars are more evil than others.

Moreover, when we think of bank robbing, we think of it as a crime, full stop. And of course, many wars amount to moral crimes, if not legal ones. But there are certain circumstances in which it's far less obvious that wars constitute massive moral wrongs; for instance, humanitarian intervention, wars of self-defense, or wars of other-defense (like the 1991 war against Iraq).

Some humanitarian interventions, in which the emphasis is on establishing peace and preventing harm (police actions) are problematical for pacifists. The UN has established a "responsibility to protect" (against genocide), and most peace activists were in favor of a minimalist intervention in Darfur, for example. Beyond the cleanest of police actions, however, it all gets very murky fast. Ulterior motives, geopolitical gaming and national power-aggrandizing agendas come into play. True self-defense is hard to find, and an altruistic war remains an oxymoron (even though almost ALL wars are promoted as altruistic).

Also, the calculus of war is very tricky. It's easy to claim (as Bush II did and does in Iraq) that a given war is a net good. After all, Saddam is dead. Hurray. We can line up 10,000 Iraqis in the street to wave American flags and throw flowers. We can dismiss 80,000 or so dead Iraqi civilians as inconsequential collateral damage. But who is really to assess the moral good or bad? Kill them now, let God sort it out? If the Israelis stop the rocket fire against their towns, lose "only" 10 troops and kill "1000" Gazans, is that a just war with a good outcome? What is they kill only 10 Gazans? Or 1? Who does the math with human souls? Who dares? President Obama may sleep well as his drones terrorize Af-Pak villages, but the families in the villages are not sleeping well.

I actually think your position is more utopian than mine. You seem to be suggesting that in a perfect world we will have enlightened military and political leaders with no ulterior motives who will never abuse power and act only in situations to defend territory from attack and occupation (proportionately) and to protect others. Only combatants will die. No one will profit. No military action will be punitive. A sincere effort will be made to detain and incarcerate rather than kill. All means to avoid war will have been exhausted before a single drop of blood is spilled.

I agree that such a world has a proper police force and has no need for pacifists.

[Bobby G]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

You did pretty well. I'm about a 4.5.

I think lethal force should be avoided at almost all costs, and that the deliberate killing of another human being (without her consent) is always morally wrong. I do believe in having a police force, however, even if they sometimes kill (i.e., commit wrongs). So you might ask, "How could a police officer who kills someone as he is about to stab a child be engaged in a moral wrong?"

I would answer that the degree of culpability of that officer is extremely low, and I would certainly be grateful to him for saving the child, but that we bear a collective responsibility for having created the kind of society in which adults stab children. (I am concerned about excessive use of force by some police officers, but that's a separate issue.)

My own use of the terms "wrong" and "culpability" is interconnected. I think that if you do something wrong, then by definition you are culpable for it. So, to my ears, saying that "X performed a wrong, but he has little culpability for it" is like saying "X committed a minor wrong". On the other hand, I think "bads" are something that can be very bad, but for which you can have low culpability. For instance, if most of the evidence suggested that the patient needed surgery, and you followed the evidence, and it turned out that surgery killed him, and that he would have survived without surgery, then I think you've perpetrated a great bad, but one for which you're not very culpable, if at all. I.e., you committed a great bad, but a minor wrong.

P.S. You're also right that I'm not a vegetarian. I consider that to be a serious moral failure of mine though. I think eating animals (especially birds and mammals) is wrong.

What's wrong about it? Is it the deliberate killing of innocent, sentient life for a trivial purpose? Or is it the factory farming aspect? For example, if there were a peace-loving primitive society that happened to fish and hunt, would you think therein lay the seed for the development of violence?

[Wonderment]

What's wrong about it? Is it the deliberate killing of innocent, sentient life for a trivial purpose? Or is it the factory farming aspect? For example, if there were a peace-loving primitive society that happened to fish and hunt, would you think therein lay the seed for the development of violence?

I think there are many crimes committed against animals, some far more serious than others. The worst, of course, is gratuitous cruelty and torment.

Factory farming is also wrong because of its treatment of animals (not to speak of its impact on the environment, which is enormously pernicious).

So the lesser of the evils is free-range farming/ranching. The animals are still slaughtered, but they may have decent lives before slaughter. (In this respect, I'm also interested in locavore cultures that are emerging; if people eat only what's produced in their 100K radius, they are less likely to permit ugly slaughter practices or devote too much land and resources to meat production.)

Also, relatively low on the scale of wrongs is fishing. The level of sentience of the animal matters (I don't have a guilty conscience about killing insects, for example.). But there are many high-order sentient beings in the sea, besides the standouts - the sea mammals, so one should proceed (if at all) with great caution.

Peace-loving primitive societies also get a pass from me. I would assume their diet depends on meat consumption -- a health necessity. We, however, have choices. Vegans, I think, make the best moral choice.

I don't think hunter-fisher societies necessarily have the seed for violence. I think we all do in our genes. As our moral reasoning becomes more sophisticated, however, I think we'll reject eating meat. Peter Singer makes this argument in his books. I find him persuasive.

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I'm much more inclined to say that the time to prevent genocide and war is now. In other words, if we dedicate ourselves to promoting peace, social justice, conflict resolution and disarmament BEFORE things get hopeless, we won't have to worry about demonic choices (situations under which we can not avoid evil).

Once a Hitler is on the march, we have already failed. Jews didn't need to be protected by the armies of England and the US; they needed to be protected from the political stupidity, insensitivity and/or passivity of the German people during the Weimar Republic. Once Hitler started exterminating people, all the choices were demonic.

There is room for doubt and moral ambiguity within the pacifist framework, so I don't claim to have all the answers to all the questions.

Hey Wonderment, I want to run something by you. I'm in the Norman Angell camp. I think war is pointless. It doesn't give life meaning, it doesn't make boys into men, it's not good for the soul. It's just a huge fucking waste. Not everybody agrees:

Europe, having been liberated from nuclear terror at the conclusion of the Cold War, proved unable to muster the gumption to deal with Yugoslavia on its own, or, as the case of Afghanistan shows, to demonstrate much enthusiasm for any great collective effort. Which leads to the question: What does the European Union truly stand for besides a cradle-to-grave social welfare system? For without something to struggle for, there can be no civil society—only decadence.

Thus, with their patriotism dissipated, European governments can no longer ask for sacrifices from their populations when it comes to questions of peace and war. Ironically, we may have gained victory in the Cold War, but lost Europe in the process.

That's neocon journalist Robert Kaplan via MY. With assholes like that around we'll always have war. Or Tom "suck on this" Friedman:

What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, um and basically saying, "Which part of this sentence don't you understand?" You don't think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we're just gonna to let it grow? Well, Suck. On. This. ... We could have hit Saudi Arabia. It was part of that bubble. Could have hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.

Anyway, I'm 100% for the abolition of war. I just don't want to be a sucker. I don't want people to take advantage of my declared commitment to nonviolence. But that's just talk. Everybody says they think that. Is there a pacifism of "I'm going shrink my military and you're going to shrink your military too?" In the current context the USA should definitely make the first move and shrink our conventional forces way way down 'cos they already so damned oversized. But at the same time I'd like to see a commitment to developing a world-wide ethos of cooperation. I'd like to see a Department of Peace.

[Wonderment]

Clay, I agree with everything you said and, like you, find the quoted material to be deranged.

Anyway, I'm 100% for the abolition of war. I just don't want to be a sucker. I don't want people to take advantage of my declared commitment to nonviolence.

Nonviolence doesn't always win. Sometimes it is crushed and its practitioners are victims of the forces of violence. That's much more true of war, however. The practitioners of war tend to do very badly with only the elite non-combatants and their non-combatant families faring well, and that's usually just on the winning side.

War, for example, was delightful for the warist Cheneys and the warist Bushes. No casualities there. No suckers in those families.

On the other hand, nonviolence is very often a winning strateg . A good study of this is "A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict" which documents the enormous successes of NV throughout the 20th century, including -- in some circumstances -- even against tyrants like Hitler.

Is there a pacifism of "I'm going shrink my military and you're going to shrink your military too?" In the current context the USA should definitely make the first move and shrink our conventional forces way way down 'cos they already so damned oversized. But at the same time I'd like to see a commitment to developing a world-wide ethos of cooperation. I'd like to see a Department of Peace.

Well, I think that's where the UN wants to go -- certainly to abolish nukes and aggressively address the small arms trade. The US is stuck in a militarism paradigm. That's a problem for the 21st century that I'll leave to the pacifist heirs of Martin Luther King. It will take a long time to change.

It's unfortunate that all we hear condemned in this country is Muslim extremist violence (which IS a huge problem), but we never hear their side of the story, which is that US militarism is a huge problem. We recognize their insanity, but we are in denial about our own.

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Clay, I agree with everything you said and, like you, find the quoted material to be deranged.

Hey Wonderment, I started reading "The March of Folly."

[Wonderment]

Hey Wonderment, I started reading "The March of Folly."

Perfect timing.